Israel?

I'm not particularly religious, and I'm certainly not someone who thinks that "Jews are God's chosen people".

Having said that, it's puzzling to me why Egypt (or possibly another Arab country) doesn't open their borders to the Palestinians. They're clearly a persecuted people.

Sure, we can go back to WWII, and also to 1948 when Israel was formed, taking over Palestine and bull-dozing Palestinian cities, and re-debate all those issues. However, that does little to solve the problems of the day.

To just resettle them all in some other Arab country (or countries) just seems like a viable solution. And it's certainly not an issue of money, as several Arab countries have the highest worldwide per-capita income, as well as trillions of dollars of reserves.

Some do have lots of money, but not Egypt or Jordan, the two most reasonable destinations. If they take in the Palestinians, then they have a perpetual, aggrieved, refugee population. There aren't many people who get kicked out of their home and just say, "well, that's over and done with. On to the next thing." Also, assimilating a few million people into a relatively small country, especially when those people are showing up all at once with nothing but the clothes on their backs, would be pretty tough for most countries. Sure, some of the rich gulf states could do something financially, but most of the rich states are small. For example, the UAE (not all of which are rich) would be adding about 20% of their population. Saudi Arabia would be better able to absorb the number from a numerical standpoint, but they already have a pretty dubious reputation for handling immigrant workers, let alone absorbing a whole population. Egypt has the size, but not the money. Jordan has neither the size nor the money. Lebanon...has nothing going for it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Some do have lots of money, but not Egypt or Jordan, the two most reasonable destinations. If they take in the Palestinians, then they have a perpetual, aggrieved, refugee population. There aren't many people who get kicked out of their home and just say, "well, that's over and done with. On to the next thing." Also, assimilating a few million people into a relatively small country, especially when those people are showing up all at once with nothing but the clothes on their backs, would be pretty tough for most countries. Sure, some of the rich gulf states could do something financially, but most of the rich states are small. For example, the UAE (not all of which are rich) would be adding about 20% of their population. Saudi Arabia would be better able to absorb the number from a numerical standpoint, but they already have a pretty dubious reputation for handling immigrant workers, let alone absorbing a whole population. Egypt has the size, but not the money. Jordan has neither the size nor the money. Lebanon...has nothing going for it at all.

---

So I guess Miami is out of the question too :D

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest sending them to ANY third world country.

Quote:

---

So I guess Miami is out of the question too

---

You joke (and I sniggered) but there were serious suggestions to home displaced Jews in Central Africa instead of the Levante post WW2. Modern Palestine and Modern Israel being in the same place has a lot more to do with history, cultural concerns and a general sense of "our land" than any practical considerations.

Quote:

---

it's puzzling to me why Egypt (or possibly another Arab country) doesn't open their borders to the Palestinians.

---

Everything Shaggy said plus a fear of importing a terrorism problem. A mass migration of Palestinians would almost certainly include a substantial number of Hamas and terrorists have a nasty tendency to launch attacks where they're at (because it's easy) rather than in the homeland of their targets (which is hard). Worse, the likes of Hamas might look at any host country as the enemy if they were seen to be cooperating with Israel. Also Hamas are Sunni so any Shia (or even secular) neighbour is likely to find themselves on the target list. It's much easier to bottle them up in Gaza where they're an Israeli problem. (N.b. I'm absolutely NOT advocating for this position, just describing Real Politique behind it)

Wow this is a high price for the Palestinians to pay. https://apnews.com/article/israel-pa...250cd4a8ed4dbf

How many of them were Hamas, who knows. Certainly not the children.

I'm sure the families of the hostages think it was justified and I think a large segment of the Israeli population feel it was justified. But from the outside looking at those number of deaths makes me disappointed in humans.

I know the US killed a massive amount of civilians in WWII. But this feels different.

Yeah, that was pretty appalling. When it was first reported all I heard was that they'd rescued 4 hostages in a raid and I thought "oh, that's good" than I started hearing about the Hamas casualties. The IDF are citing less than a hundred but their numbers aren't really credible at this point. And even 99 would still be a horrible rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Yeah, that was pretty appalling. When it was first reported all I heard was that they'd rescued 4 hostages in a raid and I thought "oh, that's good" than I started hearing about the Hamas casualties. The IDF are citing less than a hundred but their numbers aren't really credible at this point. And even 99 would still be a horrible rate.

---

Yeah, it's hard to have much confidence in the numbers from the various sources. But bombing civilian populations because there may be some enemy mixed in is going to result in high numbers of civilian casualties.

It's sort of strange here in the US. The politician are trying to figure out how to handle this situation. Which stance (Israeli/Palestinian) will help them in the election.

Now the news is framing it that the holdup for peace is because Hamas wont except the peace agreement. I don't know the details of the agreement so I have no idea if they are being unreasonable or not.

I realise as I read my last post back that I miss spoke (or miss typed) badly. I said Hamas casualties when I meant Palestinian casualties, If the casualties were Hamas I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

bombing civilian populations because there may be some enemy mixed in is going to result in high numbers of civilian casualties

---

I accept that a certain number of innocent casualties is probably in any urban combat but it's off the charts in this one. I'm not sure I'd portray the IDF as deliberately killing civilians (though there are definitely exceptions to that) but they sure as hell don't seem to give a damn about how many bystanders they kill.

Quote:

---

Now the news is framing it that the holdup for peace is because Hamas wont except the peace agreement.

---

Over here we're getting the exact opposite. The latest narrative has been that Biden agreed a deal with Netanyahu that he then took to Hamas. Hamas agreed to it and Netanyahu backed out. I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two and both sides are still making demands that cross each other's red lines.

