Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2024, 01:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: It "started" a long time ago.  You just don't want to admit it.  

And it hasn't progressed.  A start is only a start if it is followed by progress.  Only posting about protests when a white frat guy makes monkey noises is not that.

Quote:Oh, darling.  If a group is marching peacefully and another, different group starts throwing rocks which group is responsible?  Think hard.

In my world the second group may say they want the same thing as the first group but their approach is reprehensible and should not reflect on the first group being peaceful. Unless of course that vandalism and violence is supported or cheered on by the 1st group.

Bless your heart.  If the first group then does not distance themselves from the rock throwers, both in word and deed, then you have chosen to be associated with them.  This act of terrorism occurred days ago.  Have either of those things happened since?  I've made this exact point several times, yet you seem to be unable to grasp it.  Where is the condemnation?  Where is the complete repudiation of the violent rhetoric and deeds?  If anything your "peaceful" groups have been gravitating the opposite direction.

Quote:Crushed by an Israeli bulldozer that was destroying homes in the Gaza strip is more than unfortunate.  It also shows how this has been going on for years.  I wonder why Palestinians would want to be free of that?

No need to wonder.  Electing genocidal maniacs to lead you seems to have been a poor choice to effect that change, no?

[Dill]

(05-07-2024, 01:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bless your heart.  If the first group then does not distance themselves from the rock throwers, both in word and deed, then you have chosen to be associated with them.  This act of terrorism occurred days ago.  Have either of those things happened since?  I've made this exact point several times, yet you seem to be unable to grasp it.  Where is the condemnation?  Where is the complete repudiation of the violent rhetoric and deeds?  If anything your "peaceful" groups have been gravitating the opposite direction.

That bit of black and white, either/or thinking tops even your claim that acknowledging IDF war crimes mitigates Hamas 
(wear blinders or "support terrorism").

As far as just free-associating connections between actors, it's sillier than a claim Dino received funds from an NGO that Soros contributed to in 2020. Criminal acts occur all over the US and the world and no one unassociated with the actors, especially if they are unknown, is "choosing" to associate them by refusing to make sure everyone hears him braying "condemnation"!

And it's a rather limited understanding of the complex history and politics involved here to always immediately respond to some group's action with selective and repetitive demands for "condemnation" and "repudiation," 

   and then to shift discussion--and criminal association--to "predictable" forum members who won't condemn as fast, often and loudly as you want them to--usually because they are still acquiring information and assessing what has happened.

(05-07-2024, 01:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No need to wonder.  Electing genocidal maniacs to lead you seems to have been a poor choice to effect that change, no?

Actually your time line is a bit off here. 

The genocidal maniacs only got their shot AFTER Sharon and Netanyahu tanked the peace talks and increased settlements. Voting for the peace option weakened the PA and strengthened Israel.

The maniacs have focused international attention and pressure back on the peace option. 

Which you'd likely know if you took a little time off from selective condemnation to maybe read a book on that recent history.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2024, 06:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I looked at all those signs.  They must spell "support hamas" differently that the rest of the world.

(05-07-2024, 03:39 PM)Dill Wrote: That bit of black and white, either/or thinking tops even your claim that acknowledging IDF war crimes mitigates Hamas 
(wear blinders or "support terrorism").

As far as just free-associating connections between actors, it's sillier than a claim Dino received funds from an NGO that Soros contributed to in 2020. Criminal acts occur all over the US and the world and no one unassociated with the actors, especially if they are unknown, is "choosing" to associate them by refusing to make sure everyone hears him braying "condemnation"!

And it's a rather limited understanding of the complex history and politics involved here to always immediately respond to some group's action with selective and repetitive demands for "condemnation" and "repudiation," 

   and then to shift discussion--and criminal association--to "predictable" forum members who won't condemn as fast, often and loudly as you want them to--usually because they are still acquiring information and assessing what has happened.


Actually your time line is a bit off here. 

The genocidal maniacs only got their shot AFTER Sharon and Netanyahu tanked the peace talks and increased settlements. Voting for the peace option weakened the PA and strengthened Israel.

The maniacs have focused international attention and pressure back on the peace option. 

Which you'd likely know if you took a little time off from selective condemnation to maybe read a book on that recent history.

Wow, dude.  I'm speechless.  There's literally no way I can attempt to argue with the solid, fact based, not at all a borderline hysterical screed I just read.  Sincerely, well done.

I guess there was no need to wait to acquire information and assess when it was a story about a counter protestor though?  Damn, I just contradicted myself!

