Israel?

[wes4dbt]

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.

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.

[Shaggy Hiker]

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.

[wes4dbt]

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.

[FunkyDexter]

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.

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.

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.

[wes4dbt]

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.

[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.

[wes4dbt]

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.

[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?

what's happening in Gaza is wrong.

I agree

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.

[TysonLPrice]

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.

[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.

[TysonLPrice]

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.

[FunkyDexter]

Oh, I think I'm getting you. You're saying that the Israel's response is a manifestation of their need to "do something" in response to October 7th. Just as the American invasion of Afghanistan (and Iraq, I think) post 9/11 was a manifestation of their need to "do something" in response to a similarly awful terrorist attack. (I guess I could go back through history and find lots of similar examples.) That when a society is attacked it feels a need to respond and the response doesn't necessarily need to be rational, it just needs to be... something. Have I got you right?

If so, yeah, that's exactly what I see happening in this situation. The public's response is based in raw emotion and, while I may not agree with the response, I find it hard to assign them blame for having it and I don't feel there's much they can do to either push or reign in the response between elections beyond protesting and/or speaking out individually - both of which I've seen.

The leadership, on the other hand, has agency. They get to decide where to send the bombs and the soldiers so, for me, the blame lies wholly on their shoulders.

[dday9]

The leadership, on the other hand, has agency. They get to decide where to send the bombs and the soldiers so, for me, the blame lies wholly on their shoulders.

Netanyahu's own generals have been saying for weeks that the only path forward is for a truce even at the expense of leaving Hamas in power. Netanyahu is obviously against it because he's the one who propped up Hamas as a strategy to divide and conquer Gaza and the East Bank. There's also pride at stake when Netanyahu said that "I mislead them, destabilize them, mock them, and then hit them over the head. It’s impossible to reach an agreement with them. Everyone knows this, but we control the height of the flames" so the fact that he was unable to control the level of violence in Gaza means that he has to take extreme measures to regain control.

Palestine has essentially been an open air prison since 1967 where there has been no official state and Israel controls the amount of trade and movement in the region. The best prospect for peace was in 2000 when the Palestinians had a real prospect for a two state solution. But as the negotiations started breaking down and Sharon's statement about tearing down the Al-Aqsa mosque on the temple mound, the second intifada kicked off and there was no going back.

So you run into this situation where you have one side oppressing people and another side engaging in terroristic activities as a response. I don't know how this gets resolved considering how far this has gotten, but what both sides are doing right now is only going to result in a zero-sum result.

All that's to say that they shouldn't send bombs or soldiers, they should be sending ambassadors to get a peace agreement in place at once, but there's simply no political will to do that.

[wes4dbt]

All that's to say that they shouldn't send bombs or soldiers, they should be sending ambassadors to get a peace agreement in place at once, but there's simply no political will to do that.

Yeah, there hasn't seem to have been for many decades. Wonder when the last time was that Israelis elected a PM who ran on a seeking peace platform and if they did, how long did they last.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The Israeli right wing and Hamas, want the same thing: No peace. Both might say that their ultimate goal is something beyond that, but in the case of Hamas, even that's in doubt. The right wing in Israel wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza, though only without the Palestinians in there. Peace would foil that. Hamas loses strength whenever there is a whiff of peace. Therefore, if one doesn't whip up some conflict, then the other one will.

[TysonLPrice]

Have I got you right?

Yes...I was less then articulate.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't know how this gets resolved

The closest analogue I can think of in recent history is South Africa. In that case International pressure led to the minority, power holding Whites to relinquish that power AND it took the majority, disenfranchised Blacks to sincerely forgive. If either of those fails to happen you either get an ongoing status quo or a massacre. It took some really big political figures to step forward on both sides for it to happen, particularly on the Black side because forgiveness is surprisingly hard.

Could that happen in the Levant? It could but it seems highly unlikely given the current leadership on both sides. Couple that with the International pressures on both sides aren't exactly benign (Hamas are basically an Iranian puppet and the West really should be supporting the oppressees rather than the oppressors) and it feels a long way off.

The Israeli right wing and Hamas, want the same thing: No peace. Both might say that their ultimate goal is something beyond that, but in the case of Hamas, even that's in doubt. The right wing in Israel wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza, though only without the Palestinians in there. Peace would foil that. Hamas loses strength whenever there is a whiff of peace. Therefore, if one doesn't whip up some conflict, then the other one will.

