Israel - Hamas War X

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

Because that is literally the definition of what an ethnicity is! The roots are similar but recognizing that people have different ethnicities and shared views is not some weird thing, and it isn't something to handwave as 'close cousins'. It is, simply, a difficult thing to integrate two groups of people with that large of collective differences. You should care that over the course of time they developed all those different things. It's kind of a big deal!

I also wanted to use this because a lot of times white people especially handwave all non-white people's ethnicities as not being particularly distinct, just like you did. 

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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

Israel has secular leaders; it hasn't helped all that much. It's also important to realize that Palestinians do not appear to actually want secular leadership; are you suggesting outlawing that for them? 

[fionwe1987]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

So what's an example of a good kind of integration of Jews in a Christian majority country? What caused such "good" integrations to occur, which you think Muslims are fundamentally incapable of achieving?

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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.

There's a long history of all kinds of debates about imposing Christian law in Western cultures too. Not just debates, but successful implementations.

And the history of Islam also includes traditions of secularism, to the extent of Emperor Akbar literally creating a Hindu-Muskim syncretic religion (only to have his great grandson go in exactly the opposite direction). 

I think your failure to see the deep and varied tradition of secularism under Islamic is part of the problem, here. Sharia law existed in those cases too, as did political factions interested in imposing it. Yet the fact that stable societies emerged under Islamic rule that didn't impose Sharia show that there's nothing inevitable about it under Islamic rule. 

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

'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. 

I don't assume it'll change because it's convenient to me. I'm saying that change needs to be induced, rather than expecting it to come out of nowhere. A major inducement for such a change would be having actual alternate options, one where they'll definitely have to give up stuff, but one where they'll also get safety, peace and a chance to wield democratic power. 

9 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. 

The current situation is neither a one or two state solution. That this cycle of violence has enabled, and been enabled by, far right factions is a given.

We're discussing what happens in a unitary state, and comparing it to a two state solution. Neither is reality now, and the question I'm asking is are they both structures that will entrench fundamentalists on both sides?

A two state solution can (though it certainly doesn't have to, and I'm far from writing off a two state solution for this reason). A unitary state can also collapse into failure and civil war. But the benefit is also that the divisions and frictions have a common battleground to flow into in such a state, and that battleground can be one of votes not of bombs. 

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And on the flip side you have Israel/Egypt which went completely the other way.

Hmm how's this on the flip side? Not quite sure I follow. 

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

Thanks. Of course they aren't the same thing, but while the scale is totally different, there's certainly a lot to learn for both sides from the other.

The right wing powers of both countries certainly think so. They're allies, because they see the similarities, and have shared anti-Muslim sentiments, and a love for missiles and military strength for macho posturing and vile repressive actions. 

Seems to me the exact wrong lessons are being learned both from Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan. I wish instead it was the left in both countries (and in Pakistan) who would get together and learn from each other and fight the toxicity. 

[fionwe1987]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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

Probably why we see things differently. I think people are mostly fine. The systems they live under (religious, national, economic) are the problem. They're less awful that before, but plenty awful, and the only way out is to imagine better ones, shop them around, change them based on feedback, then give them a try.

Anything else is self-fulfilling doomerism, to me. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

So what's an example of a good kind of integration of Jews in a Christian majority country? What caused such "good" integrations to occur, which you think Muslims are fundamentally incapable of achieving?

For Jews there are zero examples of this, anywhere, ever. Possibly the best is the US, but even that very much has a wait and see. Again this is why I say it's important not just to understand Muslims and how well they integrate, but understand that for Jews the whole point is to not be a minority in a nation. The vaunted Polish-Lithuania commonwealth - where my great grandparents came from - fled that area specifically because of the pogroms of the early 20th century. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

There's a long history of all kinds of debates about imposing Christian law in Western cultures too. Not just debates, but successful implementations.