[Dill]

(05-07-2024, 05:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wow, dude.  I'm speechless.  There's literally no way I can attempt to argue with the solid, fact based, not at all a borderline hysterical screed I just read.  Sincerely, well done.

I guess there was no need to wait to acquire information and assess when it was a story about a counter protestor though?  Damn, I just contradicted myself!

You could certainly "attempt to argue" if you knew how, though then you'd see the risk.

E.g., you could dispute the factual record, demonstrate that you do NOT demand that people condemn groups you've targeted, and then do NOT accuse them of actually supporting said groups if they don't condemn to your satisfaction.  If you are having trouble remembering examples, I can help. In support of that you can explain why repetitive, selective condemnation is a better response to war and protest than the kind of evaluation that follows rather than precedes description and analysis. 

Or dispute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu destroyed Oslo, making Hamas a valid option for many Palestinians. A bit more nuance in that option, and more targets of condemnation than just Hamas. Simpler if you just stay away from the history.  Make every thread a long series of selective condemnation.

Then there is the logical solecism. Explain why Dino, or anyone, necessarily "chooses" to associate with a group if he doesn't condemn it right away, instead of just claiming that absence of immediate and loud condemnations creates it.   Whyever should that be?  Then explain why that rule, like so many of yours, doesn't apply to you. If you are "speechless," then it's just another of your impressions. 

In terms of logical structure, how is Dino's asserted "choice" not simply an inversion of your claim that in condemning IDF war crimes one chooses to "support Hamas"?  It's the same logical fallacy in each case. In one version failure to condemn creates "association," in the other, actual condemnation.
 
So you could very well "argue" with what I've said. Or you could just pretend refutation is unnecessary. Again. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2024, 07:11 PM)Dill Wrote: You could certainly "attempt to argue" if you knew how, though then you'd see the risk.

E.g., you could dispute the factual record, demonstrate that you do NOT demand that people condemn groups you've targeted, and then do NOT accuse them of actually supporting said groups if they don't condemn to your satisfaction.  If you are having trouble remembering examples, I can help. In support of that you can explain why repetitive, selective condemnation is a better response to war and protest than the kind of evaluation that follows rather than precedes description and analysis. 

Or dispute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu destroyed Oslo, making Hamas a valid option for many Palestinians. A bit more nuance in that option, and more targets of condemnation than just Hamas. Simpler if you just stay away from the history.  Make every thread a long series of selective condemnation.

Then there is the logical solecism. Explain why Dino, or anyone, necessarily "chooses" to associate with a group if he doesn't condemn it right away, instead of just claiming that absence of immediate and loud condemnations creates it.   Whyever should that be?  Then explain why that rule, like so many of yours, doesn't apply to you. If you are "speechless," then it's just another of your impressions. 

In terms of logical structure, how is Dino's asserted "choice" not simply an inversion of your claim that in condemning IDF war crimes one chooses to "support Hamas"?  It's the same logical fallacy in each case. In one version failure to condemn creates "association," in the other, actual condemnation.
 
So you could very well "argue" with what I've said. Or you could just pretend refutation is unnecessary. Again. 

Not surprisingly, given your posting history and heavily biased position on Israel, your description of why the Oslo Accords fell apart is rather at odds with the record.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo

Oslo’s Collapse, 1996–2000


In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli who opposed the Oslo Accords on religious grounds. Rabin’s murder was followed by a string of terrorist attacks by Hamas, which undermined support for the Labor Party in Israel’s May 1996 elections. New Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hailed from the Likud Party, which had historically opposed Palestinian statehood and withdrawal from the occupied territories.


No blame for Hamas?  Shocking for you, just shocking.

In Israel’s May 1999 elections, the Labor Party’s Ehud Barak decisively defeated Netanyahu. Barak predicted that he could reach agreements with both Syria and the Palestinians in 12 to 15 months, and pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. In September, Barak signed the Sharm al-Shaykh Memorandum with Arafat, which committed both sides to begin permanent status negotiations. An initial round of meetings, however, achieved nothing, and by December the Palestinians suspended talks over settlement-building in the occupied territories.

Barak then withdrew Israeli forces unilaterally from Lebanon and returned to the Palestinian track. At the prime minister’s insistence, Clinton convened a summit at Camp David in July 2000, where he, Barak, and Arafat attempted to reach a final agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Accounts differ as to why Camp David failed, but it is clear that despite additional concessions by Barak, the Israelis and Palestinians remained strongly at odds over borders, Jerusalem, and whether Israel would recognize Palestinian refugees’ “right of return.” The summit ended without a settlement; Clinton would blame Arafat for its failure.


