Israel?

[TysonLPrice]

"They're surrounded by enemies who want to see them wiped out"

Another way to think of that is they inserted themselves into other's countries existing territories , supported by the world's greatest super power, and those countries resent and reject it. The Israelis were slaughtering Palestinians and taking their land from them from the beginning of Israel's modern existence. One could argue that back and forth all day but it is a consideration.

[FunkyDexter]

they inserted themselves into other's countries existing territories

That's partly true but overly simplistic. I think there are two strong counter points:-
1. The Nation of Israel did exist in history, going way back to biblical times. And there have been Jews present in the area continuously ever since, even if the Nation itself didn't exist. Denying Israel's existence prior to '48 is a bit like denying Poland's existence prior to the end of WW1 or Ukraine's prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in '89. It's sort of valid... but not really.
2. If we're going to assert that Israel didn't exist as a Nation State prior to WW2 then Palestine really didn't exist before WW1 either. It certainly existed as a region but there was no centralised government. It was really just an area where a bunch of semi nomadic Arab tribes lived and they lived alongside a significant Jewish population.

Both Israel and Palestine in their modern forms are essentially artificial states created by Western Governments. (I'm always really cautious when I point that out because there's a lot of people who use it to try and invalidate the existence of those nations, particularly Israel. I want to be clear that I'm not doing that. I think both have a right to exist and the duration of their histories aren't really relevant to that.)

The Israelis were slaughtering Palestinians and taking their land from them from the beginning of Israel's modern existence

This I strongly disagree with I'm afraid. The first conflict between Israel and it's neighbours was the Arab Israeli war of 1948 and the Arab nations were very much the aggressors. I guess you could cite the civil war that broke out in 47 but it's hard to pick a side to blame on that one, they were both at it. It's been a tit for tat ever since and I don't think you can identifiably blame either side more than the other.

The modern history of that region is murky and bloody and I, personally, don't think there's much value in trying to pick it apart to justify one side over the other, there'll always be a counter point. I just settle for: both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist; the actions Hamas carried out on 7 Oct were heinous and had nothing to do with furthering the cause of the people of Palestine; Israel's response has been heinous and has had nothing to do with preventing terrorism or recovering hostages.

Edit> I clarified point 2 above a touch as I felt I'd slightly misrepresented the origins of modern Palestine. If it's changed since anyone read it, that's why.

[FunkyDexter]

Giving aid to Israel to defend itself has always seemed reasonable. But this isn't about defense. They may claim this action is to help defend Israel in the future but I don't think the US/UK see Israel's actions achieving those goals.

Agree with this 100%. The problem is that withdrawing support is withdrawing support, regardless of the why. I'd like a way of squaring that circle but I can't think of one. And you right, giving humanitarian aid to one side while giving military support to the side that's attacking them seems pretty dumb.

But then again, as I said in post 278, maybe the defence just doesn't need our support any more. I feel like Israel is pretty capable of defending itself against Iranian rockets and terrorists (Oct 7th aside and I think that was an aberration) so, yeah, maybe it is time to start withdrawing support. In the past they had to defend themselves against neighbouring Nation States and it doesn't feel like that's the case any more.

I'd say there is quite a bit of pressure being applied...now

Yeah, I think you're probably right. Certainly the diplomats seems to be sending a much stronger message. The response to the Iranian attack was pretty measured and allowed both sides room to climb down and I can't help thinking that Western diplomacy might have been a large part of that. If Israel can be talked out of attacking Rafah I'll call it a win - if a pyrrhic one.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The modern history of that region is murky and bloody

The word "modern" does not improve that sentence.

[TysonLPrice]

First on the point you disagree with:

The 1948 Nakba, or "catastrophe" in Arabic, refers to the destruction of over 500 Palestinian towns, cities, and villages by Zionist paramilitaries between 1947 and 1949. The first operation began in April 1948, when more than 100 Palestinian people were killed in Deir Yassin, a village on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

Nakba
Emigration, fleeing, or expulsion of 750,000 Arab Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War
The Nakba was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations

Arguing ancient history to justify current events doesn't seem right to me. Otherwise give it back to the Canaanites. What if a world power, vastly more powerful then the US, kicked everyone out of Manhattan and gave it back to the Indians?