No, it's about imposing Christian viewpoints as law. There's a very big difference there. Islam has a very large set of discussion and history about discussing not just the proper religious behavior but the proper LEGAL behavior of an area, of the proper way to rule a place. Christianity has much less of this both in the standard texts and the historical precedents and histories and tradition. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

And the history of Islam also includes traditions of secularism, to the extent of Emperor Akbar literally creating a Hindu-Muskim syncretic religion (only to have his great grandson go in exactly the opposite direction). I think your failure to see the deep and varied tradition of secularism under Islamic is part of the problem, here. Sharia law existed in those cases too, as did political factions interested in imposing it. Yet the fact that stable societies emerged under Islamic rule that didn't impose Sharia show that there's nothing inevitable about it under Islamic rule. 

It does, but none of those are currently being used anywhere of note. If you wanted to say that the Ottoman empire and all its hilliness was needing to combine with Israel we might have somewhere to go, but we don't have that. We have Palestinians, and they are not part of that tradition of secularism. 

I'm not saying that it's inevitable. I'm saying that it is part of the traditions they have, and that it isn't just swept aside easily. Especially - and again, really need to emphasize this - when the people in question have absolutely no interest in sweeping them aside for secularism. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I don't assume it'll change because it's convenient to me. I'm saying that change needs to be induced, rather than expecting it to come out of nowhere. A major inducement for such a change would be having actual alternate options, one where they'll definitely have to give up stuff, but one where they'll also get safety, peace and a chance to wield democratic power. 

So you want to change Palestinians in their actual culture and behavior. And you don't think that's a bit colonialist? 

One of the lessons of the 21st century is that just randomly giving people democracies doesn't work if those people don't want that. Imposing those changes on them doesn't work out all that well. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

The current situation is neither a one or two state solution. That this cycle of violence has enabled, and been enabled by, far right factions is a given.

We're discussing what happens in a unitary state, and comparing it to a two state solution. Neither is reality now, and the question I'm asking is are they both structures that will entrench fundamentalists on both sides?

A two state solution can (though it certainly doesn't have to, and I'm far from writing off a two state solution for this reason). A unitary state can also collapse into failure and civil war. But the benefit is also that the divisions and frictions have a common battleground to flow into in such a state, and that battleground can be one of votes not of bombs. 

That battleground can be bombs in a unitary state, and often has been. Or civil war. History-wise, there's a lot more examples of countries splitting off (either amicably or violently) than there has been of integration. And for two-states, a lot of times things get worked out via diplomatic agreements too. 

And I don't want to blame this all on far-right factions. I think that's just a political canard. That's not what happened in 1948 or 1967. It wasn't a 'far right' viewpoint of Arabs that a Jewish state should not exist. That was just the standard viewpoint. It's not even a far-right position of Israel right now; the position of Israel's government towards Palestine has not hugely changed for 40 years, through all sorts of political leaders. More moderate views does not mean more integration. One can be a xenophobe who also like LGBT. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Hmm how's this on the flip side? Not quite sure I follow. 

Israel-Egypt is a two-state solution (and Egypt very much did NOT want Israel to be a second state) that started as very heavily enemies, and have now basically normalized relations, diplomacy and work together fairly regularly. It's an example of how two states can, over time, become pretty close - even after a lot of hatred. Obviously there are a lot of other European examples too, but I thought that would be the most relevant. 

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Thanks. Of course they aren't the same thing, but while the scale is totally different, there's certainly a lot to learn for both sides from the other.

The right wing powers of both countries certainly think so. They're allies, because they see the similarities, and have shared anti-Muslim sentiments, and a love for missiles and military strength for macho posturing and vile repressive actions. 

Seems to me the exact wrong lessons are being learned both from Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan. I wish instead it was the left in both countries (and in Pakistan) who would get together and learn from each other and fight the toxicity. 

My feeling is that things can heal, eventually, but having forced proximity and integration is not a good way to do it. I think both groups need to be able to separate and do more things their own way for a while. I think that they could come together again at some point. That this is also largely what both groups want is also a bonus. 

9 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Probably why we see things differently. I think people are mostly fine. The systems they live under (religious, national, economic) are the problem. They're less awful that before, but plenty awful, and the only way out is to imagine better ones, shop them around, change them based on feedback, then give them a try.