The kindest interpretation of the above is that both sides were responsible for the collapse of Oslo.  The opinion of Bill Clinton, who you may have heard is a prominent Democrat, was that Arafat was the cause.

You literally couldn't be objective on Israel if you tried.  It makes one wonder why.

[GMDino]

(05-07-2024, 07:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not surprisingly, given your posting history and heavily biased position on Israel, your description of why the Oslo Accords fell apart is rather at odds with the record.


You literally couldn't be objective on Israel if you tried.  It makes one wonder why.

One does not have to hate Israel or love Hamas to find a way to blame either side at different points in the long history of this.

But one can say that the folks who insists that there is only one view and one side that is right *might* be a bit biased themselves.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2024, 08:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: One does not have to hate Israel or love Hamas to find a way to blame either side at different points in the long history of this.

I completely agree.  It's interesting that you only call me out for this supposedly one sided view.  For me it's rather simple.  Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Israel is a democratic nation.  You're going to have to supply some pretty compelling evidence for me to view them as equally culpable actors.  This has yet to be done.

Quote:But one can say that the folks who insists that there is only one view and one side that is right *might* be a bit biased themselves.

Odd, as I have made several posts about Israel handling things badly.  Again, your concern about one sidededness seems very... one sided.

[Dill]

(05-07-2024, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  It's interesting that you only call me out for this supposedly one sided view.  For me it's rather simple.  Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Israel is a democratic nation.  You're going to have to supply some pretty compelling evidence for me to view them as equally culpable actors.  This has yet to be done.

Israel is drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians off their land and still denies them citizenship.
Many of those Palestinians don't want to let Israel "chill" to enjoy the fruits of that violent theft. 

If you've simplified that into "Israel democracy/Hamas terrorist" then you've announced that it's not about "compelling evidence." 

Why do you suppose "viewing them as equally culpable actors" is my or anyone's goal? 

Why should not social-scientific analysis aimed at determining causes and effects, for basis of sound policy and solutions, be the goal? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2024, 09:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Israel is drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians off their land and still denies them citizenship.
Many of those Palestinians don't want to let Israel "chill" to enjoy the fruits of that violent theft.

Yes.  They started multiple wars of aggression and got their ass kicked every time.  I'm sure there are many Germans who'd like their land in East Prussia back.  I'm sure some would like the city of Danzig back.  Actions have consequences.

Quote:If you've simplified that into "Israel democracy/Hamas terrorist" then you've announced that it's not about "compelling evidence." 

Why do you suppose "viewing them as equally culpable actors" is my or anyone's goal?

Because I read your posts. 

Quote:Why should not social-scientific analysis aimed at determining causes and effects, for basis of sound policy and solutions, be the goal? 

If that was your goal this would be an amazingly different thread.  Just within the last few post you posited a false narrative on the Oslo Accords.  You're not interested in a fair discussion on this issue, and you never have been.  Your disdain for Israel oozes from every post, not just in this thread, but every thread on the subject over the years.  Literally a month before Hamas started the current war we had yet another, similar, back and forth on this topic.

You're not the objective sage you believe yourself to be and no one thinks you are outside of your sycophantic, never disagree with each other on a single topic, circle.  

[Dill]

(05-07-2024, 07:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not surprisingly, given your posting history and heavily biased position on Israel, your description of why the Oslo Accords fell apart is rather at odds with the record.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Oslo’s Collapse, 1996–2000
In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli who opposed the Oslo Accords on religious grounds. Rabin’s murder was followed by a string of terrorist attacks by Hamas, which undermined support for the Labor Party in Israel’s May 1996 elections. New Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hailed from the Likud Party, which had historically opposed Palestinian statehood and withdrawal from the occupied territories.
No blame for Hamas?  Shocking for you, just shocking.

In Israel’s May 1999 elections, the Labor Party’s Ehud Barak decisively defeated Netanyahu. Barak predicted that he could reach agreements with both Syria and the Palestinians in 12 to 15 months, and pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. In September, Barak signed the Sharm al-Shaykh Memorandum with Arafat, which committed both sides to begin permanent status negotiations. An initial round of meetings, however, achieved nothing, and by December the Palestinians suspended talks over settlement-building in the occupied territories.
Barak then withdrew Israeli forces unilaterally from Lebanon and returned to the Palestinian track. At the prime minister’s insistence, Clinton convened a summit at Camp David in July 2000, where he, Barak, and Arafat attempted to reach a final agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Accounts differ as to why Camp David failed, but it is clear that despite additional concessions by Barak, the Israelis and Palestinians remained strongly at odds over borders, Jerusalem, and whether Israel would recognize Palestinian refugees’ “right of return.” The summit ended without a settlement; Clinton would blame Arafat for its failure.

