Israel - Hamas War X

[Fragile Bird]

Reporters from CNN are with IDF units by one of the hospitals and they say they will shortly be showing footage of the tunnels under the hospital . I haven’t heard them say which one.

[TrueMetis]

Alright, I'm back and I've calmed down a bit. So I'm just gonna say my final piece on ethnostates.

An ethnostate is inherently an apartheid state, it cannot be anything else. As it cannot ever allow another group to become an majority or the group at the centre of the enthostate to become just another plurality. To defend the idea that Israel isn't an apartheid state people often point out the 2 million Arabic Israelis who have, on paper, full citizenship. But what are the implications of that? Especially the fact that said Arabic Israelis have a higher birthrate than the Jewish majority. Well, Israel must be prepared to act to ensure Jews remain the ethnic majority. Whether that be through reducing the Arabic population, through death or forced removal, reducing the Arabic birth rate, or restricting their rights. That must always, forever, be hanging over the heads of Arabic Israeli. Sounds like a recipe for peace to me. /s

The objection to ending the ethnostate is of course the difficulty, both sides have groups that would do their damnedest to drive the other out, and yes it would be likely decades or work before this could come to fruition. I don't see why this is a particularly noteworthy objection, as the same remains true of a two ethnostate solution. It too would take decades to even get to the point of two states, it too would have groups from both sides attempting to continue to drive the other out, I linked an article interviewing a settler earlier that made the game plan clear.

And if somehow you manage to actually get to a point where there are two viable states, not one state and another de-facto tributary, then what do you have? India and Pakistan? Two countries that still hate each other and are in constant conflict? How is that in any real sense better than the current situation?

So it's about as difficult, but doesn't solve the actual problem, which is getting to the point where those who want to continue the conflict don't have the power to do so, if not totally changing people's viewpoint, a generational spanning task. I can't possibly see how that isn't the better goal, unless you think these groups are just inherently violent to each other. That the bigotry is inborn. Which if so, setting aside the racism of that for a moment, then peace is impossible and why do we care to try? Let one wipe the other out, I don't see how the slow meandering constant death of trauma is worse than that.

And with that I think I'm done talking about this subject.

Edited November 13, 2023 by TrueMetis

[Ran]

9 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Especially the fact that said Arabic Israelis have a higher birthrate than the Jewish majority.

Just to note that birthrates are converging in Israel, such that there's likely not going to be too much of a substantial change in the demographic makeup of Israel in the forseeable future.

[Heartofice]

I never understood why one people should be allowed an ethno-state, or be given land all to themselves. Seemed against everything we believe.

Until I heard from some Israeli perspectives, and understanding that there are numerous bordering nations that would love to just wipe them off the face off the earth if there was even a hint of weakness, and that Jews worldwide need a place of sanctuary somewhere on the planet because history has shown that are not safe elsewhere.

 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Alright, I'm back and I've calmed down a bit. So I'm just gonna say my final piece on ethnostates.

An ethnostate is inherently an apartheid state, it cannot be anything else. As it cannot ever allow another group to become an majority or the group at the centre of the enthostate to become just another plurality. To defend the idea that Israel isn't an apartheid state people often point out the 2 million Arabic Israelis who have, on paper, full citizenship. But what are the implications of that? Especially the fact that said Arabic Israelis have a higher birthrate than the Jewish majority. Well, Israel must be prepared to act to ensure Jews remain the ethnic majority. Whether that be through reducing the Arabic population, through death or forced removal, reducing the Arabic birth rate, or restricting their rights. That must always, forever, be hanging over the heads of Arabic Israeli. Sounds like a recipe for peace to me. /s

To be clear Israel is an apartheid state because of the status of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. By all accounts Arabic Israelis have full rights and responsibilities of the state of Israel. They also have similar birthrates to Israelis, so the notion that they will eventually take over is - true,ish? But like in 400 years. 

