They understand the world is weak, and their suicidal sacrifices may one day bring about formal condemnation and sanctions, even a blockade against Israel. They are desperate but not necessarily stupid about the objective. Far too many people play into the "but they are dying" trope for it not to be a real stratagem.
It may be, that they think these attacks are playing the long game. I doubt it will ever accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish. Israel will not disband and go way, with all the Jews departing and leaving everything to them. Nor will they live in a single state ruled by Arabs, not with all the historical bad blood between the two peoples. They'd be insane to accept such a proposition. The Jews have lived in countries where they were despised by the majority, and they aren't going through it again.
If what they really want is their own state, all these attacks are doing is delaying any sort of peace talks, like the ones which happened in the 90's. They have empowered the Israeli right and put the Israeli left into the political wilderness, which was an entirely predictable result. This violence has been a 21+ year detour from any sort of peace process.
Violence does not beget peace. Like I said up thread, liberals used to understand things like this. But now, they are so convinced of this ludicrously one sided narrative where there is only one bad actor here that they support attacks against Israeli civilians because they are claim that Palestinians literally have no other choice. Except it's false. They do have another choice and always have.
If there hadn't been a culture war between Jews and Arabs starting from the moment Jewish immigration picked up in the late 19th century, today we'd have two states in what was Palestine. A smaller state which was 3/4's Jews and 1/4 Arab, and a larger state which was 3/4's Arab, one quarter Jews. There was and is nothing inherently unworkable about it.
Perhaps American Jewish leaders fear that facing the crimes committed at Israel’s birth will leave Jews vulnerable. Once the Nakba taboo is lifted, Palestinians will feel emboldened to seek revenge. But more often than not, honestly confronting the past has the opposite effect. After George Bisharat, a Palestinian-American law professor, wrote about the house in Jerusalem that his grandfather had built and been robbed of, a former Israeli soldier who had lived in it contacted him unexpectedly. “I am sorry, I was blind. What we did was wrong, but I participated in it and I cannot deny it,” the former soldier said when they met, and then added, “I owe your family three months’ rent.” Mr. Bisharat later wrote that he was inspired to match the Israeli’s humanity.
“Just that response, writ large, is what awaits Israel if it could bring itself to apologize to the Palestinians,” he wrote. In that moment he saw “an untapped reservoir of Palestinian magnanimity and good will that could transform the relations between the two peoples.”
I'm not tarring you. The tar is already there. You said, and I'm going to quote you to avoid any confusion:
That project, the Zionist project, was and is supported by the vast majority of Jews in the world, then and now, even most of those who are critical of current Israeli policy.
The idea that Zionism was not really an attempt to escape persecution but instead was a racist project meant from its inception to either displace and/or exterminate Arab populations is another big fat anti-semitic lie which could just as well have been ripped right from the pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Yeah, you're correct that it started with a 2000 year war against the Jews in Christian Europe. The fact that the Jews were being slaughtered in Europe created a real, moral case for a Jewish homeland. You can call it "absolution" or whatever you want - there was a real case for a Jewish homeland. The Holocaust only heightened that case - 2000 years of constant oppression and slaughter culminating in 1/3 of world's Jewish population being annihilated.
There wasn't a better solution. I'm sorry that the Arabs didn't like the Jews any more than the Christians in Europe did, but that was not a reason to turn away Jews who were fleeing from oppression. Unless you just don't give a shit about Jews.
Liberals used to understand all this. Then Israel got big guns, which made them the bad guy.
The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine wasn't the problem. Because things did not have to go the way they did. The problem was the behavior of many people on the ground, on both sides. And including the British.
If there hadn't been a culture war between Jews and Arabs starting from the moment Jewish immigration picked up in the late 19th century, today we'd have two states in what was Palestine. A smaller state which was 3/4's Jews and 1/4 Arab, and a larger state which was 3/4's Arab, one quarter Jews. There was and is nothing inherently unworkable about it.
lol, well said.
The ineptitude of these generations is getting hysterical.
Holy fuck kids these days are dumb as a box of rocks:
View attachment 44317
Does having shitty opinions on sexuality preclude them from having a viable state?
Yes. Yes it does.