Quote:

---

I realise as I read my last post back that I miss spoke (or miss typed) badly. I said Hamas casualties when I meant Palestinian casualties, If the casualties were Hamas I wouldn't have a problem with it.

---

Yeah, I noticed that and it struck me as a little strange. But I wasn't in the mood to start a debate about it. Not that we are prone to do that. ;)

Brain fart. It happens at my age:eek:

The problem is deeper than people seem to believe, or at least admit.

Poland just SHOCKED the world, and NATO and EU globalists are furious

https://youtu.be/-qmXN2s5ds8?si=iJsYUvfp7ixABNa3

I'm not sure I see the relevance to a thread on Israel and Palestine but hey ho.

The last round of EU elections didn't go well for the EU but this video is really just hyperbole (and nothing at all to do with NATO which is an entirely separate body). All the European nations have a habit of sending anti EU candidates to be EU MPs mainly because there's very low engagement from the populations at large. The only people who get enthused about the EU elections are those that are strongly anti but that doesn't make them a majority, they're just the only people who can be bothered to vote. This is highly unlikely to translate to anyone leaving. Poland, in particular, is very strongly pro EU and has benefitted hugely since it joined - arguably more than any other member. I was living with a Polish girl a couple of years ago and have several Polish friends - the support is universal among them.

Hell, even the UK is looking increasingly like it might rejoin at some point in the future. The two major parties still aren't talking about it because it's a pretty toxic subject but it's widely recognised that leaving was a disaster and every poll now shows that support to rejoin outstrips the desire to carry on as we are. The EU's not going anywhere.

I do think NATO is under threat if Trump wins the next presidency but I'm not convinced American withdrawal would actually spell the end of the alliance. Whether it would simply continue without the US or whether it would be replaced with a new treaty I'm not sure but, in Military terms, European sentiment is more unified in the wake of the Russian attack on Ukraine than it has been for decades. Previously neutral nations are joining or seeking to join so I don't see the European arm of the alliance going anywhere - no matter what the Pro Putin Twitterati would like.

Other than that, I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a definition for "Globalist" that wouldn't, in the past, have been ascribed to the Illuminati, the New World Order, Lizard People or Jews. It's a term without meaning and really nothing more than a bogeyman. And as for the "Ukrainianization of Poland"... I mean, just, what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I'm not sure I see the relevance to a thread on Israel and Palestine but hey ho.

The last round of EU elections didn't go well for the EU but this video is really just hyperbole (and nothing at all to do with NATO which is an entirely separate body). All the European nations have a habit of sending anti EU candidates to be EU MPs mainly because there's very low engagement from the populations at large. The only people who get enthused about the EU are those that are strongly anti but that doesn't make them a majority, they're just the only people who can be bothered to vote. This is highly unlikely to translate to anyone leaving. Poland, in particular, is very strongly pro EU and has benefitted hugely since it joined - arguably more than any other member. I was living with a Polish girl a couple of years ago and have several Polish friends - the support is universal among them.

Hell, even the UK is looking increasingly like it might rejoin at some point in the future. The two major parties still aren't talking about it because it's a pretty toxic subject but it's widely recognised that leaving was a disaster and every poll now shows that support to rejoin outstrips the desire to carry on as we are. The EU's not going anywhere.

I do think NATO is under threat if Trump wins the next presidency but I'm not convinced American withdrawal would actually spell the end of the alliance. Whether it would simply continue without the US or whether it would be replaced with a new treaty I'm not sure but, in Military terms, European sentiment is more unified in the wake of the Russian attack on Ukraine than it has been for decades. Previously neutral nations are joining or seeking to join so I don't see the European arm of the alliance going anywhere - no matter what the Pro Putin Twitterati would like.

Other than that, I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a definition for "Globalist" that wouldn't, in the past, have been ascribed to the Illuminati, the New World Order, Lizard People or Jews. It's a term without meaning and really nothing more than a bogeyman. And as for the "Ukrainianization of Poland"... I mean, just, what?

---

I'm surprised you even bothered to look at it...given the history of what he posts links to.

Considering the tensions that the West Bank Israeli expansions has caused over the decades, it's seems like a bad time for such a large (or any) expansion plan. https://apnews.com/a-look-at-how-set...da79dcbd0a0000

Makes me question if Israel wants peace.

Large parts of Israel probably wants peace, but significant parts of the current government most definitely do NOT want peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Large parts of Israel probably wants peace, but significant parts of the current government most definitely do NOT want peace.

---

That may be true. I haven't seen any information on how much of the Israeli population is for or against the government actions. Have you?

No, but to be fair, I haven't looked, or even considered trying to look. I feel that everything that is happening comes down to Netanyahu trying to cling to power. He can't lose any part of his coalition, which means the fringe parties can steer him whichever way they like, and they are. Therefore, the direction of Israel, until the government falls, is being driven by a small minority. What portion of Israel doesn't want this situation almost doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Therefore, the direction of Israel, until the government falls, is being driven by a small minority. What portion of Israel doesn't want this situation almost doesn't matter.

---

How can it not matter. Netanyahu only has the power that the people of Israel give him. The problems in the West bank and Gaza has been going on for many many years and through many elections.

But it would be interesting to know how the majority of Israeli's feel about the current actions. It's hard to guess, they live in a completely different environment than we do. Attacks on there country are a part of daily life.

Until the government falls, he's the leader as the head of the government. I feel that the people of Israel have definitely moved in a different direction since he was last elected, as it seems very unlikely that they would elect him again, at this point. If Israel goes into Lebanon, remains in Gaza, decides to use mushrooms en masse, is largely up to a government that would be very unlikely to remain in power if they were to face an election today. Therefore, the government doesn't reflect the will of the people, currently, and the will of the people is not directing Israel, therefore, they are somewhat irrelevant...until the election, whenever that is.