The kindest interpretation of the above is that both sides were responsible for the collapse of Oslo.  The opinion of Bill Clinton, who you may have heard is a prominent Democrat, was that Arafat was the cause.
You literally couldn't be objective on Israel if you tried.  It makes one wonder why.

You are offering me the very general assessment of an anonymous Clinton White House historian, one which apparently was not maintained/revised after 2000, since it makes no mention of which features of Oslo remained in place nor how the peace process continued after the Second Intifada, limping along for another 15 years, producing at least one more agreement between Israel and the PA, the 2005 Agreement on Movement an Access.  

Your source does not reflect the consensus of most Israeli, European, and US PROEFSSIONAL historians at the moment. I can establish that, if you are interested.

Nor does it reflect the historical record, as currently understood. The first bolded offers the primary clue as to why your WH assessment was already outdated, or steadfastly myopic. 

Absent from this also are the devilish details, which were available in 2000, like 

1) the massive imbalance of power between the sides, 
2) the causes of the "string of terror attacks" which supposedly undermined Labour elections, and 
3) the details of Barak's "concessions" and Arafat's grounds for rejection.

Finally, this does not refute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu tanked the peace process. To understand what happened, you need to set aside the rush to blame for a moment and understand, first, what was/is at stake for each side in the Oslo in the first five "permanent status" issues. And then how each side exercised what power it had during and after the five year implementation phase in a progression of verifiable causes and effects. Only then does the arc of failure and its primary causes become clear. 

[Dill]

(05-07-2024, 09:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Israel is drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians off their land and still denies them citizenship.
Many of those Palestinians don't want to let Israel "chill" to enjoy the fruits of that violent theft.

They started multiple wars of aggression and got their ass kicked every time.  I'm sure there are many Germans who'd like their land in East Prussia back.  I'm sure some would like the city of Danzig back.  Actions have consequences..  

Palestinians were violently displaced by hundreds of thousands of European and Russian Jews who traveled to Palestine
to take the land of those already living there by violence. 

But the "war of aggression" only begins AFTER that?  That's an incredible double standard.

What were the "actions" for which loss of East Prussia was a "consequence"? 
We've only got an analogy here if the Germans get to keep the land they took by violence. 

(05-07-2024, 09:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you've simplified that into "Israel democracy/Hamas terrorist" then you've announced that it's not about "compelling evidence." 
Why do you suppose "viewing them as equally culpable actors" is my or anyone's goal?

Because I read your posts.  

So, a non answer. 

(05-07-2024, 09:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Why should not social-scientific analysis aimed at determining causes and effects, for basis of sound policy and solutions, be the goal? 

If that was your goal this would be an amazingly different thread.  Just within the last few post you posited a false narrative on the Oslo Accords.  You're not interested in a fair discussion on this issue, and you never have been.  Your disdain for Israel oozes from every post, not just in this thread, but every thread on the subject over the years.  Literally a month before Hamas started the current war we had yet another, similar, back and forth on this topic.

You're not the objective sage you believe yourself to be and no one thinks you are outside of your sycophantic, never disagree with each other on a single topic, circle.  

I'm trying to see if there is an argument here that doesn't rely on adjectives. 

As noted in my last post, I've not posited a "false narrative on the Oslo Accords."  You just jumped on the first account that fit your conclusion and called THAT the historical record.  And a month before Hamas started the current war, you were repeating your simplified claim about "aggressors" in the face of contravening evidence from how many Israeli historians? Three? I'd have to go back and check.

"Your disdain for Israel oozes from every post" seems rather a subjective impression. A closer look reveals my posts ooze with information that you don't like and don't wish discussed--hence the highly subjective reaction--but which is critical to understanding the factual and legal issues raised by the current war and US support. Many of them are very careful, fact based expositions and anlyses. NOT a lot of adjectives, reactive quips, condemnation and telling everyone what is "really" going on in other people's heads. Yet you've peremptorily dismissed those posts.  And called me a lying supporter of terrorism. That doesn't indicate interest in "fair discussion."  

I don't see how you've added to the common store of knowledge or furthered understanding by constantly demanding everyone condemn Hamas and give Israel a pass. All our debates turn quickly into me arguing for standards of accuracy and logical consistency, and you dogmatically repeating refuted arguments and calling me names--all the things I don't do. 

