Israel and Palestine- The permanent mess

[Mudguard]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And then who broke it? That's their mindset. Listen to people when they're being honest. 

No one broke the temporary ceasefire.  The temporary ceasefire automatically ended when they couldn't come to an agreement on the next set of hostages to be freed.

[fionwe1987]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And then who broke it? That's their mindset. Listen to people when they're being honest. 

No one? Didn't the agreed upon ceasefire just... end? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

No one broke the temporary ceasefire.  The temporary ceasefire automatically ended when they couldn't come to an agreement on the next set of hostages to be freed.

And which side made the ridiculous demand?  

[fionwe1987]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And which side made the ridiculous demand?  

And who is shifting goal posts? 

The argument you've repeatedly been making that a ceasefire would have to be unilateral, and thus it isn't worth attempting ceasefires, is utter BS.

[straits]

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

During the 1948 war, many of the Arabs in the region left their homes willingly because they believed they'd be able to return after the surrounding Arab nations had destroyed Israel.

Many were also driven out by Israeli forces, it's true, but this is not unusual thing to happen during a war.

They weren't allowed back in because their Arab brothers had just tried to destroy Israel. No country would be expected to let back in a hostile population whose allies had just tried to destroy them.

There is a confusion of the concrete reality of establishing a new nation on already populated lands. People do not "willingly leave" during a war, and the Palestinians were forced out by the threat of aggression. This is the same logic which enables someone to claim that Palestinians are voluntarily leaving Gaza. What awaits them is rubble and guns.

It is certainly not unusual for entire families and ethnic communities to be driven out of their homes and then not allowed back; it's referred to as "ethnic cleansing", and it happened to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. What "their Arab brothers" did is not transferrable, nor a justification for ethnic cleansing of a population whose hostility increased with the measure of their disenfranchisement at the hands of settler colonialists. Just as the suffering of Palestinians did not justify the subsequent exile and ethnic cleansing of Jews in many Arab countries.

Oddly, this short-circuit in logic was not observed in Israeli pioneers like Moshe Dayan and Ben-Gurion. Transcripts of their conversations show that they knew exactly what they were doing to Palestinians. But the animus of the post-war period is gone, as should be its methods.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, fionwe1987 said:

And who is shifting goal posts? 

The argument you've repeatedly been making that a ceasefire would have to be unilateral, and thus it isn't worth attempting ceasefires, is utter BS.

A ceasefire means both sides stop attacking. I just linked comments from a Hamas leader who said they will keep attacking no matter what. JFC. 

[Mudguard]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And which side made the ridiculous demand?  

The demand they made at the time wasn't unreasonable, as far as I'm aware.  I think it was 10 males, probably elderly, in exchange for presumably 30 Palestinians held in jails, and another day extension of the temporary ceasefire.

The demands now have drastically shifted.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

The demand they made at the time wasn't unreasonable, as far as I'm aware.  I think it was 10 males, probably elderly, in exchange for presumably 30 Palestinians held in jails, and another day extension of the temporary ceasefire.

The demands now have drastically shifted.

Old men for their soldiers so they can keep fighting is not reasonable in any way. 

[fionwe1987]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

A ceasefire means both sides stop attacking. I just linked comments from a Hamas leader who said they will keep attacking no matter what. JFC. 

This is ludicrous. Since they actually did stop attacking during a ceasefire, "no matter what" either doesn't include "during ceasefires", or this guy is the equivalent of the mayor you kept harping about. 

[Mudguard]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Old men for their soldiers so they can keep fighting is not reasonable in any way. 

Personally I would have jumped on that deal, if the top priority was getting hostages back home.  

Also, all or at least the vast majority of the Palestinian's being released were minors and women.  I don't recall if Hamas was asking for soldiers in return for the release of men, since the details of the proposals going back and forth were pretty murky, but even if they were, I think that would have been a good deal.  If they offered all the remaining hostages for 300 Hamas soldiers, they would be crazy not to accept that.  300 soldiers isn't going to change anything for Hamas.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

 

How does the disputes around Aqsa Mosque relate to the specific issue we're discussing?