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

And if somehow you manage to actually get to a point where there are two viable states, not one state and another de-facto tributary, then what do you have? India and Pakistan? Two countries that still hate each other and are in constant conflict? How is that in any real sense better than the current situation?

The amount of conflict that India and Pakistan have is almost purely limited to military issues, with any actual major warfare happening 24 years ago. It also has a lot of roots in an area that is claimed by one side and desired by the other. And...that's a hard thing to avoid with Israel and Palestine! But it's probably a lot easier than the entire region of Kashmir to navigate. 

And I think that in general it is better to have two countries - actual countries - with governments that are at least in some way answerable to their citizens (yes, even dictators have to worry about revolutions), relationships with other nations, the ability to have their own laws, their own police, etc - than one nation holding some people in constant repression. 

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So it's about as difficult, but doesn't solve the actual problem, which is getting to the point where those who want to continue the conflict don't have the power to do so, if not totally changing people's viewpoint, a generational spanning task. I can't possibly see how that isn't the better goal, unless you think these groups are just inherently violent to each other. That the bigotry is inborn. Which if so, setting aside the racism of that for a moment, then peace is impossible and why do we care to try? Let one wipe the other out, I don't see how the slow meandering constant death of trauma is worse than that.

I think that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider in, like, 50 years time. 

I don't think an arranged marriage right now - where those hostilities are active, fresh, and unaddressed - is going to make things better. If you had to just create one state right now what I'd guess is that Israel would demand that all Palestinians have a second classification of citizenship with the ability to 'upgrade' after so long provided they show that they aren't a danger, aren't going to be a problem, etc, and until then Israel gives them significantly lesser rights. They will be abused, disenfranchised, not allowed freedom of movement, and those things will be used to say that they cannot have those rights when they speak back up. You will get the same apartheid state that we have now, save that Israel will have even more justification to jail and kill Palestinians. 

Is that better than what we have now? Real doubtful, that. It basically just codifies what already exists, except Palestinians go from having shitty representation to having no representation. 

Whereas with a multistate solution we have the ability to get peace...eventually. We see that with countries like Egypt and Jordan and even Saudi Arabia. Egypt is almost a decent ally of Israel now! Who would have thought that in the 1970s. But it happens - and it happens often because of actual separation. That's separation that you cannot get if you just join everyone right away. 

[Zorral]

42 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Reporters from CNN are with IDF units by one of the hospitals and they say they will shortly be showing footage of the tunnels under the hospital . I haven’t heard them say which one.

The babies the IDF was going to kindly remove are still there, right?

[Zorral]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Whereas with a multistate solution we have the ability to get peace...eventually.

And of course, those 'settlers' are determined to take the Palestinian lands and properties, as they have been doing and are continuing to do, so this ain't gonna be allowed by them.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The babies the IDF was going to kindly remove are still there, right?

I'm going to confidently say that there are no babies in the tunnels

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

And of course, those 'settlers' are determined to take the Palestinian lands and properties, as they have been doing and are continuing to do, so this ain't gonna be allowed by them.

Yeah, that's the real issue, IMO. All of these wonderful ideas of 1 state or 2 states assume a very spherical, pliable Israel. They assume that when Netanyahu is gone that Israel will suddenly change their policy direction towards Palestinians that has been largely a constant for 40 years or more. That they'll do things like remove settlers from the West Bank or change their behavior around Jerusalem or any number of things. 

They might...but my suspicion is that so long as Israel suffers no significant blowback from the rest of the world they'll just keep doing what they're doing, and that dealing with these kinds of horrible terrorist attacks and killing tens of thousands of Palestinians is the least bad option for a whole lot of the government. 

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The babies the IDF was going to kindly remove are still there, right?

Actually, the IDF was in contact with hospital officials and the hospital was evacuated. The hospital they were at was the children’s hospital that’s on the edge of that big refugee camp, Jabalia.