And now you just know that I, who never use the term "objective," holding it for an impossible and improper ideal of historical analysis which historians moved past back in the 30s and 40s, suddenly believe I'm an "objective sage."  But everyone else can see through my disguise. I'm sorry but that just seems a very private and paranoic take, veering far from any possible verification, even outside my "sycophantic circle."  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-07-2024, 10:10 PM)Dill Wrote: You are offering me the very general assessment of an anonymous Clinton White House historian, one which apparently was not maintained/revised after 2000, since it makes no mention of which features of Oslo remained in place nor how the peace process continued after the Second Intifada, limping along for another 15 years, producing at least one more agreement between Israel and the PA, the 2005 Agreement on Movement an Access.  

Your source does not reflect the consensus of most Israeli, European, and US PROEFSSIONAL historians at the moment. I can establish that, if you are interested.

Nor does it reflect the historical record, as currently understood. The first bolded offers the primary clue as to why your WH assessment was already outdated, or steadfastly myopic. 

Absent from this also are the devilish details, which were available in 2000, like 

1) the massive imbalance of power between the sides, 
2) the causes of the "string of terror attacks" which supposedly undermined Labour elections, and 
3) the details of Barak's "concessions" and Arafat's grounds for rejection.

Finally, this does not refute my claim that Sharon and Netanyahu tanked the peace process. To understand what happened, you need to set aside the rush to blame for a moment and understand, first, what was/is at stake for each side in the Oslo in the first five "permanent status" issues. And then how each side exercised what power it had during and after the five year implementation phase in a progression of verifiable causes and effects. Only then does the arc of failure and its primary causes become clear. 

That's a lot of words to say "I don't like your source."  You'll have to take it up with the US government.  You know, that entity that you quote when it suits you and disregard when it suits you.

(05-07-2024, 11:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Palestinians were violently displaced by hundreds of thousands of European and Russian Jews who traveled to Palestine
to take the land of those already living there by violence.

You talking about United Nations Resolution 181?  So now you're using the United Nations as a source, but only when it agrees with you as well.  You're double standards are incredibly one sided.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

Quote:But the "war of aggression" only begins AFTER that?  That's an incredible double standard.

Yup. As illustrated in the above source.

Quote:What were the "actions" for which loss of East Prussia was a "consequence"? 
We've only got an analogy here if the Germans get to keep the land they took by violence. 

No, we don't.  The analogy works perfectly as the Arab nations were the aggressors and got their asses kicked, hence losing territory, exactly as it occurred to Germany.

Quote:So, a non answer. 

It's a cogent answer to anyone who's read your posts.

Quote:I'm trying to see if there is an argument here that doesn't rely on adjectives. 

As noted in my last post, I've not posited a "false narrative on the Oslo Accords."  You just jumped on the first account that fit your conclusion and called THAT the historical record.  And a month before Hamas started the current war, you were repeating your simplified claim about "aggressors" in the face of contravening evidence from how many Israeli historians? Three? I'd have to go back and check.

You spelled the official record of the United States Office of the Historian wrong.

Quote:"Your disdain for Israel oozes from every post" seems rather a subjective impression. A closer look reveals my posts ooze with information that you don't like and don't wish discussed--hence the highly subjective reaction--but which is critical to understanding the factual and legal issues raised by the current war and US support. Many of them are very careful, fact based expositions and anlyses. NOT a lot of adjectives, reactive quips, condemnation and telling everyone what is "really" going on in other people's heads. Yet you've peremptorily dismissed those posts.  And called me a lying supporter of terrorism. That doesn't indicate interest in "fair discussion."  

Well, you have lied in this thread, and you consistently mitigate the actions of terrorists.  Seems you've earned both rather fairly.

Quote:I don't see how you've added to the common store of knowledge or furthered understanding by constantly demanding everyone condemn Hamas and give Israel a pass. All our debates turn quickly into me arguing for standards of accuracy and logical consistency, and you dogmatically repeating refuted arguments and calling me names--all the things I don't do. 

Is consistently making excuses for Hamas and condemning Israel in nearly every post expanding on anyone's knowledge?  Again, you're not a sage, you're a pontificator with an agenda.

Quote:And now you just know that I, who never use the term "objective," holding it for an impossible and improper ideal of historical analysis which historians moved past back in the 30s and 40s, suddenly believe I'm an "objective sage."  But everyone else can see through my disguise. I'm sorry but that just seems a very private and paranoic take, veering far from any possible verification, even outside my "sycophantic circle."  

Like I said, pontificating.  I'm going to move on to posting more news about Hamas atrocities and pro-Hamas demonstrations in the west if you don't mind.  Someone's got to counter balance you.

[GMDino]

(05-07-2024, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  It's interesting that you only call me out for this supposedly one sided view.  For me it's rather simple.  Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Israel is a democratic nation.  You're going to have to supply some pretty compelling evidence for me to view them as equally culpable actors.  This has yet to be done.