Quote:

---

Therefore, the government doesn't reflect the will of the people, currently, and the will of the people is not directing Israel, therefore, they are somewhat irrelevant...until the election, whenever that is.

---

That's basically true of most governments, "currently" is controlled by the government. But the will of the people elected the current government. Why assume they are against the government actions? "Large parts of Israel probably wants peace". I've seen some protests but nothing that would lead me to believe the majority was against the government actions. I was hoping you had more insight. I'm to lazy to research it. lol

I remember @ a couple of years ago there were several elections in Israel. I didn't understand that, I'm used to the US with fixed election dates. Not sure what triggers elections in Israel.

I feel that this case is somewhat different because of the attack in October and the fallout. That may not be correct, as every government will face circumstances that didn't exist when they were elected, though not usually as extreme as this one. In Israel, the government is supposed to protect the people. That may be true everywhere to some extent, but I think it is a more immediate concern in that country. They singularly failed to do so, which would not be popular, but screwing up isn't new to government, either. The thing is that I feel the response by the Israeli government is more botched than most responses I have seen in a long time.

Netanyahu had plenty of detractors prior to the Hamas attack. Since that time, I feel that he has diverged from the best interests of the country more than most leaders tend to do. It's just a feeling about it, though. They get different news than we get, and might support his actions more than I do.

Quote:

---

Netanyahu had plenty of detractors prior to the Hamas attack. Since that time, I feel that he has diverged from the best interests of the country more than most leaders tend to do. It's just a feeling about it, though. They get different news than we get, and might support his actions more than I do.

---

Yeah, it's hard to say. I have no experience living in that type of environment. Imagine, never knowing peace, living your entire life in the middle of violent conflict. That could definitely effect what you consider reasonable behavior. The violence probably has touched the majority of people, either directly or indirectly through a family member or friend.

Well, now that I think about it, I lived with my Dad for 17yrs so I do have an idea what it's like to live in a violent environment. Living with that guy was like living in a mine field. That's why moving out when I was 17 seemed like reasonable behavior.

Quote:

---

Netanyahu only has the power that the people of Israel give him.

---

I think some pedantry's required to understand this. He only had that power immediately prior to and after the last election. Since then he's had the power afforded to him by whoever can force (or choose not to force) a re-election and that's not the electorate. I won't pretend I really know who that is but I took a look at Wikipedia and it seems like it's majority of the Knesset or by Netanyahu himself. He's not going to call one himself so all he's got to do is keep the Knesset (who currently have a very strong ultra orthodox and far right slant) on side so don't hold your breath. That said, he recently called for conscription to be extended to the Ultra Orthodox community who are currently exempt and they're up in arms so he could well lose the support of that part of the Knesset which might bring him down.

As for the proportion of Israeli's that support or oppose the actions in Gaza, it's a struggle to find anything reliable. I did a search that found some early polls that showed roughly two thirds support it so that's a very significant majority but I've also seen lots of anecdotal news articles that say that the support has been declining ever since. I'm not sure whether that declination is due to sympathy for Palestinians or because the actions have been largely ineffective with the only significant release of hostages coming from diplomacy during a pause in fighting. Notably the families of the hostages have come out strongly against the actions which is interesting as you might expect them to support it.

Quote:

---

I think some pedantry's required to understand this

---

Not really. My statement is not about who can force an election or what power an elected official has. It's really not complicated.

The "people of Israel" designed their laws of government, they elect their representatives. So they gave them their power. All of these things are subject to change if there is enough will to do so.

I have this same sort of disagreement with people here about labor Unions. My daughter complains her union sucks and I tell her it's the members fault. Luckily she likes me anyway. I think???

My understanding of Israel is that it's a lot shakier than most stable countries. There's no founding document to give them even a fig leaf of cover, the branches of government have no clearly defined roles (though the US shows that those roles shift even when defined), and they have two significant and insurmountable fault lines running through the heart of their country.

The first fault line is the Jewish/Palestine divide. If Israel simply annexed the West Bank while absorbing the current residents, that would mean that the Jewish population would be almost a minority (it would be close). As it is, there is a significant Arab or Palestinian population in Israel itself, though not enough to vote as a majority. This is made worse by the Palestinians having a higher birth rate than Israelis.

The second fault line is the secular/ultra-orthodox divide (not sure about orthodox vs ultra-orthodox). Secular Israel is highly educated and technologically accomplished. They pay taxes, serve in the military, and have produced many technological improvements both good and bad. None of that can be said of the ultra-orthodox, who are poorly educated, pay negative taxes (they get a fair number of subsidies), don't serve in the military, and so forth. However, the ultra-orthodox do reproduce, and do so at a rate that keeps up with the Palestinians.

I would think that those fault lines would mean that Israel is always an experiment on the verge of falling over.

Quote:

---

and they have two significant and insurmountable fault lines running through the heart of their country.

---

From your description these fault lines seem to be based in inequality. Something the US is very familiar with. I believe we've made progress(slow progress), why don't you think they can?

I think the issue is more demographics than inequality. Sure, there's inequality, but there's also reproduction. There are three populations, the secular state, the ultra-orthodox, and the Palestinians. The latter two are reproducing at a rate such that they are growing. The secular population was reproducing below the replacement rate, though I'm not sure whether or not they still are. I think they are, I just heard something that suggested that perhaps not anymore.

What does progress look like in that case? One of those groups would like to at least undermine the concept of Israel as it now stands (a Jewish state), while the other one of those groups sure seems like it takes without giving, to me. There may well be more to it than that, but I haven't heard about it. My understanding is that the ultra-orthodox are essentially supported by the taxes paid by the rest, as they generally don't get an education outside of religious teachings, don't usually work in a productive way, and receive what amounts to welfare for sustenance.