^Yeah, that.

Yes...I was less then articulate.

Well, I was less than literate so I guess we matched.

[wes4dbt]

The ICJ reminds me of the UN. Great ideas in theory but very ineffective in real life. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/...ernational-law

I believe the ICJ has already said Netanyahu is committing war crimes. That had no effect.

The international community has known for years that Israel is illegally annexing Palestinian territory but has done nothing more than wag their finger once in a while. After which they send Israel more support. The world will make you shake your head if you pay much attention to it. lol

[TysonLPrice]

"Trump to meet Netanyahu Friday at Mar-a-Lago

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/23/tru...-a-lago-israel

He is putting his eggs in one basket.

Edit: He is smarter than I was thinking. He can get Trump to tell the republicans in congress how to vote. Just like Trump did with the border bill.

[wes4dbt]

This is a lot different story than what you read in the Israeli Times, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...against-israel

They say "the ICJ compelled the international community to take action" but so far nothing like that has happened. To bad.

Meanwhile, the US welcomes Netanyahu.

[TysonLPrice]

Israeli minister says it may be ‘moral’ to starve 2 million Gazans, but ‘no one in the world would let us’

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/middl...ntl/index.html

They are just saying it out loud now, it has been the de facto plan for a while.

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah. In all honesty I think they've been being pretty naked about it for a while.

I'm nervous to see how the situation with Hezbollah plays out. Hezbollah dwarf Hamas, they're well equipped and they're hardened from fighting in Syria. That is not likely to be an easy fight for Israel like Gaza has been.

[TysonLPrice]

Yeah. In all honesty I think they've been being pretty naked about it for a while.

I'm nervous to see how the situation with Hezbollah plays out. Hezbollah dwarf Hamas, they're well equipped and they're hardened from fighting in Syria. That is not likely to be an easy fight for Israel like Gaza has been.

Oh the irony...the Israelis have a "final solution".

[dday9]

I'm nervous to see how the situation with Hezbollah plays out. Hezbollah dwarf Hamas, they're well equipped and they're hardened from fighting in Syria. That is not likely to be an easy fight for Israel like Gaza has been.

Israel is incentivized to start a conflict with Hezbollah. Not only would that put the atrocities of what they are doing in Gaza out of the limelight, but they know that there is a chance that the United States would not only boost support but could also become actively engaged since Hezbollah would be seen as the golden ticket in starting a war in Iran.

The republicans have been terrible on this issue, basically "no support for Ukraine, we need that money for Taiwan and potentially an Iran conflict."

I haven't really heard anything from the Harris camp about her stance on Iran. I know in the past she was good on when Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement, but I have a feel that was more partisan than principle (Obama put it in and Trump took it out).

[FunkyDexter]

Israel is incentivized to start a conflict with Hezbollah. Not only would that put the atrocities of what they are doing in Gaza out of the limelight, but they know that there is a chance that the United States would not only boost support but could also become actively engaged since Hezbollah would be seen as the golden ticket in starting a war in Iran.

I think that's very likely true but it's a helluva high states gamble. Nobody really knows the size of Hezbollah but I've seen estimates from credible source that they substantially outnumber the IDF. If the US didn't come to Israel's aid they could find themselves in real trouble.

[TysonLPrice]

I know in the past she was good on when Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement

I'm curious where your information on that came from. She slammed President Donald Trump and pledged to "rejoin" the Paris agreement on Climate Change and "strengthen and re-enter" the Iran nuclear deal.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-e...e-deal-2287176

And Trump's own campaign slams here for being for being against his withdrawal. In general the democratic response to Trump's withdrawal of the deal was negative.

[dday9]

I'm curious where your information on that came from. She slammed President Donald Trump and pledged to "rejoin" the Paris agreement on Climate Change and "strengthen and re-enter" the Iran nuclear deal.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-e...e-deal-2287176

And Trump's own campaign slams here for being for being against his withdrawal. In general the democratic response to Trump's withdrawal of the deal was negative.

Dude you are so partisan you can't even see when I'm complementing her?