Odd, as I have made several posts about Israel handling things badly.  Again, your concern about one sidededness seems very... one sided.

Well, you are the one who claims everyone ELSE is biased and one sided when you are one of the worst on this subject.  That is why I "called you out" for saying it.

You then did it again about me.

You willfully ignore any and all evidence to the contrary to continue your narrative that Dill is an antisemite and I "never" post about Hamas being bad.  Unless I did.  Then it wasn't enough for you.

So pot, meet kettle.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2024, 12:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, we don't.  The analogy works perfectly as the Arab nations were the aggressors and got their asses kicked, hence losing territory, exactly as it occurred to Germany.

I would disagree. Arab nations were aiding Palestinians who were defending their land, which is not comparable to what we saw with Germany in either of the world wars. Let me draw you a comparison using real places but a fictional circumstance.

Say the Gabrieleno people start buying up land in your area to establish a tribal territory. There is resistance to this by the people living in the area but it is put down, often violently, by the US government and a militia of the Gabrieleno. Several years later, the US government declares that the land once belonging to the Gabrieleno people will once again be under their governance. The governor of California resists this as the area is home to many Californians and includes the coastline from Santa Monica to Capistrano and inland as far as San Bernadino, so includes Burbank, Glendale, and of course LA. There is armed resistance from within (we all know some of these areas have plenty of firearms that are illegal by CA standards) that is violently retaliated against by the Gabrieleno who are backed by the US military. The governors of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, all in a stunning show of solidarity but united by federal overreach come to the aid of California but the US and Gabrieleno prevail, forcing about half of the Californians that were not of the Gabrieleno peoples in the area to flee their homes. There are many that settle in the San Fernando Valley area, but over the years the Gabrieleno have claimed this land as their own as well and because their numbers have grown as they welcome in more indigenous people from other tribes across North America that have been displaced, they start building settlement areas in that territory as well, using violent tactics to take land with no one stopping them other than saying "you shouldn't do that."

This is what has been going on in Israel/Palestine. The Gabrieleno are the Zionist settlers of the late 19th century and early 20th, the US is Great Britain, and the Californians living in the area previously the Palestinians.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2024, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would disagree. Arab nations were aiding Palestinians who were defending their land, which is not comparable to what we saw with Germany in either of the world wars. Let me draw you a comparison using real places but a fictional circumstance.

Say the Gabrieleno people start buying up land in your area to establish a tribal territory. There is resistance to this by the people living in the area but it is put down, often violently, by the US government and a militia of the Gabrieleno. Several years later, the US government declares that the land once belonging to the Gabrieleno people will once again be under their governance. The governor of California resists this as the area is home to many Californians and includes the coastline from Santa Monica to Capistrano and inland as far as San Bernadino, so includes Burbank, Glendale, and of course LA. There is armed resistance from within (we all know some of these areas have plenty of firearms that are illegal by CA standards) that is violently retaliated against by the Gabrieleno who are backed by the US military. The governors of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, all in a stunning show of solidarity but united by federal overreach come to the aid of California but the US and Gabrieleno prevail, forcing about half of the Californians that were not of the Gabrieleno peoples in the area to flee their homes. There are many that settle in the San Fernando Valley area, but over the years the Gabrieleno have claimed this land as their own as well and because their numbers have grown as they welcome in more indigenous people from other tribes across North America that have been displaced, they start building settlement areas in that territory as well, using violent tactics to take land with no one stopping them other than saying "you shouldn't do that."

This is what has been going on in Israel/Palestine. The Gabrieleno are the Zionist settlers of the late 19th century and early 20th, the US is Great Britain, and the Californians living in the area previously the Palestinians.

There's a rather important difference and it is underlined above.  The bought the territory, they didn't seize it.  If I buy land that you occupy you don't get to "resist" my ownership, at least not in any lawful society.  Where the analogy starts to work a bit is that land being declared part of a separate nation.  Oddly enough, you essentially described the majority of US territorial expansion.  Should we give all those lands back to the Native Americans?

The point being that the toothpaste is well out of the tube on this one.  We're dealing with a problem started by another country close to eighty years ago.  The biggest issue being that there is no compromise that will accommodate both sides now, it's become entrenched in religion and racism.  It may not have been when this started but it damned sure is now.  Even if you shrank Israel back to its 1948 borders this conflict would continue in exactly the same manner.

So, serious question, do you see any compromise that would be remotely accepted by either side that would actually end this conflict?  Let's say you have deific powers to impose a "solution" that cannot involve changing peoples way of thought.  What solution could you impose that would resolve this?