"Shitty opinions" and "Killing people" are quite different, the comparison you just made is quite hilarious.
The problem is you have been reframing the history. Hey I have empathy for the Jews that were historically oppressed in Europe. I also have empathy for the Palestinians who have now also been oppressed. You can't have an honest discussion about the right solution when you are mischaracterizing the events that got us here. Obviously both sides have made missteps.
Almost any Zionist would say there can be no Israel without a clear ethnic Jewish majority. Today Palestinian refugees and their descendants number almost 6 million. What do you think would have happened to those numbers had the Zionist leaders allowed the Palestinian refugees to stay in their homes? I'll tell you what, they wouldn't have magically disappeared, thus no Jewish majority state and no Israel.
Israel has to recognize this crucial grievance if they are to reach a compromise with the Palestinians that allows them to keep their Jewish ethnic majority and reach peaceful and lasting solution.
Peter Beinart is right in this https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/opinion/israel-palestinian-refugees-right-of-return.html
By continuing with this will ensure that Hamas will always have power with the Palestinians, that's 100% guaranteed.
Not that I'm expecting any of this to change of course, Israel will continue with the status quo but there will be more and more people that criticize Israel, a couple of years ago Human Rights Watch wouldn't have dared to issue a report like that. Prepare to be annoyed by increased "unfair" criticism of Israel.
Why didn't Trump pull that with COVID. Oh yea, he almost did.Bennett rules out ‘change gov’t’ due to Gaza unrest, renews talks with Likud
* * *www.timesofisrael.com
and just like that Bibi's back in power, amazing
Yeah, that is what everyone says in discussions about Israel and the Palestinians, that the other side is misstating historical facts. This isn't my first rodeo with this kind of debate.
I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific about what I am supposedly reframing. If I responded to your arguments by claiming that you were misrepresenting history with no specifics as to what in particular was incorrect, I think you'd probably find that rather annoying and not worthy of much response.
Well we were having a discussion and I countered some of your historical claims and you responded, so you must have read what I wrote.
I responded to your last substantive post in post 85. Then you replied without substance, saying in effect "whatever you just said is bullshit." If you want to continue the discussion, try again. Tell me what is inaccurate in what I wrote in post 85.
I think we all see the end game here - Israel’s plan is to eventually colonize Palestinian territory to the extent that a Palestinian state will be nonviable. They are really just running out the clock.Human Rights Watch has been criticizing Israel for 20+ years. I read their report over the conflict in Jenin way back in 2002. And their reports on the two ground wars in Gaza. So that part of your comment is completely wrong. There isn't more criticism now. It's been a steady buzz for quite a long while, especially since 2000 when the second Intifada started.
Contrary to what you claim, it's the same countries, the UN, the same lefty human rights orgs (HRW and Amnesty, mainly), and the same Euro and US liberals who are criticizing Israel. From time to time, as with right now, there is an increase in violence, then the criticism swells. Then it recedes to the same low rumble until the next time.
And it's not going to change Israeli policy. Because Israel is not going to elect someone willing to do things like freeze settlements and go easier on the Palestinians until Hamas is gone and the rockets stop firing.
Until that happens, Israelis will just keep electing Likud hardliners. If some group on the other side of the Mexican border was firing rockets at the US, no matter how valid their grievance, we aren't going to elect the guy who wants to accommodate and negotiate. We're going to elect the guy who says he's going to kick the crap out of them. In that environment, anyone else is unelectable.
Forget all the arguments about who the main historical wrongdoer here or whether criticisms of Israel are "fair" or "unfair." This is just realpolitik. Israel has the guns and has a big wall. It has little to no incentive to make unilateral changes like what you suggest. International pressure would have to be many fold what it is now. Even yanking all US aid, or threatening to do so, would not achieve what advocates of the Palestinians desire. Because while Israel would rather not lose that aid, strictly speaking it doesn't really need it either.
The notion that Israel will unilaterally do all sorts of things in response to rockets fired by an avowed anti-Semitic group like Hamas is pure lefty fantasy which has nothing to do with the real world. Even if I agreed with every last thing you guys are saying about Israel in this thread, that reality is unshakable.