The soldiers brought them to the tunnels, and they showed them a room in the basement where there were piles of women’s clothing and chairs with ropes around them, and a rota of guard duty. They believe women hostages had been kept in the basement. Kept in the basement of a children’s hospital.

Oh, and once the hospital had been evacuated they had gun battles with the Hamas soldiers still in the hospital. The CNN reporter was shown caches of weapons in the hospital.

[Bael's Bastard]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It is, however, a very weird stretch of logic to say that Jews should have a right to get the property and land stolen from them by Nazis but Palestinians should not get recompense for being kicked out of their homes. As always the main driver of what works and what doesn't is power, not justice.

How about the fact that Jews never got recompense for the land, property, and wealth stolen when they were kicked out of their homes by Arab and/or Muslim countries, including from Jerusalem, the WB, and Gaza by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc?

[Ran]

Just to show how far and how recent this goes, here's a bit post-Ba'ath Iraq:

Quote

After the removal of the Baath party in Iraq in 2003, Iraq's Nationality Law was amended in 2006. The new law provides the right to restore nationality for Iraqis who had lost theirs as a result of political, racial or sectarian factors. But Article 17/II of this law expressly excludes Jews and only Jews from pursuing this option.

Similar situation in other MENA countries, some of which have much more recently expelled Jews than Iraq did (such as Syria).

[fionwe1987]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I never understood why one people should be allowed an ethno-state, or be given land all to themselves. Seemed against everything we believe.

Until I heard from some Israeli perspectives, and understanding that there are numerous bordering nations that would love to just wipe them off the face off the earth if there was even a hint of weakness, and that Jews worldwide need a place of sanctuary somewhere on the planet because history has shown that are not safe elsewhere.

So the existence of ethnostates is more palatable because countries with Jewish populations couldn't get their act together enough to let them live in freedom inside their borders, necessitating a Jewish ethnostste, which by the choice of its location (and it was a choice), is going to have to project sufficient force so their neighboring ethnostste will not contemplate using their own forces to end said state. In the meantime, the people displaced by the establishment of this ethnostate must remain stateless.

I gotta say, I'm having a hard time understanding this. I think Israel's experience is an excellent argument against ethnostates.

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do you not see how your point is contradicted by Relic’s point.

Not really, know. We're questioning whether there's something essential about being born Muslim that prevents you from forming a country that allows members of other religions to coexist as equal citizens. 

That geopolitical tensions in the Middle East has made many Muslim majority countries create an apartheid regime of their own, preventing Israeli citizens from traveling within their borders, does not to me prove that a Muslim majority land, especially with a very sizeable Jewish majority, as any unitary state in the region would have no chance of coexistence.

As TrueMetis said, if you believe that, then all that's left is more bodies to be buried. We don't need to continue this discussion at all, do we? This will plague a Two-state solution too. Do we know of neighboring Muslim and Jewish ethnostates that have managed to be at peace? No? If that means it can never be so, then there's no solution to this problem, ever.

To me, that kind of cynicism is especially crazy when we're thinking of solutions out of this mess. You're saying we're in a mess, it's been messy forever, it will remain messy forever, because something about at least one faction fundamentally prevents peace and always will. 

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I want a world where all people are accepted and no one is persecuted for their beliefs.  It doesn’t exist… I’m very sorry to say.  Thus pragmatic solutions are what we are left with.

Idealism doesn’t prevent pogroms.

Cynicism doesn't either. In fact, mathematically, it is guaranteed to make the worse outcomes more likely, because it gives licence to extremists to say, with justification, "what choice but violence is there?". 

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I guess, but I don't know that that's a real high barrier to jump. And freedom of religion in Indonesia is...well, let's say very restricted. For Muslims you can't be certain sects of Muslim, as an example. The law is Sharia law in some of the areas. Laws against women are commonplace, and rights for women are far less. Again, if that's your example of what Jews could look forward to in a Muslim-majority country as far as freedom, I think they'd very much turn it down. 