If that's right, then the status quo would eventually lead to the dissolution of the state of Israel as it now stands. That wouldn't be the first time, for that piece of land, either. Israel hasn't been around all that long in it's current incarnation. Christians ruled Palestine for longer than the modern state of Israel has been around, though the current state will likely last longer than Christians did over there. Saladin took Jerusalem just less than a century after the first crusade, and the Franks held on to at least a bit of the land for another 60-80 years.

It's a turbulent place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I think the issue is more demographics than inequality. Sure, there's inequality, but there's also reproduction. There are three populations, the secular state, the ultra-orthodox, and the Palestinians. The latter two are reproducing at a rate such that they are growing. The secular population was reproducing below the replacement rate, though I'm not sure whether or not they still are. I think they are, I just heard something that suggested that perhaps not anymore.

What does progress look like in that case? One of those groups would like to at least undermine the concept of Israel as it now stands (a Jewish state), while the other one of those groups sure seems like it takes without giving, to me. There may well be more to it than that, but I haven't heard about it. My understanding is that the ultra-orthodox are essentially supported by the taxes paid by the rest, as they generally don't get an education outside of religious teachings, don't usually work in a productive way, and receive what amounts to welfare for sustenance.

If that's right, then the status quo would eventually lead to the dissolution of the state of Israel as it now stands. That wouldn't be the first time, for that piece of land, either. Israel hasn't been around all that long in it's current incarnation. Christians ruled Palestine for longer than the modern state of Israel has been around, though the current state will likely last longer than Christians did over there. Saladin took Jerusalem just less than a century after the first crusade, and the Franks held on to at least a bit of the land for another 60-80 years.

It's a turbulent place.

---

It seems to have Italy beat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I think the issue is more demographics than inequality. Sure, there's inequality, but there's also reproduction. There are three populations, the secular state, the ultra-orthodox, and the Palestinians. The latter two are reproducing at a rate such that they are growing. The secular population was reproducing below the replacement rate, though I'm not sure whether or not they still are. I think they are, I just heard something that suggested that perhaps not anymore.

What does progress look like in that case? One of those groups would like to at least undermine the concept of Israel as it now stands (a Jewish state), while the other one of those groups sure seems like it takes without giving, to me. There may well be more to it than that, but I haven't heard about it. My understanding is that the ultra-orthodox are essentially supported by the taxes paid by the rest, as they generally don't get an education outside of religious teachings, don't usually work in a productive way, and receive what amounts to welfare for sustenance.

If that's right, then the status quo would eventually lead to the dissolution of the state of Israel as it now stands. That wouldn't be the first time, for that piece of land, either. Israel hasn't been around all that long in it's current incarnation. Christians ruled Palestine for longer than the modern state of Israel has been around, though the current state will likely last longer than Christians did over there. Saladin took Jerusalem just less than a century after the first crusade, and the Franks held on to at least a bit of the land for another 60-80 years.

It's a turbulent place.

---

I wonder how they justify how the government treats the secular/ultra-orthodox differently. It's amazing the things we humans can convince ourselves are acceptable.

Quote:

---

The "people of Israel" designed their laws of government, they elect their representatives. So they gave them their power.

---

I agree they gave them power but I don't think you can jump from there to concluding that they are responsible for and/or support the current conflict. The last election happened before October 7th and ensuing response. Those things weren't on anyone's radar at the time of the last election and, although Netanyahu did run on a "security and protection" ticket (my words, not his), at the time that looked like maintaining a border wall and missile defence shield - nothing more. The responsibility for Israel's current actions sits with the Knesset. What I do think you can hold the electorate responsible for was electing a far right, ultra orthodox and bellicose government. I also think you can hold them responsible for electing a government which pursues an ongoing policy of oppression and illegal settlement in agreed Palestinian territory. I'm certainly not going to support or defend them in either of those.

If you want to examine whether the electorate support the conflict or not then all you can really look at is the polls I cited in post 335 which are probably less than reliable but indicate that roughly two thirds do and it's declining.

Quote:

---

I wonder how they justify how the government treats the secular/ultra-orthodox differently

---

It goes back to the holocaust and the founding of the modern state. There was a genuine fear that Judaism, particularly a deep understanding of the Torah, could be wiped out in a future persecution. Israel, as the sole Jewish state in the world, saw it as their responsibility to keep those things alive and instituted a system that would incentivise young men to study the Torah. I'm not religious but I think that was probably fairly reasonable at the time from a cultural point of view if nothing else. Trouble is that, at the time, it represented a couple of percent of the population but has since grown to be in the low teens (I found 12.9% with a quick google but not sure how recent or accurate that is) and still rising.

Pedantry: it's worth mentioning that being Ultra Orthodox doesn't necessarily equate to being Haredi (who are the guys who receive welfare, are exempted from military service etc.) and that doesn't necessarily equate to actively studying the Torah but these groups do overwhelmingly corelate.

Quote:

---

As it is, there is a significant Arab or Palestinian population in Israel itself, though not enough to vote as a majority.

---

If you're defining Israel as the territory including the West Bank and Gaza (i.e. everything that would be subsumed into a single state solution) then the Muslims would be the majority by a substantial majority. If you're defining it as not including the West Bank or the Gaza strip then the Jews would still be a substantial majority. (I use Jews and Muslims because I suspect any voting divide would largely fall along religious lines although there is a lit more nuance underlying it than that.)

I was only talking about the minority Arab population of Israel. The state has a real issue if they annex and assimilate the West Bank and Gaza. They have a different problem if they annex the land and not the residents of the land, but they have a real problem either way.