Earlier you said there was never a thought of Palestinian identity prior to 1947. I provided a quote that showed otherwise. Then you said this whole thing is a culture war of the Arabs against the Jews. I said you are basically leaving out the history of the culture war of White Christians against the Jews, which is a pretty fucking big omission. It's easy to make the brown Arabs the entire bogeymen if us Westerners can whitewash the history of why the Jews needed a refuge in the first place.
Uh, I suppose I was being too literal. Some Palestinians discussing the idea of a separate state in direct response to the Balfour Declaration but never acting on it when given the chance doesn't make it much of a movement.
Let me ask you this. What happened to the movement for Palestinian sovereignty between 1948 and 1967? This was the period of time when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. All those Palestinians were under Arab rule at the time. Did they call for independence then?
The entire notion that the Palestinians have ever had a drive for independence separate and apart from their opposition to Israel is just not real. My original point was that they started calling for independence the moment Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza. Now you point out that they briefly discussed it right after the Balfour declaration. And now let's add that they rejected statehood offers in 1937 and 1947, precisely because those offers entailed a predominantly Jewish state along side what would have been their state.
Then they don't ask for independence for 20 years while they're under Arab rule, then start asking for it again when Israel takes over. Had the Palestinians had a strong sense of national and cultural identity, separate and apart from being Arabs, they most certainly would have rejected Jordanian and Egyptian rule and called for independence.
Please feel free to correct me on any facts you think I've gotten wrong here. Because your minor correction doesn't really alter my point. If anything, the fact that those talks were held right after the Balfour Declaration and in the context of opposition to it only strengthens it.
I think we all see the end game here - Israel’s plan is to eventually colonize Palestinian territory to the extent that a Palestinian state will be nonviable. They are really just running out the clock.
People can argue if that’s good or bad, (I think bad!) but that’s what’s going to happen and I doubt the world will do anything to stop it.
I agree it was not always their intent and that the Palestinians squandered a legitimate chance for peace. I think it is their plan now though and has been for quite some time.That is your inference at to their intentions. Might well be accurate for Netanyahu and generally the Israeli right. Certainly was not true for the Labor leaders they had back in the 90's. That was an opportunity for the Palestinians to have a state before existing Israeli settlements would further expand. They chose to reject the offer without bothering to counter it, and fight instead. It was either a mistake or an intended long term course of action.
I am personally doubtful. Years have gone by without major disturbances in the past and Israel has been content to continue on this path. I think they have given up.It may well be that this end game you describe is going to occur. It doesn't have to. If the Palestinians get rid of Hamas and stop the rocket attacks, Netanyahu and the Likud will lose the justification they have for further settlement expansion and harsh measures against the Pals.
Most Israelis do not live on those settlements, are not religious, and don't give a crap about the settlements. All they want is security and safety. So long as the rockets keep flying, they're going to keep electing Likud because they promise to bomb the people who are bombing them.
Get rid of Hamas, stop the rocket attacks, wait a few years, then the Pals start demanding peace talks. If the Pals have clean hands at that point with both territories under PA authority and Hamas gone, but Likud is still in power, international pressure will finally start to mount to a critical mass because Israel is still refusing to negotiate or stop building settlements even after the Pals stop the attacks. Then the Israelis could well toss out Likud and put someone in who believes in a two state solution.
Those rockets are making a two state solution impossible by perpetuating Likud who, in turn, are building more settlements which, as you say, will eventually make the entire proposition non-viable. But then, Hamas is firing those rockets, and Hamas, like Likud, has no interest whatsoever in a two state solution. Likud wants to shove the Pals out, and Hamas wants to be the great Islamic conqueror, like Mohammed himself, who will vanquish evil Jews through force of arms.
So long as these are the leaders we have in place, the end game you describe is pretty likely to occur.
A minor correction of a point you belabored, that there was zero sense of Palestinian Arab identity prior to 1947. Just that. Oh and that you kinda just framed this as an Arab-Jewish cultural war while conveniently ignoring, until it was pointed out, that this was primarily the result of White Western Christian issues with the Jews.
The Jewish homeland was a result of western colonialist promises and had its issues from the very beginning.
Any state though, being forcefully formed by planned immigration, based on religious beliefs, and backed by colonialist powers, it's bound to fuck things up in the area.