My point was "One could argue that back and forth all day but it is a consideration." when it comes to who deserves what and who is right or wrong. Throw Gods into the decision making of who is right and wrong and it gets really ugly.

[TysonLPrice]

The word "modern" does not improve that sentence.

I was trying to exclude "Biblical times", but true.

[Shaggy Hiker]

First on the point you disagree with:



Arguing ancient history to justify current events doesn't seem right to me. Otherwise give it back to the Canaanites. What if a world power, vastly more powerful then the US, and kicked everyone out of Manhattan and gave it back to the Indians?

My point was "One could argue that back and forth all day but it is a consideration." when it comes to who deserves what and who is right or wrong. Throw Gods into the decision making of who is right and wrong and it gets really ugly.

It doesn't seem right to Americans, but in the Middle East, orators have been known to casually drop references to people or events from over a thousand years ago, content in the knowledge that their audience will understand them. Our belief that history started yesterday, may be peculiarly American.

[TysonLPrice]

It doesn't seem right to Americans, but in the Middle East, orators have been known to casually drop references to people or events from over a thousand years ago, content in the knowledge that their audience will understand them. Our belief that history started yesterday, may be peculiarly American.

That may be because of what it took for Europeans to become Americans. We had to expel the original inhabitants. Kind of rings a bell

[FunkyDexter]

Arguing ancient history to justify current events doesn't seem right to me.

My point wasn't so much to bring in ancient history but rather to highlight that both groups have historical claims to the region and that their current claims are based on European colonialism. Prior to WW1 the entire region was subsumed into the Ottoman Empire and neither Israel or Palestine existed as Nations. You can't really argue that Israel displaced Palestine without acknowledging that the peoples of both were already present in the region and have been continuously for centuries.

As for the Nakba, yeah, I'm aware and I don't want to appear to justify it (believe me, I really, really don't!). But you do have to view it in it's context, which is that both groups (and Christians too, for that matter) have been alternately living in peace and trying to exterminate each other for centuries. The Nakba actually has several definitions, depending on who you talk to, but probably the most widely accepted is the Zionist incursions into British mandated Palestine and succeeded the Arab uprisings of 36 to 39 and increasing anti Jewish sentiments amongst the Arabs from the Balfour Declaration onwards. There's always a predicate in this region. You can also view it as going right back to the 19th century when neither state existed and you can view it as either finished in 48 or ongoing today.

My point is simply that any condemnation that's raised has a readily available corollary because both sides are neck deep in bloody power struggles.


For context, I did say upthread and should repeat that I've been pro Palestine for for roughly 30 years and that hasn't changed. I wouldn't say I'm an activist any more but I certainly was in the 90s and I have attended several of the recent Pro Palestine marches (I've attended a couple of the Pro Israel one too but there's a lot fewer of them). I don't want to let Netanyahu's regime off the hook for the recent actions in Gaza. Neither do I want to actions of the Israeli state in a wider context, in particular the ongoing settlements and the military suppression of the Gaza and West Bank regions (which I said early on I believe rises to the level of a war crime).

But I also recognise that trying to simplify this situation to "My side good, their side bad" isn't useful and, if anything, is counter productive. A large part of the reason that this situation has persisted for as long as it has is that both sides have been engaging in exactly this kind of thinking and both sides have their counters ready. If this is going to end it's going to require both sides to call out their own failures as loudly as they call out each others. It's going to require the Israeli people to reject the "Ultra Zionist" (not the correct term but I don't have a better one) view that requires them to remove all non Jews from the region and it's going to require Palestinians and the wider Arab community to condemn the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk. Until both sides are ready to look in the mirror this will go on.

[TysonLPrice]

My point wasn't so much to bring in ancient history but rather to highlight that both groups have historical claims to the region and that their current claims are based on European colonialism. Prior to WW1 the entire region was subsumed into the Ottoman Empire and neither Israel or Palestine existed as Nations. You can't really argue that Israel displaced Palestine without acknowledging that the peoples of both were already present in the region and have been continuously for centuries.