Because it has been at the heart of the disputes and justifications of atrocities between "the surrounding Arab states" (which states as states didn't even exist until after WWI and the Europeans ignorantly and arrogantly created them), this spot particularly, and then later, 1967, East Jerusalem -- Israel wishing to keep it for Jews only (and maybe Christians since Israel depends for its existence upon the USA) and Muslims wishing at least equal access and administration.  This Mount, who controls access to it, is one of the central ongoing themes of the history of the region going back at least to the 11th century, of Israel's history.  You know this, since you are so knowledgeable of what happened in the late 1800's.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

This is ludicrous. Since they actually did stop attacking during a ceasefire, "no matter what" either doesn't include "during ceasefires", or this guy is the equivalent of the mayor you kept harping about. 

Really?

Quote

Each side blamed the other for the breakdown in negotiations. On Thursday, Hamas killed four Israelis in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem and launched more rockets into Israel, which Israel said violated the ceasefire

https://time.com/6341993/israel-hamas-ceasefire-war/

 

14 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Personally I would have jumped on that deal, if the top priority was getting hostages back home.  

Also, all or at least the vast majority of the Palestinian's being released were minors and women.  I don't recall if Hamas was asking for soldiers in return for the release of men, since the details of the proposals going back and forth were pretty murky, but even if they were, I think that would have been a good deal.  If they offered all the remaining hostages for 300 Hamas soldiers, they would be crazy not to accept that.  300 soldiers isn't going to change anything for Hamas.

Then you would be a fool. You don't trade old men for soldiers when the other side says they're going to keep attacking. And they're open about not releasing your soldiers. If the deal was actually the remaining hostages for 300 soldiers, sure, I'd do that, but that isn't the deal. 

[Mudguard]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Really?

https://time.com/6341993/israel-hamas-ceasefire-war/

 

Then you would be a fool. You don't trade old men for soldiers when the other side says they're going to keep attacking. And they're open about not releasing your soldiers. If the deal was actually the remaining hostages for 300 soldiers, sure, I'd do that, but that isn't the deal. 

East Jerusalem attack wasn't covered by ceasefire, just as Israel's continued raids in the West Bank weren't covered by the ceasefire.  The rocket attacks resumed after the last exchange of hostages were made late in the day, and the temporary ceasefire had essentially run its course.  Whether or not there were a few hours left in the ceasefire, who knows since we have never seen any official terms, but essentially it was already over.  Israel's claim of a violation of the ceasefire was essentially a PR move.

Regarding trading old men for soldiers, it's a good deal.  Say Hamas has 20 old men, and they would trade for 60 soldiers.  What are 60 Hamas soldiers going to do, when Israel's stated goal is to destroy Hamas?  60 soldiers is not going to have a material impact on the war against Hamas.  How do you claim to be doing everything possible to get the hostages back if you refuse such a deal?

[fionwe1987]

38 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Really?

https://time.com/6341993/israel-hamas-ceasefire-war/

Was East Jerusalem covered by the ceasefire terms?

[Zorral]

The far right infiltration of Israel’s media is blinding the public to the truth about Gaza

Proponents of the settler movement, backed by Netanyahu, are ruling the airwaves and skewing coverage of the conflict

Etan Nechin

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/09/israel-media-gaza-benjamin-netanyahu-settler-movement

 

[kissdbyfire]

Anyone surprised? 

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-reporting/#:~:text=Also in October%2C CNN hired,Hamas's attack on southern Israel.

Quote

The language of the directives mirror similar orders from CNN management at the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, when Chair Walter Isaacson orderedOpens in a new tab foreign correspondents at the network to play down civilian deaths and remind readers that the violence they were witnessing was a direct result of the attacks on September 11.