Anything else is self-fulfilling doomerism, to me. 

I think that recognizing that people have innate flaws is kind of a big deal. Assuming spherical humans and then wondering why things don't work out is...well, that's the road to libertarianism and Ayn Rand objectivism. Until I get to finally neuroengineer people and fix these stupid atavistic qualities we're still gonna have to deal with things.

We have to understand that humans are intrinsically tribal, and it is not trivial to overcome that.

We have to understand that humans are intrinsically built to care about fairness, and it is not trivial to overcome that.

We have to understand that humans care deeply about cultural norms, traditions, and behaviors, and it is not trivial to overcome that. 

We have to understand that humans often do not want things like a democratic governance because humans are kind of hierarchical in nature, and it is not trivial to overcome that.

There's a lot more, of course, but pretending that they don't exist requires pretending that humans aren't human. That isn't doomerism. It just means you need to recognize that your glass house exists in a world with stones. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

45 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

And the history of Islam also includes traditions of secularism, to the extent of Emperor Akbar literally creating a Hindu-Muskim syncretic religion (only to have his great grandson go in exactly the opposite direction). 

Any more recent examples?

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

On Point did a very nice job discussing the problems with “The Law Of War”; “Crimes Against Humanity”; and “Genocide”…

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/11/13/israel-hamas-and-the-laws-of-war-a-primer

Very interesting point at the end imho when professor Michael Bryant explains "military necessity" is used to "suspend the laws of war" and that powerful countries can thus ignore the principle of proportionality with impunity. Janina Dill essentially concurred, explaining that law hampers military operations, but that compliance with the law being difficult to enforce, you can only ever aim for a "minimal humanitarian standard" by prosecuting the most extreme violations - though the law itself doesn't and shouldn't change.
This fits with my own understanding, that international law is both idealistic (in its objectives) and weak (because of the lack of enforcement). In a nutshell, everyone ignores the rules most of the time, and only the most atrocious war crimes can be prosecuted (and then, not for all countries, obviously). Thus there is a wide discrepancy between internatonal law as written and intended, and the actual jurisprudence. Or, to put it differently, it all depends on whether you're looking at the principles (which aren't really in debate) or at the practical application (which can be endlessly debated, especially thanks to the argument of military necessity).

 

[GrimTuesday]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Israel has secular leaders; it hasn't helped all that much. It's also important to realize that Palestinians do not appear to actually want secular leadership; are you suggesting outlawing that for them? 

There have been plenty of secular Palestinian leaders, unfortunately they have mostly been either murdered by Mossad/the IDF or delegitimized through becoming more or less part of the Israeli security state as with the PA.

Remember that even when Hamas won the Gaza election, they won with a slim plurality in a time when Fatah was (rightfully) reviled for its corruption which Hamas specifically ran against and even then they got 41% vs Hamas's 44% (left wing and centrist groups made up about a further 12%). Israel wants us to believe that Palestinians are overwhelming in favor a right wing fundamentalist formation, and they have done everything they could to ensure that Hamas is empowered and seen as the only avatar of liberation because Muslim fundamentalists are not in any way sympathetic, especially in the west, and therefore Israel can continue their program of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.

Edited November 14, 2023 by GrimTuesday

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Very interesting point at the end imho when professor Michael Bryant explains "military necessity" is used to "suspend the laws of war" and that powerful countries can thus ignore the principle of proportionality with impunity. Janina Dill essentially concurred, explaining that law hampers military operations, but that compliance with the law being difficult to enforce, you can only ever aim for a "minimal humanitarian standard" by prosecuting the most extreme violations - though the law itself doesn't and shouldn't change.
This fits with my own understanding, that international law is both idealistic (in its objectives) and weak (because of the lack of enforcement). In a nutshell, everyone ignores the rules most of the time, and only the most atrocious war crimes can be prosecuted (and then, not for all countries, obviously). Thus there is a wide discrepancy between internatonal law as written and intended, and the actual jurisprudence. Or, to put it differently, it all depends on whether you're looking at the principles (which aren't really in debate) or at the practical application (which can be endlessly debated, especially thanks to the argument of military necessity).