Israel was pretty closely divided in the last election...or the last several. The country was so evenly split that they had to keep voting over and over because neither side could gain a sufficient majority. I doubt that would be the case if a vote were held today.

Quote:

---

I doubt that would be the case if a vote were held today.

---

Agreed and that's perhaps the most sinister part about all this. Netanyahu will do anything to avoid an election now and that might well involve the second problem you hinted at (assuming I'm reading you right). I think he takes the view that a Gaza without Palestinians would be more convenient. I think, so far, he's stopped short of pursuing that to it's ultimate conclusion


Just in case it matters: For accuracy I made a slight edit to my last post and changed "future conflict" to "future persecution" and added the bit about holding the electorate responsible for an ongoing policy of settlement and oppression. I don't think it changes the meaning but mentioning it just in case it looks weird that I changed it.

Quote:

---

I agree they gave them power but I don't think you can jump from there to concluding that they are responsible for and/or support the current conflict.

---

Quote:

---

I also think you can hold them responsible for electing a government which pursues an ongoing policy of oppression and illegal settlement in agreed Palestinian territory. I'm certainly not going to support or defend them in either of those.

---

Quote:

---

If you want to examine whether the electorate support the conflict or not then all you can really look at is the polls I cited in post 335 which are probably less than reliable but indicate that roughly two thirds do and it's declining.

---

Your trying to have it both ways. They're not responsible, they are responsible, 2/3 support the conflict. lol

At least we agree the people of Israel gave their representatives the power. In this case, Netanyahu has been around for a long time and is a well know commodity. So what he's doing can't be a big surprise. He was their choice. But more importantly is if the people of Israel want to stop the current actions, it's their responsibility to do so. So far the majority has been silent.

So far I've seen nothing to support saying the current Gaza and West Bank actions are because of a rogue government and are not what the majority of Israeli's want.

Quote:

---

It goes back to the holocaust and the founding of the modern state. There was a genuine fear that Judaism, particularly a deep understanding of the Torah, could be wiped out in a future persecution. Israel, as the sole Jewish state in the world, saw it as their responsibility to keep those things alive and instituted a system that would incentivise young men to study the Torah. I'm not religious but I think that was probably fairly reasonable at the time from a cultural point of view if nothing else. Trouble is that, at the time, it represented a couple of percent of the population but has since grown to be in the low teens (I found 12.9% with a quick google but not sure how recent or accurate that is) and still rising.

---

That's interesting, thanks.

It may sound like I'm anti Israel, I'm not. The whole area is a mess and has been for 70+ years. But if you elect a known thief then you can't act surprised when he steals.

He was there choice in a different time, back when they believed that the government would keep them safe from terrorist incursions. As for the support, I'd say that following something like the October attack, the support for a response would be VERY high, probably well above two thirds. I also think that local news in Israel is painting a different picture from what we are seeing.

It's a pretty dynamic shift. I have no idea where it stands at now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

He was there choice in a different time, back when they believed that the government would keep them safe from terrorist incursions. As for the support, I'd say that following something like the October attack, the support for a response would be VERY high, probably well above two thirds. I also think that local news in Israel is painting a different picture from what we are seeing.

It's a pretty dynamic shift. I have no idea where it stands at now.

---

Your post made me wonder if Israel has a free press, so I Google "Is Israeli press censored" and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor...07%20operation.

I'm not convinced that this is a "different time". It's definitely more open and extreme at this moment but this conflict has been never ending. The Gaza and West Bank issues aren't new. It's been, you hit me and I hit you back since I can remember and before that.

It's understandable why both sides devalue the lives of the other. Neither side seems interested in peace, only victory. A lot smarter people than me have tried to establish peace and have failed. Like I said it's a mess. Earlier you said it's a turbulent place, that seems like an understatement but I don't have a better description.

Edit - Since it's gonna be 110 outside today I decided to stay inside and drone on about this. lol

At this time I do have a good amount of sympathy for the Palestinians. It's my understanding they didn't freely elect Hama but are being punished for their actions. But my knowledge of the situation is very superficial.

Quote:

---

Your trying to have it both ways.

---

I'm really not. I'm simply drawing distinctions which I think are important. Settlement and oppression (which is the worst you can really say the Israeli electorate actually voted for) are bad enough and I've vocally oppose them for years. But they're not in the same league as the actions that have been carried out since October 7th. Those actions have already risen to the standard of Ethnic Cleansing and have the hallmarks of a Genocide in progress.

I'm making those distinctions for the same reason I previously made the distinction between supporters of the conflict and "Israelis". Because if you don't make those distinctions you risk accusing a set of people that contains a significant minority of holocaust survivors and an overwhelming majority of relatives of holocaust survivors of being responsible for genocide. I get that you don't think that's important and that I'm virtue signalling for pointing it out but I do think it's important and I don't think it's virtue signalling. It hits very differently to "Americans are overweight", "English people have bad teeth" and "Women be shopping".

If an Israeli is responsible for genocide I believe it is legitimate to call them out and accuse them of that. It would be a moral failing not to. But I think it is incumbent on us to make sure we are levelling that accusation at the right Israelis and that we are accusing them of the right thing. You may differ - you have that right, but don't expect me to.

To be clear, I don't think you're being racist or antisemitic. I don't even think you're being particularly "anti Israel". But I don't think you've really appreciated how sensitive a subject this is and why. Sorry.

Quote:

---

It's my understanding they didn't freely elect Hama

---

They did but it was back in 2006 and Hamas have refused to hold an election since so I feel like your underlying point stands. I don't think that election should still be regarded as a legitimate mandate.

edit>

Quote:

---

I'd say that following something like the October attack, the support for a response would be VERY high

---

I agree with this. Think back to the atmosphere in he US immediately after 9/11. The things being posted on this forum didn't seem interested in identifying who was actually responsible. I remember one person advocating that we should reduce the Muslim world to glass and I don't believe they were being deliberately hyperbolic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I'm not convinced that this is a "different time". It's definitely more open and extreme at this moment but this conflict has been never ending. The Gaza and West Bank issues aren't new. It's been, you hit me and I hit you back since I can remember and before that.