You don't have to convince me Indonesia is an imperfect experiment. You do need to convince me this means nothing better can ever come.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's not really islamophobic bullcrap. Islam is kind of special in that it specifically has as part of its religion the goal of having a legal foundation for government built into its holy writings. Not all muslims follow that, mind you, but it is not Islamophobic to acknowledge that. 

Hmmm this doesn't seem correct. Hinduism has a lot about legal foundations of governance in its texts too. Monarchies, of course, so not exactly relevant today. 

Beyond that, I think specific texts of various religions containing absurd ideas is a really silly reason to say every follower of said religion is doomed to repeat some perceived pattern of behavior. Religion just doesn't work like that, and if it did, the Renaissance wouldn't have happened, and Islam would have a continuous history of nonsecular rule by its followers, which really really isn't true. 

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And in any case it really doesn't matter because Palestinians don't really support a more moderate form of government. The popular parties for Palestinians are heavily based around Sharia laws and goals. This is what I meant by the vast majority - I mean the vast majority in Palestine. Could that change? Possibly, but it certainly isn't going to be the case any time soon, and it is not reasonable to think that bringing them all together in one country is going to make that change more moderate. 

Actually it very much is reasonable to think that. A broader polity under one state with a federal election to fight over power has a lot more chance for moderate voices on both sides, than the current situation. 

This is also true of India/Pakistan, btw. Religious fundamentalists gained significantly more power after Partition, and continue to use "point the finger at the Boogeyman across the border" to stoke violence internally, and also to justify war and mistreatment of the people caught in the midst of their territorial conflicts. 

And if Palestinians are, for the foreseeable future, locked into wanting fundamentalist governments, then how is a Palestinian ethnostate, which will almost certainly have territorial quibbles with Israel, going to solve these problems?

23 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So it's about as difficult, but doesn't solve the actual problem, which is getting to the point where those who want to continue the conflict don't have the power to do so, if not totally changing people's viewpoint, a generational spanning task. I can't possibly see how that isn't the better goal, unless you think these groups are just inherently violent to each other. That the bigotry is inborn. Which if so, setting aside the racism of that for a moment, then peace is impossible and why do we care to try? Let one wipe the other out, I don't see how the slow meandering constant death of trauma is worse than that.

The bolded is the part that underlies a lot of the arguments I'm seeing here. 

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 

 

[Craving Peaches]

The Jabalia refugee camp has been hit again, with 31 people reported killed according to a local news agency. I thought Israel said they already got the Hamas commander, the terrorist militants and the HQ there last time? Does anyone know why it was bombed again?

Edited November 13, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[fionwe1987]

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, that's the real issue, IMO. All of these wonderful ideas of 1 state or 2 states assume a very spherical, pliable Israel. They assume that when Netanyahu is gone that Israel will suddenly change their policy direction towards Palestinians that has been largely a constant for 40 years or more. That they'll do things like remove settlers from the West Bank or change their behavior around Jerusalem or any number of things. 

I think we have our wires crossed, then. I'm not bringing up a unitary state as a solution that gets implemented tomorrow. Neither populace is ready for that.

But I think the idea needs to be in the conversation. It needs to be explored, it needs to get support. Not squashed as "forerver impractical because Muslims", which is the only argument against that I've seen here, dressed in various guises. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

How about the fact that Jews never got recompense for the land, property, and wealth stolen when they were kicked out of their homes by Arab and/or Muslim countries, including from Jerusalem, the WB, and Gaza by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc?

Yep, that's one of the justifications Israel has used as a way to deny the right of return or any recompense for Palestinians. I'd say take it up with those countries for Israel, and they probably should get that, but not getting that then is not a good justification for denying what you have in your power to grant now. 

If Israel is the place where Jews can have power and responsibility for their destiny it is up to them to choose how to use it, along with the consequences of that power. Israel can choose to deny that recompensation and then deal with the ramifications of that, or they can try and offer something and accept what they did wasn't particularly just and the Nakba was a major trauma. Which do you think has a better outcome for Israel?