 

For international law to have teeth… truely international organizations need to have serious enforcement power.  Sadly existing Nation-states… with few exceptions… are willing to empower intentionally organizations to any significant degree.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I think that recognizing that people have innate flaws is kind of a big deal. [...]

There's a lot more, of course, but pretending that they don't exist requires pretending that humans aren't human. That isn't doomerism. It just means you need to recognize that your glass house exists in a world with stones. 

There's a balance to be found though. We can (and we do) modify human behavior precisely by understanding our innate flaws. But these are very long and arduous processes that require considerable material means as well as a substantial amount of political will, and can very easily face setbacks.
I personally like to think that the road to peaceful coexistence is a very long one, and that each extremist victory, even minor, undoes years of patient work. This means that there are in fact key moments when pacifism can move forward, and others when it is reduced to complete powerlessness.
What really worries me is that violence has an inertia of its own, that it tends to have a domino or ripple effect. You can move toward peaceful coexistence in a specific conflict only if the broader context allows it. In other words, extremisms and conflicts can fuel each other by changing the norm and reducing pacifism to impractical idealism ; there are times in history when very little can be done to prevent people from slaughering each other, because there are too many converging factors that will generate tension to begin with.
There's a very real possibility that we have already entered such a historical period when wars will multiply, mechanically, because we are about to face a global lack of resources for 8 billion humans. And because it's an unprecedented situation, there's no way to know how far this will go. I hope people will not give up on idealism, but it won't be easy.
 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

There have been plenty of secular Palestinian leaders, unfortunately they have mostly been either murdered by Mossad/the IDF or delegitimized through becoming more or less part of the Israeli security state as with the PA.

Remember that even when Hamas won the Gaza election, they won with a slim plurality in a time when Fatah was (rightfully) reviled for its corruption which Hamas specifically ran against and even then they got 41% vs Hamas's 44% (left wing and centrist groups made up about a further 12%). Israel wants us to believe that Palestinians are overwhelming in favor a right wing fundamentalist formation, and they have done everything they could to ensure that Hamas is empowered and seen as the only avatar of liberation because Muslim fundamentalists are not in any way sympathetic, especially in the west, and therefore Israel can continue their program of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.

I think that all three of those leadership organizations are pretty high up on the fundamentalist scale. Hamas is probably the worst of them but it ain't like they're that far from the PA. Their polling indicates this as well. There's very little sign that Palestinians particularly want a secular form of government. 

More to the point, that choice should be theirs to make and not imposed on them unless it becomes a matter of security for others. Another way to say the same thing: the Palestinians will need to make the choice of how they want to govern, not outside forces, or it will not work very long.

51 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

There's a balance to be found though. We can (and we do) modify human behavior precisely by understanding our innate flaws. But these are very long and arduous processes that require considerable material means as well as a substantial amount of political will, and can very easily face setbacks.
.... I hope people will not give up on idealism, but it won't be easy.
 

I agree, but that's what I said. I can recognize that it can be done, but it takes a whole lot of intentional, directed effort by a whole lot of people, usually with someone great in charge. Weirdly, most of those big leaps have happened because of a person with significant political power that could have easily been a dictator choosing to make different decisions. 

But you can't just take it as a fait accompli that it'll work out. The default state is not a democratic, multiethnic society for humans. You have to fight to get there, sometimes with real honest to goodness violence. And a real easy way to lose all you tried to achieve is to go from the baby steps to that full-fledged democracy and skip all the steps along the way. 

[GrimTuesday]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that all three of those leadership organizations are pretty high up on the fundamentalist scale. Hamas is probably the worst of them but it ain't like they're that far from the PA. Their polling indicates this as well. There's very little sign that Palestinians particularly want a secular form of government. 

More to the point, that choice should be theirs to make and not imposed on them unless it becomes a matter of security for others. Another way to say the same thing: the Palestinians will need to make the choice of how they want to govern, not outside forces, or it will not work very long.