---

Yeah, I didn't mean it quite like that, thought I did say it quite like that. I meant that post-October attack is a different time than the last election, which wasn't all that far back. During the election, I would expect that the vast majority of Israelis felt that they had to worry about missiles being fired by Hamas, suicide bombers, uprisings, and possible attacks from Hezbollah, but I would expect that they didn't think that Hamas would be able to drive into the country and kill a thousand people. I feel that they believed the government was on top of large-scale maneuver attacks of that sort. They were worried about small, spontaneous attacks that are both hard to predict and hard to prevent, but not worried about large scale attacks. Now, they don't know what the government can keep them safe from.

So, when I was talking about a different time, I just mean that they had their minds changed about the nature of the threat.

Quote:

---

I'm making those distinctions for the same reason I previously made the distinction between supporters of the conflict and "Israelis".

---

Yeah, some how you've convinced yourself that the people that live in Israel and support the conflict are not Israelis. lol

Your justifications have gotten weird. Throwing in holocaust survivors. Saying you shouldn't use the term Israeli because there is a subset that doesn't support the conflict. Of course there is, no reasonable person would believe everyone in Israel supports the governments actions. ON ANYTHING THEY DO.

Quote:

---

I get that you don't think that's important and that I'm virtue signalling for pointing it out

---

I've never used the term "virtue signaling" in my life. lol

What I think is your trying to justify your position with a lot of irrelevant reasons.

Israel is responsible for the actions in Gaza, just as the US was responsible for invading Afghanistan after 9/11.

Quote:

---

You may differ - you have that right, but don't expect me to.

---

I don't expect you to change your position.

Quote:

---

Yeah, some how you've convinced yourself that the people that live in Israel and support the conflict are not Israelis.

---

No and I suspect that's a deliberate misread of what I've posted. Acknowledging that a significant portion of Israelis do not support a position is not the same as asserting that Israelis aren't Israelis.

Quote:

---

I've never used the term "virtue signaling" in my life. lol

---

Quote:

---

you turned a simple point made by SH into a chance for you to wrap yourself in the flag of righteousness and justify it by reliving the horrors of the holocaust

---

Hard to see how else this would be taken.

If you cannot see how explicitly accusing a set of people that include holocaust survivors and their relatives of being responsible for ethnic cleansing and, arguably, genocide without making any effort to differentiate those who do and don't even support that let alone have voted for it (which literally nobody did) is problematic then I guess I can't help you see it. But it doesn't paint you in a good light.

I feel I've tried to engage with you and explain my position in good faith and have gone out of my way to avoid offence while doing so. I don't feel that is reciprocated.

Quote:

---

So, when I was talking about a different time, I just mean that they had their minds changed about the nature of the threat.

---

Yeah, it had been a long time since there was a large scale conflict. Seems strange that missiles and suicide bombers are part of daily life. I have a hard time understanding why it's never ending. Why they can't come to some sort of peace agreement. Just about any peace agreement would probably be better than what they got now. My only answer is there's to many years of scarring. Fighting against the "other side" is like part of their DNA.

Quote:

---

No and I suspect that's a deliberate misread of what I've posted. Acknowledging that a significant portion of Israelis do not support a position is not the same as asserting that Israelis aren't Israelis

---

No this is a complete misrepresentation. I've never said all Israelis support the conflict, I've said I don't know how much of the population supports the conflict(many times). I've never refused to acknowledge there are Israelis that don't support the conflict.

You really disappoint me.

Quote:

---

you turned a simple point made by SH into a chance for you to wrap yourself in the flag of righteousness and justify it by reliving the horrors of the holocaust

---

Like I said, I've never used to term "virtue signaling" . I didn't say you haven't done it. lol

Quote:

---

I feel I've tried to engage with you and explain my position in good faith and have gone out of my way to avoid offence while doing so. I don't feel that is reciprocated.

---

I'm not trying to offend you. Let's just let it go, because I'm also getting offended after your last post. I'm done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

Yeah, it had been a long time since there was a large scale conflict. Seems strange that missiles and suicide bombers are part of daily life. I have a hard time understanding why it's never ending. Why they can't come to some sort of peace agreement. Just about any peace agreement would probably be better than what they got now. My only answer is there's to many years of scarring. Fighting against the "other side" is like part of their DNA.

---

Why can't they come to some sort of a peace agreement? Because large parts of both sides don't want one. The Palestinians were pushed off their land by the formation of Israel, while there's a powerful segment within Israel that wants to push them out of Gaza and the West Bank, as well. Those people would have to give up what they want for there to be peace. The formation of Israel isn't all that long ago, either, so there are people alive who still remember it. Of course, there is probably no more blood-soaked patch of earth than Jerusalem and the lands around it, but the current grievances are fairly current.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Why can't they come to some sort of a peace agreement? Because large parts of both sides don't want one. The Palestinians were pushed off their land by the formation of Israel, while there's a powerful segment within Israel that wants to push them out of Gaza and the West Bank, as well. Those people would have to give up what they want for there to be peace. The formation of Israel isn't all that long ago, either, so there are people alive who still remember it. Of course, there is probably no more blood-soaked patch of earth than Jerusalem and the lands around it, but the current grievances are fairly current.

---

I don't disagree with that assessment. I just don't understand why they don't want peace after the harm 75yrs of conflict has caused. To me there motivations don't justify the ability for the people to lead quality lives.