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

You don't have to convince me Indonesia is an imperfect experiment. You do need to convince me this means nothing better can ever come.

I don't think Indonesia is just an imperfect experiment. It is an argument for what Israelis are literally terrified of and do not want. If you're going to use Indonesia as an example of the 'good' kind of integration with a Muslim-majority country, well...that argument isn't going to go very far with the people that you're trying to convince. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Hmmm this doesn't seem correct. Hinduism has a lot about legal foundations of governance in its texts too. Monarchies, of course, so not exactly relevant today. 

Beyond that, I think specific texts of various religions containing absurd ideas is a really silly reason to say every follower of said religion is doomed to repeat some perceived pattern of behavior. Religion just doesn't work like that, and if it did, the Renaissance wouldn't have happened, and Islam would have a continuous history of nonsecular rule by its followers, which really really isn't true. 

I think you're missing the point - Islamic culture and history have a whole long history about practicing Sharia law and what it means, along with debates and behaviors about it. What you're suggesting is basically a sect of Islam that ignores all previous tradition and does something very different, and imposing that sect of Islam on everyone in the population of Palestine.

Good luck with that!

I'm at least dealing with the beliefs that Palestinians profess to having today, right now. I don't assume that they're going to change because it's more convenient for me. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Actually it very much is reasonable to think that. A broader polity under one state with a federal election to fight over power has a lot more chance for moderate voices on both sides, than the current situation. 

The current situation has Israel going more hard right despite that broader polity. I'm not sure that this holds water, either. Do you have any evidence for that? Because from where I'm standing what tends to happen is not moderation over time; what happens is civil war and brutal autocracy. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

This is also true of India/Pakistan, btw. Religious fundamentalists gained significantly more power after Partition, and continue to use "point the finger at the Boogeyman across the border" to stoke violence internally, and also to justify war and mistreatment of the people caught in the midst of their territorial conflicts. 

And on the flip side you have Israel/Egypt which went completely the other way. I get that your viewpoint is going to be very much based on India/Pakistan and the horribleness of the partition, and I really appreciate that point of view - it's not typically well-represented and understood. I thought you brought up a really good point about India's response to terrorism that belied the notion that you HAVE to do a major military strike. I think it's also important to understand that India and Pakistan are not the same thing as Israel and Palestine and just because a two-state solution has problems there that it will have the same problems with them. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'm going to confidently say that there are no babies in the tunnels

Nobody said there were did they?

[Tywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Unfortunately no, because that would make Christians the majority in Israel. We might be able to get Arkansas, but Mississippi has too many. We'll have to send them to some other place to make them unhappy like Indonesia. 

But yeah, the football team should be good and I fully expect some of the home games to be held in Tel Aviv. 

 

I'll settle for draining the Dakotas. 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I also wanted to get back to this because it's very much wrong. Palestinians and Israelis (at least the majority of them) have similar genetic background makeups, but they are not particularly similar from an ethnicity standpoint. They each have separate languages and even alphabets. They have very different religions. They have very different holidays. They have very different shared traumas and experiences of prior countries. They have wildly different experiences from a political society perspective. They are very distinct ethnically from each other, far more so than, say, French vs Germans or Poles vs. French. 

Not really. The two groups are very tied together. Who cares that over the course of time they developed different languages, religions, holidays, etc.? Their roots are similar which was my point, one that many agree with.

Quote

Religion is certainly A problem - but it isn't the only one. Here's a stupid example of a problem: Israel currently has their 'weekend' on Friday and Saturday. That isn't exactly a religion issue - it stems from religion but it's mostly just what people are used to now. Do you change that? 

Religion tends to be the main problem in instances like these, hence why secular leaders are almost always necessary. 