That's actually incorrect, the PA/Fatah (which is more or less the same thing give Fatah's dominance in the West Bank) is and always has been a secular organization. In fact, their vision for a free Palestine was always a left wing, secular state. While some within that organization may be antisemitic, for the most part their objection to Israel is the treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of Israel.

I'd be interested in seeing the polling you're seeing that indicate that the Palestinians are interested in a fundamentalist, Islamic government, because in my research, what I am finding does not show a significant amount of support for a right wing government. What you do find is support for those who are actively fighting for them which has a significant amount of cross over between groups that would normally be opposed to each other, such as Hamas and the PFLP (which is a secular Marxist organization).

[SuperHans]

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Key word. Was. Stop citing shit from centuries ago and deal with the realities of right now. 

The hypocrisy here is off the charts. 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by SuperHans

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

For international law to have teeth… truely international organizations need to have serious enforcement power.  Sadly existing Nation-states… with few exceptions… are willing to empower intentionally organizations to any significant degree.

The problem is that these international organizations become at best marionettes of the few nations that control them and at worst bureaucratic money pits that mainly serve to allow their key officials to fly around the world and stay in very expensive cities without it costing them anything. There are exceptions, but they are few.

[Darzin]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Any more recent examples?

I think this is key, if you read me and Zorral's discussion in the other thread we mentioned many tolerant Islamic empires (and some less tolerant) The thing is though that foundation existed in pre-modern pre-colonial islamic states and the institutions and culture that supported it have been all but destroyed in modernity. Thus, you see again and again minorities which existed for more than a millennia under Islamic rule disappearing in the last fifty years.

That said Syria and the Central Asian States exhibit a high degree of tolerance this comes from minority rule and socialist secularism respectively. Which are both conditions that seem unlikely to happen. Unless we follow @Kalbear's proposal and create an Alabama sourced Christian dictatorship.    

[Ran]

Syria is a Ba'athist totalitarian dictatorship, and has been such for over 50 years. 

Don't think Israelis would be interested in that, even if it meant "religious tolerance".

[Relic]

Over a 100 UN aid workers killed in Gaza since Israel began bombing the densely populated region.

 

CNN — 

More United Nations aid workers have been killed in Gaza than in any other single conflict in the organization’s 78-year history, the UN said Monday,

Edited November 14, 2023 by Relic

[Relic]

One out of every 200 people in Gaza dead since Israel began bombing the heavily populated region. Over 11000 dead Palestinians, over 4000 of them children.

Many more wounded, or missing.

Well done Israel, definitely making the world a safer place for yourself.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Relic

[Craving Peaches]

Quote

Al-Shifa hospital surrounded by tanks

In the last half an hour, I made a call to someone inside Al-Shifa hospital.

He said the tense situation around the hospital remains the same, and that he heard a few explosions and exchanges of fire overnight.

He also told me tanks are surrounding the hospital from all directions and that access in and out of the hospital is impossible.

Even moving from one building to another inside the hospital compound itself is a big risk, as he described it to me.

He said people have died in the hospital because there is no electricity, no water and not enough medicine.

Yesterday Mark Regev, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said an IDF attempt to deliver 300 litres of fuel to Shifa on Sunday had failed because Hamas had refused to accept it - something Hamas denied.

My contact inside the hospital said this would only last half an hour and that a sustainable solution was needed. He said at least 10,000 litres a day was required to run everything in the hospital.

Israel has accused Hamas of having a command and control centre underneath Shifa - which the group denies.

I have been to the hospital hundreds of time - I was born there, my son was born there, in the last two months of my mum's life, she was inside the kidney dialysis centre and I used to visit her every day.

It is very hard to verify what is underneath. With my eyes, I haven't seen any military capability inside the hospital buildings.

Source: BBC

[House Balstroko]

 

Not as surprising as some might think, as many in the Iranian diaspora have long had a dislike of their own government and to a lesser extent of Arabs/Islam in general.

 

 https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-772852

[Relic]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Source: BBC

What a bold display of might, right there. Making the world safer, one destroyed hospital at a time.