Of course maybe that's because I have a hard time understanding wars in general. They're usually for the "good of the people" but the people are the ones doing all the dying. To me, there's not much that's worth dying for, maybe my kids but even that's not a given. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I don't disagree with that assessment. I just don't understand why they don't want peace after the harm 75yrs of conflict has caused. To me there motivations don't justify the ability for the people to lead quality lives.

Of course maybe that's because I have a hard time understanding wars in general. They're usually for the "good of the people" but the people are the ones doing all the dying. To me, there's not much that's worth dying for, maybe my kids but even that's not a given. lol

---

Don't forget Gods are part of the equation. Logic tends to go out the door when that happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I don't disagree with that assessment. I just don't understand why they don't want peace after the harm 75yrs of conflict has caused. To me there motivations don't justify the ability for the people to lead quality lives.

Of course maybe that's because I have a hard time understanding wars in general. They're usually for the "good of the people" but the people are the ones doing all the dying. To me, there's not much that's worth dying for, maybe my kids but even that's not a given. lol

---

Well, the people pushing for them think that they'll win, and possibly win with ease. It's a particular kind of myopia. I was always struck by that statement by Leroy Pope Walker that all the blood spilled by the southern secession could be mopped up with a handkerchief. Turns out, it would have taken one BIG handkerchief to mop up all that blood, but Leroy honestly believed what he said. Those kinds of miscalculations tend to underlie all wars. Just look at Ukraine. Would Putin have gone in there if he had known how it would go? Probably not.

Quote:

---

I've never said all Israelis support the conflict

---

And I haven't said that you did. I've said that you fail to make an important distinction (actually, two important distinctions) and explained why they are important.

Quote:

---

Let's just let it go

---

As you wish but one piece of advice. When asking someone to "let it go" it's a bad idea to insult them:-

Quote:

---

Like I said, I've never used to term "virtue signaling" . I didn't say you haven't done it. lol

---

That makes you look disingenuous, at best. lol.

Quote:

---

I just don't understand why they don't want peace after the harm 75yrs of conflict has caused.

---

Because the people actually responsible for this have a vested interest in ongoing conflict. If peace breaks out Hamas cease to have a purpose and therefore cease exist and Netanyahu faces an election that he will almost certainly lose and he will very likely face corruption charges. This conflict is not about Israelis and Palestinians. It's not even about Jews and Muslims. It's about people who have power and are willing to throw people who don't have power under the wheels to hold on to that power.

Quote:

---

As you wish but one piece of advice. When asking someone to "let it go" it's a bad idea to insult them:-
Like I said, I've never used to term "virtue signaling" . I didn't say you haven't done it. lol
That makes you look disingenuous, at best. lol.

---

Yeah, it's easy to spot when you see someone else do it.

But it was a sincere offer. But I'm retired with lots of spare time to continue rewording the same concept over and over. So either way works for me.

Quote:

---

Because the people actually responsible for this have a vested interest in ongoing conflict. If peace breaks out Hamas cease to have a purpose and therefore cease exist and Netanyahu faces an election that he will almost certainly lose and he will very likely face corruption charges. This conflict is not about Israelis and Palestinians. It's not even about Jews and Muslims. It's about people who have power and are willing to throw people who don't have power under the wheels to hold on to that power.

---

And like I keep saying, Israelis are responsible for Netanyahu having this power. This was their choice, this is who they wanted. Netanyahu is not know for wanting peace. Responsibility doesn't stop at Netanyahu.

Netanyahu doesn't want peace, but until October, he didn't have war. He had a simmering, seemingly-manageable, conflict. Still, he got elected by people who didn't want peace, either, so I'd agree with you that they didn't elect him for peace. They DID think they could win on the cheap, though. I think a lot of people might have woken up to the idea that winning may not even be possible, and certainly won't be so cheap. That's political change.

Quote:

---

They DID think they could win on the cheap, though. I think a lot of people might have woken up to the idea that winning may not even be possible, and certainly won't be so cheap. That's political change.

---

That's probably some of that myopia you mentioned.

One of the expenses is something you said earlier. It has cost them a lot of good will from the international community. Those probably aren't the exact words you used.

I finally got curious enough to lookup Israel's election process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_I...ative_election

I don't like the part where they can extend their if there is a supermajority.

If I was to say "Blacks have criminal tendencies" that would be construed as a racist statement due to the generalisation of blacks. It ascribes he properties of a subset to the whole both in terms of grammar and on how it's likely to received absent further clarification. I fail to see how your framing has been any different. Again, I don't think you're a racist or anti-Semite but I don't think you've considered the sensitivity around what you're saying. I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Netanyahu is not know for wanting peace.

---

Prior to 7 October he wasn't known for wanting war either. He didn't campaign on it and it has never been part of his rhetoric prior to Hamas's attack. I think if you want to ascribe responsibility for Israel's recent actions you have to, at the very least, establish that they were predictable. You simply haven't done that. (I actually think that you need to go further and establish that they not only predicted it but desired it - when casting our vote we're selecting from a smorgasbord board of positions and we quietly ignore the ones that don't motivate us one way or the other.)

What was predictable was that he would further expand illegal settlements and, subject to my disagreement with your generalisations, I do agree that you can hold the electorate responsible for that.




As for support for the conflict, I think that's a different question. The figures I found were somewhat outdated, less than reliable and indicated that support had been declining since. You seem to have taken that as a current figure and run with it which could be misleading. It wouldn't surprise me if it was still substantial, though, and likely better than half.

But I think you also need to consider that Israel has been the subject of the most traumatic terrorist attack since 9/11 (and it was every bit the equal of that). Think back to the US reaction to that event. How many people did you hear saying "you know what, I think we should stop and consider the impact of our response on the average Afghani citizen"? I'm willing to bet it wasn't many.