[Zorral]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The current situation has Israel going more hard right despite that broader polity. I'm not sure that this holds water, either. Do you have any evidence for that? Because from where I'm standing what tends to happen is not moderation over time; what happens is civil war and brutal autocracy.

Or, in the old colonial imperial days, one of the Powers would step in and take over and administer them both since both are incapable of trying  anything but assured mutual destruction and order must be put in place for their sakes and the general good.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I think we have our wires crossed, then. I'm not bringing up a unitary state as a solution that gets implemented tomorrow. Neither populace is ready for that.

But I think the idea needs to be in the conversation. It needs to be explored, it needs to get support. Not squashed as "forerver impractical because Muslims", which is the only argument against that I've seen here, dressed in various guises. 

To be clear, I think it's 'forever impractical because people aren't awesome'. 

I think it's a very real and reasonable fear for Jews to have that a Muslim majority country - especially a Palestinian one - would cause a massive pogrom of Jews because most other Arab countries already did that. I think you have to recognize that as a reasonable fear, and recognize that this cannot be just handwaved away. That pogroms have happened in Jewish history for centuries is even worse, mind you, but those other expulsions happened in our lifetime. If it were other populations that might be different, mind you. If it were, say, Hindus and Muslims that'd be a different thing, or Christians and Hindus, or something else - but it isn't. It's the Jews, and how others have treated Jews specifically. That isn't the same and it's important to recognize this in the same way that I cannot treat the experience of a Hispanic person descended from migrants from Cuba as the same experience as an African-American. There is no one stop shop here. 

You can propose that they just...ignore that. And they'll laugh at you, and it won't get anywhere. Because, again, part of the Jewish story is being able to literally have a country for Jews so that they are not beholden to policies by others, because their entire history is one of repeated ostracism, pogroms and fleeing oppressors. That is - no joke - a very big part of the Jewish culture, down to the reasons they eat certain things at feasts. 

I think it's also a very real and reasonable thing that Palestinians don't believe that Israelis will be particularly kind of lenient to them if they are second-class citizens in an Israeli state because again this happened to them in the recent past. It is one of the major ways that Palestinians are their own ethnicity - that shared trauma of the Nakba. It is not reasonable to tell them that under a majority Jewish rule that they'll be fine and no problems will happen to them. And being in a single state does solve some things, kinda sorta, about the right of return, but it doesn't solve most everything else. Saying that you'll solve it via constitutional law doesn't really work either for them; they've seen how Israel can and will subvert their own constitution when it suits political views, and they've seen the toothlessness of the international community in dealing with Israel when Israel violates norms and laws. They've seen how Israel got punished for breaking international law via their settlements by having the US recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. 

So...yeah. This isn't just about Muslims having problems having rights for minorities - though that alone I think would be a major stumbling block. It's that Muslims have had a whole big problem with giving Jews rights, and continue to, and Israelis have had a whole big problem giving Palestinians rights. 

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Religion is certainly A problem - but it isn't the only one. Here's a stupid example of a problem: Israel currently has their 'weekend' on Friday and Saturday. That isn't exactly a religion issue - it stems from religion but it's mostly just what people are used to now. Do you change that? 

Funny, here in NYC we have the weekend -- it begins and ends slightly differently for the three peoples of the book, but all three of them have some weekend in the 'christian' traditional weekend, and this isn't a problem. For instance the Kazakhstan Jewish barbers on our block are closed on Saturday, but there are customers on Sunday, and so on and so forth. They are open on Federal holidays if they want to be -- some were open, and some preferred to have a holiday this past Friday. They close of course during the High Holy Days. Their customers deal, it seems, just fine, coz they're there when the shops reopen. The city celebrates more and more national holidays of more and more groups all the time, as the groups become large enough long time resident communities.  Just like Chinese New Year, everybody seems to like Thanksgiving, whether Pakistani or Chinese or me. 

Holidays and weekends in fact seem a good way to bring people together.  You know like the tradition of Jewish families going to China Town to eat at Christmas?