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2024, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a rather important difference and it is underlined above.  The bought the territory, they didn't seize it.  If I buy land that you occupy you don't get to "resist" my ownership, at least not in any lawful society.  Where the analogy starts to work a bit is that land being declared part of a separate nation.  Oddly enough, you essentially described the majority of US territorial expansion.  Should we give all those lands back to the Native Americans?

The point being that the toothpaste is well out of the tube on this one.  We're dealing with a problem started by another country close to eighty years ago.  The biggest issue being that there is no compromise that will accommodate both sides now, it's become entrenched in religion and racism.  It may not have been when this started but it damned sure is now.  Even if you shrank Israel back to its 1948 borders this conflict would continue in exactly the same manner.

So, serious question, do you see any compromise that would be remotely accepted by either side that would actually end this conflict?  Let's say you have deific powers to impose a "solution" that cannot involve changing peoples way of thought.  What solution could you impose that would resolve this?

Well, it's not a difference to the analogy because that is how the Zionist movement began in the 19th century. They started buying land in the area with the intention of establishing a Jewish state. Then, after WWII Britain just gave them the remainder. And I am aware that the analogy is very similar to US territorial expansion; why do you think almost all of the Native activists over here side with the Palestinian cause? They see what happened to them in those people.

I don't have an answer for a compromise; I truly don't. All I know is that right now there are thousands of innocent people dying and thousands more suffering because of choices made by people who have control over their fates and they have no way to escape it. War crimes are committed against them and they are left to starve because of it. I am just tired of messaging from nations, organizations, and people on this board that seem to lose sight of this. I have a great deal of empathy for the Palestinian people because I can understand why they would be upset with their displacement and abandonment in many ways by the global community.

We fought the "Indian Wars" for almost 300 years to quell the uprisings of the indigenous people on this continent. It will probably take even longer for this conflict given the record will be much more available.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2024, 12:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it's not a difference to the analogy because that is how the Zionist movement began in the 19th century. They started buying land in the area with the intention of establishing a Jewish state. Then, after WWII Britain just gave them the remainder. And I am aware that the analogy is very similar to US territorial expansion; why do you think almost all of the Native activists over here side with the Palestinian cause? They see what happened to them in those people.

I don't have an answer for a compromise; I truly don't. All I know is that right now there are thousands of innocent people dying and thousands more suffering because of choices made by people who have control over their fates and they have no way to escape it. War crimes are committed against them and they are left to starve because of it. I am just tired of messaging from nations, organizations, and people on this board that seem to lose sight of this. I have a great deal of empathy for the Palestinian people because I can understand why they would be upset with their displacement and abandonment in many ways by the global community.

We fought the "Indian Wars" for almost 300 years to quell the uprisings of the indigenous people on this continent. It will probably take even longer for this conflict given the record will be much more available.

You rather hit the nail on the head here.  There is no compromise available now.  The whole issue is inextricably enmeshed with religious extremism and outright racism.  And that goes for both sides.  I don't think you'll find a person on this board, or in many other places, who doesn't feel bad for children embroiled in a conflict they obviously had nothing to do with.  As I stated earlier, I have tremendous sympathy for the civilians of Germany and Japan in WW2.  The question is does that sympathy extend towards allowing continued governance of said people by an aggressive, and in this case terrorist, organization/government?  Do I think eliminating Hamas in Gaza will bring an end to the conflict?  Absolutely not, even if such a thing were 100% possible.  Do I think leaving them largely intact in Gaza would be worse in the long run?  Absolutely yes.

Anyone outside this conflict is essentially left with only one choice, which side do you throw your weight behind?  As you said, this is going to go on for some time, just like the Indian wars, and it will end the same way, with one side largely conquered and cowed.  The result won't be pretty either way.  For me, this is an easy decision, although not one decided lightly.  

[GMDino]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-carpet-bombs-rafah-after-hamas-accepts-ceasefire-proposal

Quote:Israel carpet bombs Rafah after Hamas accepts ceasefire proposal


Israeli military says it is conducting targeted strikes on Rafah after Netanyahu's office said Israel was pressing on with Rafah invasion
A billow of smoke rises over buildings after an Israeli strike in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, on 4 April 2024.

Smoke rises over buildings after an Israeli strike in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, on 4 April 2024 (Mohamed Abed/AFP)
By MEE staff

Published date: 6 May 2024 22:25 BST | Last update: 1 day 5 hours ago

Israel intensified its carpet-bombing campaign on Rafah on Monday night and accompanied the strikes with ground advances shortly after Hamas agreed to a US-mediated ceasefire proposal. 