The reason is simple human nature. I like to think of myself as a fairly passive guy but if I was the father of the girl who was raped and murdered by 5 men at the music festival, who filmed it and posted back to her own social media account to make sure her friends and family knew what had been done, if you put a button in front of me and send "press this, it'll fire a rocket that will kill the guys who did it" I cannot honestly tell you that I wouldn't press it or that I would stop to consider whether it really was killing the actual people involved or just a proxy for them. From my own position in leafy Bristol I would (and do) reach the judgement that pressing the button was morally wrong but only because I have the luxury of distance. I don't feel a need to set a standard of reasonableness for the average Israeli that I wouldn't assign to the average American (or Brit for that matter).

I think myopia's a pretty good word for that. I think we can all be morally blinded by grief, fear and anger very, very easily. It is the job of our leaders to remain clear sighted.

Quote:

---

he got elected by people who didn't want peace

---

It depends on what you mean but I think I disagree with the framing. I suspect mostly they voted for a status quo that saw an ongoing repression of a group that they didn't think much about and which didn't involve atrocities on their doorstep. From their perspective that was peace.

It seems business as usually for the Israelis in Gaza. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ah-2024-07-17/

Though they might have woke up to the fact that winning may not be possible and definitely not cheap, it doesn't seem to have motivated them to change their tactics.

Was curious what the Israeli people were hearing about the war. https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-in...survival-mode/

I don't know anything about The Times of Israel, so this might have or not have a lot of bias. One thing that struck me was that most of the information was just repeating what the IDF says about the war.

Which isn't surprising but I still think that the average Israeli knows that whether Hamas is destroyed or not, it wont lead to peace. Why would it, never has. But maybe the temporary peace while Hamas regroups or some other anti Israel group is formed is a win for them.

Yeah, the latest polls I've seen show support for the war still well over 50% in Israel. What I don't know is what "latest" means for those polls. I read it yesterday, but the poll could be six months old for all I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, the latest polls I've seen show support for the war still well over 50% in Israel. What I don't know is what "latest" means for those polls. I read it yesterday, but the poll could be six months old for all I know.

---

I did some some searching and couldn't find any significant protests in recent news. Except for the families of the hostages and Muslims. I'm sure there's probably some, just not making the news. Nothing that would indicate the majority are pushing back against the actions in Gaza.

Tried watching a couple of news videos of protests from from the region but they weren't speaking English. Go figure. lol

Edit: Just to be clear, if the majority of Israelis support or don't support the conflict isn't of major importance to me. It's mainly a point of curiosity. I was looking for indicators of the general mindset of the Israelis. Either way the Israelis are in the wrong. Either for supporting the inhumane actions in Gaza or if they don't support them by not pushing back more against it. That said, I think both positions could be understandable when you consider the environment they live in. Even so, being understandable doesn't justify Israel's actions, what's happening in Gaza is wrong. The current US position is wrong. And don't get me started on how toothless the UN is.

There have been small scale protests since the beginning
There were large scale protests in March
And again at the end of May

I'm not sure what you're expecting those who oppose the conflict to do. They've got a a vote and they'll doubtless use it when they're able.

If you were to poll Palestinians on whether there should be reprisals against Israel, what do you think the result would be?

Quote:

---

what's happening in Gaza is wrong.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

I still think that the average Israeli knows that whether Hamas is destroyed or not, it wont lead to peace.

---

I think this is an interesting statement because it's true but I also think it misses a fundamental point, knowing is not the same as believing. Again, using 9/11 as a comparison, I don't think many people "knew" that destroying Al Qaeda would lead to the end of terrorism or event that invading Afghanistan would lead to the destruction of Al Qaeda, in fact we knew it wouldn't in both cases. But we chose to believe that it would. We convinced ourselves that we could somehow wack-a-mole them so hard that they'd never be able to respond. Anyone looking at it objectively would conclude that it wouldn't work but objectivity gets abandoned real fast. I suspect the average Israeli is doing exactly the same right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

There have been small scale protests since the beginning
There were large scale protests in March
And again at the end of May

I'm not sure what you're expecting those who oppose the conflict to do. They've got a a vote and they'll doubtless use it when they're able.

If you were to poll Palestinians on whether there should be reprisals against Israel, what do you think the result would be?

I agree

I think this is an interesting statement because it's true but I also think it misses a fundamental point, knowing is not the same as believing. Again, using 9/11 as a comparison, I don't think many people "knew" that destroying Al Qaeda would lead to the end of terrorism or event that invading Afghanistan would lead to the destruction of Al Qaeda, in fact we knew it wouldn't in both cases. But we chose to believe that it would. We convinced ourselves that we could somehow wack-a-mole them so hard that they'd never be able to respond. Anyone looking at it objectively would conclude that it wouldn't work but objectivity gets abandoned real fast. I suspect the average Israeli is doing exactly the same right now.

---

I think part of the is the need to do "something". Or at least show you are doing something. I think everyone knows an air strike here and there doesn't really have much impact. It seems it is better than nothing.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It reads like you're saying the average Israeli needs to carry out an Air Strike but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. Who's carrying out the air strike and on whom? I think I'm just not understanding your post.

If we're going to say the "average Israeli" isn't doing enough I think we need to identify something they could do and are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It reads like you're saying the average Israeli needs to carry out an Air Strike but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. Who's carrying out the air strike and on whom? I think I'm just not understanding your post.

If we're going to say the "average Israeli" isn't doing enough I think we need to identify something they could do and are not.

---

Yes you are. I meant it in the most general way agreeing with your post, not specific to Israelis. More that it is true about everyone.