As for the Nakba, yeah, I'm aware and I don't want to appear to justify it (believe me, I really, really don't!). But you do have to view it in it's context, which is that both groups (and Christians too, for that matter) have been alternately living in peace and trying to exterminate each other for centuries. The Nakba actually has several definitions, depending on who you talk to, but probably the most widely accepted is the Zionist incursions into British mandated Palestine and succeeded the Arab uprisings of 36 to 39 and increasing anti Jewish sentiments amongst the Arabs from the Balfour Declaration onwards. There's always a predicate in this region. You can also view it as going right back to the 19th century when neither state existed and you can view it as either finished in 48 or ongoing today.

My point is simply that any condemnation that's raised has a readily available corollary because both sides are neck deep in bloody power struggles.


For context, I did say upthread and should repeat that I've been pro Palestine for for roughly 30 years and that hasn't changed. I wouldn't say I'm an activist any more but I certainly was in the 90s and I have attended several of the recent Pro Palestine marches (I've attended a couple of the Pro Israel one too but there's a lot fewer of them). I don't want to let Netanyahu's regime off the hook for the recent actions in Gaza. Neither do I want to actions of the Israeli state in a wider context, in particular the ongoing settlements and the military suppression of the Gaza and West Bank regions (which I said early on I believe rises to the level of a war crime).

But I also recognise that trying to simplify this situation to "My side good, their side bad" isn't useful and, if anything, is counter productive. A large part of the reason that this situation has persisted for as long as it has is that both sides have been engaging in exactly this kind of thinking and both sides have their counters ready. If this is going to end it's going to require both sides to call out their own failures as loudly as they call out each others. It's going to require the Israeli people to reject the "Ultra Zionist" (not the correct term but I don't have a better one) view that requires them to remove all non Jews from the region and it's going to require Palestinians and the wider Arab community to condemn the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk. Until both sides are ready to look in the mirror this will go on.

I think I see your point and I have made broad sweeping claims regarding something that has been going on a while. As usual it takes two sides, or more, in a conflict. If you ask me who is wearing the black hat at the moment, it is Israel.

As a side note FOX News, and I use News lightly, latest push is to divide America along the lines of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. The are doing their best to foment division and hate. Just like they do with Immigration, masking, Trump versus Biden, homelessness, wokeness, CRT and what ever the flavor of the day is.

[FunkyDexter]

If you ask me who is wearing the black hat at the moment, it is Israel.

I'm with you there, although I'd perhaps describe it as "slate grey". My sympathy definitely leans a lot more toward the Palestinian cause than the Israeli. It wavered in the wake of Oct 7th but Netanyahu has shoved it all the way back again.

As a side note FOX News, and I use News lightly, latest push is to divide America along the lines of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine

Yeah, there's a lot of that over here as well. Our TV media isn't as polarised as yours but our print media (and it's on line presence) certainly is.

[wes4dbt]

There's always a predicate in this region. You can also view it as going right back to the 19th century when neither state existed and you can view it as either finished in 48 or ongoing today.

This is very common throughout the world. Just depends how far back you want to go. There is still plenty of other current conflicts going on base on this type of reasoning. But this conflict just continues, most come to an end.

But I do feel as long as Israel has no fear because of the support it's given, they'll continue to push their expansion agenda. I don't see any meaningful negotiations happening. Just more years of the same.

[FunkyDexter]

as long as Israel has no fear because of the support it's given, they'll continue to push their expansion agenda

You're probably right. I think Israel 50 years ago couldn't have continued to exist without Western backing as its neighbours would have wiped it out but I'm not sure that continues to be true. Recent events seem to show that it's neighbours aren't really interested in that any more. Mind you, I'd hate to cut off the aid and then find out I was wrong about that. It feels like perhaps the funding should be steadily reduced going forward rather than simply cut off. (This is putting aside the effects of using it as diplomatic pressure).

[TysonLPrice]

Along the lines of FOX news fomenting division over Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian, there is another twist now. It is very well known a large part pf the republican base are FOX viewers and they pay close attention to that network. FOX has been going full steam against the protests on college campuses, pitting sides against each other, blaming Biden, and calling for the College Presidents to resign.