 

Quote

Also in October, CNN hired a former IDF soldier to contribute writing and reporting to CNN’s war coverage. Tamar Michaelis’s first byline appears on October 17, 10 days after Hamas’s attack on southern Israel. Since then, her name has appeared on dozens of stories citing the IDF spokesperson and relaying information about the IDF’s operations in the Gaza Strip. At least one storyOpens in a new tab bearing only her byline is little more than a direct statement released from the IDF. 

According to her Facebook profile, Tamar Michaelis served in the IDF’s Spokesperson Unit, a division of the Israeli military charged with carrying out positive PR both domestically and abroad. (Last year, the Spokesperson Unit was forced to issue a public apologyOpens in a new tab for conducting psychological operations, or “psyops,” against Israeli civilians.) Michaelis recently locked her profile, which does not indicate the dates of her service in the IDF, and she did not respond to a request for comment. 

 

[Crixus]

I've been watching documentaries lately to know more about the history around this. @Darryk, https://youtu.be/Bwy-Rf15UIs?si=CziPeemDd5VHbTQ0 this one shows a rather different perspective around Palestinians leaving the area 'voluntarily' in 1948: fleeing an environment of violence, chaos and threats to life isn't 'voluntary'. Some of the accounts are truly heartbreaking. There are also interviews from ex members of Haganah and Irgun (the latter bombed the King David hotel and also were responsible for the Deir Yassin massacre) - some who still feel completely convinced they did the right thing, others who do not. 

The thing that stood out to me the most was how similar these scenes were to those of Jewish people feeling Europe in the 1930s - the same terror, horror, abject unfairness of it all. There's another brilliant doc I watched with real footage of the time, focusing on a few Jewish families living in Germany, Lithuania and Latvia, all of whom had to flee for their lives and did so to Palestine (and I suppose were lucky, compared to those who couldn't). 

It's that similarity that has really struck me - I cannot wrap my mind around how and why people would proceed to inflict the same horrors they've recently experienced on others - trauma and residual fear, perhaps? I can empathise with the desperate desire to have a place no one can expel you from - what I struggle with is how you justify doing the same to others to win your own safety and peace of mind. As others have pointed out, through stuff like Plan Dalet you can clearly see the intent and execution, authorised by those in charge - to pretend the intent back then was not mass expulsion is, I think, disingenuous, when they say so in their own words.

As for what you posted about Herzl (Arabs can benefit from our technology etc.) that sounds remarkably similar to British claims about how they brought India out of darkness (hilarious in itself, given the size of the Indian economy, GDP and trade at the start of it all) through the magic of railways - this sort of 'benevolent saviour' narrative that positions one side as being inherently superior to the other and infringing on territory and rights 'for their own good' is highly offensive, and absolute BS. 

 

 

 

Edited January 11 by Crixus
Incorrect link

[straits]

13 minutes ago, Crixus said:

As others have pointed out, through stuff like Plan Dalet you can clearly see the intent and execution, authorised by those in charge - to pretend the intent back then was not mass expulsion is, I think, disingenuous, when they say so in their own words.

Ilan Pappe made an astute observation on this topic in an interview of his: there is often no smoking gun for ethnic cleansing. The directives are loose and generalizable, but the actors which carry them out know what to do when they arrive at the next city or village, and the rest of the details are written in blood and violence.

[Crixus]

3 minutes ago, straits said:

Ilan Pappe made an astute observation on this topic in an interview of his: there is often no smoking gun for ethnic cleansing. The directives are loose and generalizable, but the actors which carry them out know what to do when they arrive at the next city or village, and the rest of the details are written in blood and violence.

Agreed, and I think he is in fact featured in the documentary I linked to above. 

[straits]

14 minutes ago, Crixus said:

Agreed, and I think he is in fact featured in the documentary I linked to above. 

Just check the link again, maybe it's my browser or app, but it looks like an advertizing channel when I access it.