I'm saying she was good on the Iran nuclear deal. She disagreed with Trump's decision to pull out of it then and she wants to reinstate it.

I just don't know what her stance is today on if she would go to war with Iran and the silver lining that she wouldn't support it is her position on the nuclear agreement.

[wes4dbt]

Dude you are so partisan you can't even see when I'm complementing her?

I read that sentence several times because I thought you were saying she agreed with Trump, and that surprised me.

I know in the past she was good on when Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement

I wouldn't blame my interpretation on being partisan even though I am.

[wes4dbt]

It really disappoints me how blindly the US supports Israel. If Russia bombed other countries to assassinate rivals there would be a united cry of outrage on capital hill. Israel does it and we send more support. For some reason it's the US job to protect Israel, right or wrong.

[dday9]

How does this sounds?

I know in that in the past she was good on the issue because she disagreed with Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement.

[TysonLPrice]

Dude you are so partisan you can't even see when I'm complementing her?

I'm saying she was good on the Iran nuclear deal. She disagreed with Trump's decision to pull out of it then and she wants to reinstate it.

I just don't know what her stance is today on if she would go to war with Iran and the silver lining that she wouldn't support it is her position on the nuclear agreement.

You are right about me being partisan but I guess I msi-read it. I thought you were saying she agreed with him. My bad

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm afraid I misunderstood the original statement, at first, too, though I got it right before DDay clarified. I thought he was just pandering to the UK contingent with his wording...or maybe "good on ya" is more Australian?

Israel would have to be crazy to pick a fight with Hezbollah, and vice versa. Both sides have too much to lose from a real ground war.

[wes4dbt]

or maybe "good on ya" is more Australian?

I also thought of that saying after DD explained what he meant. lol

[TysonLPrice]

It really disappoints me how blindly the US supports Israel. If Russia bombed other countries to assassinate rivals there would be a united cry of outrage on capital hill. Israel does it and we send more support. For some reason it's the US job to protect Israel, right or wrong.

The US is the very first nation to recognize Israel as a nation. To hell with the people that were already living there, they are just finishing the conquer now, and the US is the first to support it.

[wes4dbt]

The US is the very first nation to recognize Israel as a nation. To hell with the people that were already living there, they are just finishing the conquer now, and the US is the first to support it.

I don't think it has to do with that. All those people are gone alone time ago. Though it could be that we can't bring ourselves to admit we've been wrong.

My guess is it has to do with it being politically advantageous. The Jewish community must control a lot of voting power. Which seems strange to me because on the west coast it's not a very large group. Israel doesn't really bring much to the table as a country.

[TysonLPrice]

I don't think it has to do with that. All those people are gone alone time ago. Though it could be that we can't bring ourselves to admit we've been wrong.

My guess is it has to do with it being politically advantageous. The Jewish community must control a lot of voting power. Which seems strange to me because on the west coast it's not a very large group. Israel doesn't really bring much to the table as a country.

Bur their ancestors are there, Israel doesn't want a two state solution that I can see. Therefore, you have to get rid of the survivors of those conquered

.

[wes4dbt]

Iran/Hezbollah has been eerily quiet the past week or so after Israel killed someone in their country. Not sure that's a good or bad thing. They usually are lobbing rockets or something at Israel on a regular basis. Maybe they have and I just didn't see the headline.

[TysonLPrice]

Iran/Hezbollah has been eerily quiet the past week or so after Israel killed someone in their country. Not sure that's a good or bad thing. They usually are lobbing rockets or something at Israel on a regular basis. Maybe they have and I just didn't see the headline.

I suspect behind the scenes every ounce of pressure the US has is pushing Iran to standdown.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Iran has a bit of political infighting going on, currently, which probably makes the situation more complicated. The VP just stepped down as a result of the tensions surrounding the new president. Whether that means they are just delaying, or are more amenable to outside pressures trying to get them to stand down, it may be that nobody knows for sure. After all, they may really need to be delaying anyhow, so extracting some benefit from the necessity doesn't make the necessary any less so.

[wes4dbt]

I suspect behind the scenes every ounce of pressure the US has is pushing Iran to standdown.

Why??? Israel didn't consult the US before taking this action. I think it's about time the US stops blindly going to Israel's aid. But I'm repeating myself. That's what happens when you get old.