Well, a group of them are going to Columbia University today to do more of the same. Mike Johnson is leading them. Anything for a headline...

Edit:

I have to correct myself a bit...the protests are expanding. Reminds me of the sixties.

If you are interested here is one account:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...gaza-protests/

[FunkyDexter]

The Pro Palestine protests over here have been... nuanced. The overwhelming majority of people attending have been great and there have actually been a load of Jews in attendance. It's been great. But there is a small hard core of really nasty anti-Semites attached to the Pro Palestinian movement who can be really aggressive and it doesn't feel like they're getting dealt with properly. I appreciate it's often worse to police it in the moment but the police should be able to identify these individuals and should be following up with fines and deterrents.

Mind you, if I don't like the guys mentioned above, the sight of the likes of Tommy Robinson and the EDF suddenly turning up at Pro Israel marches was particularly grotesque. They've spent years demonising Jews and suddenly they feel the need to "defend the peaceful Jewish Protestors from the evil Muslims". Kiss my arse! They just think that Jews are slightly less brown than Muslims.

[TysonLPrice]

I don't think it went quite the way Mike Johnson planned:

“I am here today joining my colleagues and calling on President Shafik to resign if she could not immediately bring order to this chaos,” Johnson said. “As speaker of the House, I’m committed today that the Congress will not be silent as Jewish students are expected to run for their lives and stay home from their classes hiding in fear.”

A crowd of students, swelling as Johnson and his colleagues began speaking, intermittently laughed and yelled that they couldn’t hear the congressman or his colleagues. The students booed the speaker, chanted in support of Palestine, including “Free Palestine,” “Stop the genocide” and “From the river to the sea,” a phrase that some say constitutes antisemitic speech.

“Get off our campus!” one student yelled. “Go back to Louisiana, Mike!” someone shouted.

“Enjoy your free speech,” Johnson rejoined, sounding uncharacteristically irritated.

As Johnson wrapped up, the students renewed their boos and began to chant, “Mike, you suck!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...gaza-protests/

This reminds me a lot of the Sixties.

[FunkyDexter]

Oh that sounds like it went exactly the way he planned. Never pass up a chance to play the victim.

[TysonLPrice]

Oh that sounds like it went exactly the way he planned. Never pass up a chance to play the victim.

If you watched you could tell that it was nothing like he wanted. He got angry and the other representatives were just squirming. Nobody cold hear what he was saying because of "weak" microphones and the jeering. Trump has turned victimhood into an art. Mike Johnson is just not as openly sleazy as Trump.

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah, I've seen the footage since and he definitely wasn't enjoying it. I can't believe they weren't expecting that response though

[TysonLPrice]

Yeah, I've seen the footage since and he definitely wasn't enjoying it. I can't believe they weren't expecting that response though

I don't think you are that tuned to US polictical nuances, and I wouldn't expect that. They stepped outside their FOX news echo chamber and got a taste of what people think.

[FunkyDexter]

They stepped outside their FOX news echo chamber

Don't get me wrong, I know the average Joe Blows tend to live in echo chambers but the Speaker of the House? Even if he personally lives in an echo chamber, he's surrounded by a coterie of staff who's job is to stay on top of the political mood.

[TysonLPrice]

Don't get me wrong, I know the average Joe Blows tend to live in echo chambers but the Speaker of the House? Even if he personally lives in an echo chamber, he's surrounded by a coterie of staff who's job is to stay on top of the political mood.

And I have to say again "I don't think you are that tuned to US polictical nuances, and I wouldn't expect that.". I'm not being snarky...

Ron Johnson is on the very far right, although he has been forced into the center lately. He was one of the chief supporters of Trump's attempt to usurp the election. The "coterie of staff who's job is to stay on top of the political mood" consists lately of Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green. On several occasions lately it is obvious Trump is dictating policy. Now I will give you Trump is on top of the mood to close to half of the people. Trump is the one really running the republican party now.