The small town, home to some 1.5 million displaced Palestinians, was struck with air strikes and artillery shelling, according to Palestinian news outlets. Several people were reported killed and wounded. 

A Palestinian journalist reported flares in the night sky and local residents reported dozens of reconnaissance drones flying overhead.

The Wafa news agency and Egyptian media said Israeli military vehicles advanced towards the the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing with Egypt, as well as the Karam Abu Salem crossing with Israel. 

Middle East Eye could not be independently verify the reports.
 
The Israeli military announced it was conducting targeted strikes against Hamas in eastern Rafah.

The strikes on Rafah come after Hamas announced it accepted a ceasefire proposal from Qatar and Egypt. 

The proposal involves three phases, with the first phase calling for a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Netzarim corridor and the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes. The second phase involves an announcement of a permanent cessation of military operations. In the last phase, there would be a complete end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip. 

In exchange, Israel would be expected to release an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners, withdraw its troops from certain regions of the Gaza Strip, and allow Palestinians to travel from the south of the territory to the north.

While countries in the region, including Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, welcomed Hamas's acceptance of the proposal, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel was moving ahead with its invasion of Rafah.

The statement said the invasion of Rafah needed to take place "in order to apply military pressure on Hamas, with the goal of making progress on freeing the hostages and the other war aims".

Israel for months has said that it plans to invade Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip, where more than one million Palestinians have fled since the beginning of Israel's war on Gaza in October.

Displaced Palestinians have gathered in camps across Rafah
Drag the button to see the new camp sites

Israel has said the invasion would help complete its goal of eliminating Hamas, as Israel claims there are four Hamas battalions in the city.

The Biden administration had publicly been calling on Israel not to launch an assault on the city, raising concerns about Israel's ability to "evacuate" the area's civilian population.

Earlier on Monday, Israel ordered some 250,000 Palestinians to leave Rafah, as it began strking the eastern part of the border city.

Palestinians currently in Rafah told MEE that the people sheltering there were in a state of panic, and were concerned that they would not be safe even if they left, given their experiences in Gaza over the past seven months.

The UN's top human rights chief, Volker Turk, on Monday slammed what he called an "inhumane" Israeli order for Palestinians to leave Rafah, forcibly displacing them, and said the plan was “inconceivable”, warning an attack on the city would bring suffering in Gaza to“unbearable” levels.

"Gazans continue to be hit with bombs, disease, and even famine… Today, they have been told that they must relocate yet again as Israeli military operations into Rafah scale up," he said.

Aid groups have repeatedly warned that an attack on Rafah would not only be catastrophic for civilians in the area, but will also have a major impact on their ability to get food to northern Gaza where a "full-blown famine" is now underway, according to the World Food Programme.

The increased bombardment of Rafah also comes as a MEE report on Monday revealed that Egypt's military intelligence held meetings with Sinai tribes in recent weeks to discuss their potential role in the event of an Israeli invasion.

At those meetings, Egyptian intelligence officers said they estimated a Palestinian influx of between 50,000 and 250,000 people towards Sinai if Israel carried out a ground invasion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2024, 06:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I looked at all those signs.  They must spell "support hamas" differently that the rest of the world.

Someone doesn't know what carpet bombing means.  Also, is it not rather contradictory to say urging civilians to leave the area is and unacceptable "displacement" while at the same time pointing out that invading Rafah would likely result in heavy civilian casualties?

[Dill]

(05-08-2024, 12:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it's not a difference to the analogy because that is how the Zionist movement began in the 19th century. They started buying land in the area with the intention of establishing a Jewish state. Then, after WWII Britain just gave them the remainder. And I am aware that the analogy is very similar to US territorial expansion; why do you think almost all of the Native activists over here side with the Palestinian cause? They see what happened to them in those people.

Well, maybe by default. 

Jewish immigrants had bought up roughly 6% of the Mandate by '47, but the UN partition gave them a big chunk of Arab, public and other lands
in the Jewish partition. The Statistical Handbook of Jewish Palestine seems to be the authoritative source on this that everyone else uses.
https://www.palestineremembered.com/images/V2/Statistical-Handbook-of-Jewish-Palestine-1947-p-121.jpg

Palestinians didn't want to give up their homes, so getting the remainder, and the desired demographic imbalance, required violence and terror.
That's why your Native American analogy is apt and the Nazi analogy is not.

Most Americans are unaware of this history, however.

They believe Israel just formed a state on who knows what (empty land?) and then angry Arab nations attacked them--David vs Goliath--and
got their asses kicked. The history begins there, with these "aggressors," who won't make peace.