But I guess you are right about him not living in an echo chamber, he reports directly to Trump. He was just down in Florida kissing Trump's ring a few weeks ago. Trump got Green to back off the attempt to oust him.

[wes4dbt]

Israel's cabinet voted to shut down Al Jazeera. Never a good sign when a government takes such strong measures to control the news.

Hope the new peace talks accomplish something positive.

[TysonLPrice]

Israel's cabinet voted to shut down Al Jazeera. Never a good sign when a government takes such strong measures to control the news.

Hope the new peace talks accomplish something positive.

Israel's cabinet voted to shut down Al Jazeera. Never a good sign when a government takes such strong measures to control the news.

Hope the new peace talks accomplish something positive.

My daily news tab is:

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/
https://www.spiegel.de/international/
https://www.bbc.com/news
https://www.npr.org/sections/news/
https://news.google.com/home?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en
https://www.theguardian.com/us
https://www.washingtonpost.com/

And:

https://www.aljazeera.com/

I find it as "fair and balanced" as the others.

[wes4dbt]

Well, Israel's cabinet doesn't have any control over those news outlets. They'd shut them down if they could.

[TysonLPrice]

Well, Israel's cabinet doesn't have any control over those news outlets. They'd shut them down if they could.

I think the reason is Aljazeera has people on the ground. I don't think Israel allows the others in unrestricted.

[wes4dbt]

Another "mistake" by the Israeli military. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/27/nx-s1...irstrike-hamas

Other than the usual "shame on you" I really don't think Israel will be held accountable or even what that would look like. I feel bad for the people in Gaza. Even the floating pier is having trouble.

Justifying killing all these innocents by claiming they are going to irradicate Hamas is an absurdity. I'd be interested to know what percentage of the Israeli people support this tactic. Obviously a lot, there hasn't been any recent major push back against it from the people. Some protests but definitely not major.

Radical Israeli settlers have expanded their attacks on aid trucks passing through the West Bank this month, blocking food from reaching Gaza as humanitarian groups warn that the enclave is sinking deeper into famine.

Groups of settler youth are tailing relief convoys, setting up checkpoints and interrogating drivers. In some cases, far-right attackers have ransacked and burned trucks and beaten Palestinian drivers, leaving at least two hospitalized.

I realize this doesn't represent the majority. But it does show the anger and hatred your dealing with. This region really does show that "an eye for an eye" leaves you with two blind people.

[sapator]

As you can see I'm not writing much about and keep my distance but it amazes me that some people just woke up on what is happening in the region on both sides. I wouldn't go so much to think what will Hamas would have done if they are given the weapons that Israel possess nor if Israel would gladly nuke them if other countries "allowed" it but what is happening in the region is not this year surprise. Also this is all a farce on US side as Israel got a lot of them by the balls now and ever and ever and ever so they tend to look the other way.... Or Biden is taken any real measures against Israel that I'm not aware off?... I said Biden...Apologies, the deep state that does not exist.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The politics in the US on this subject are certainly convoluted, and changing. When the alignments change in the US is when things start getting confused. There isn't any deep state to this, it's actually quite shallow. Everybody is trying to figure out whether they get more votes than they lose by taking any particular position. Since support for Israel doesn't break along typical left/right divides, neither side is quite clear what to do.

[sapator]

Correct.
When the deep state decides it will alert Biden to move along.
The situation is that US is on Israel side , Israel starts acting crazy, US get embarrassed, the deep state does not give a donkeys frigidaire about lost lives, hence, no blanket, they push Biden to state that he maybe someday whatever stop weapon provision on Israel if they behave, they will not but still, no blanket.

[TysonLPrice]

I know that "Deep Throat" was real. There are two examples off the top of my head:

1. A 1972 landmark American pornographic film:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(film)

2. The move "All the President's Men" had the character "Deep Throat" who said "Follow the money".

And trying to beat SH to the pun: No one will "swallow" that post.

[Elroy]

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.

[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.

[TysonLPrice]

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

[FunkyDexter]

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.

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)

[wes4dbt]

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.

[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.

[wes4dbt]

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.

[FunkyDexter]

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.

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.

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.