Thoughts on the middle east conflicts.

[Peartree]

I can't help but feel like the government of Israel wants it both ways.

Probably true.

But probably also true of every other government on the planet.

Especially ours.

 

[NTP2]

The name of the outlet doesn't particularly concern me--the New Arab could be a perfectly reasonable site dedicated to news reporting. Once you read the article though... I don't often put disclaimers on articles, usually I try to find a better one instead. If Haaretz wasn't paywalled, I would have linked to it instead. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of non-paywalled sites available.

That was the joke!

 

[jqavins]

That said, there's clear US frustration with the way Israel is conducting the war, with the most recent ammunition shipment being put on hold.

Well it's about damn time! I'm absolutely not in favor of cutting off all military aid to Israel and leaving them close to defenseless, but I'm very much in favor of putting some teeth behind our gentle advice to act responsibly.

It also doesn't help when a member of the War Cabinet spouts off that there should be total annihilation in several Gaza cities. I'll admit that link is to an outlet with a clear axe to grind. The original Haaretz reporting is here, paywalled. You can see the primary quote though. There's a slightly different translation that isn't any better for Smotrich in the X video linked in the New Arab article.

That's called saying the quiet part out loud. And that quite part is why we need to put teeth behind the advice, a credible threat of meaningful consequences if Israel carries on as it's been doing.

That's easy for me to say, since I'm not the one who has to devise those consequences, consequences that would give Israel real pain without leaving them defenseless or alienating them completely. Still, the folks who are responsible for thinking it up are supposed to be better at this sort of thing than I am. Delaying, not cancelling yet, the latest arms shipment may be a good start.

 

[boatgeek]

Well it's about damn time! I'm absolutely not in favor of cutting off all military aid to Israel and leaving them close to defenseless, but I'm very much in favor of putting some teeth behind our gentle advice to act responsibly.

That's called saying the quiet part out loud. And that quite part is why we need to put teeth behind the advice, a credible threat of meaningful consequences if Israel carries on as it's been doing.

That's easy for me to say, since I'm not the one who has to devise those consequences, consequences that would give Israel real pain without leaving them defenseless or alienating them completely. Still, the folks who are responsible for thinking it up are supposed to be better at this sort of thing than I am. Delaying, not cancelling yet, the latest arms shipment may be a good start.

In other news, the White House is supposed to give a report to Congress tomorrow on Israel's use of the weapons we've provided them with so far. What that report looks like will be very interesting. I also saw a piece that something like 4 Israeli units had been put on warning that they needed to shape up on their human rights record or stop receiving US arms. At the time of publication, three of them had been cleared and the fourth was in process. It wasn't clear how that kind of ban would be enforced, though.

There was also a scare within Israel that the ICC would put out an indictment on Netanyahu and a few advisors over the famine in North Gaza. That seems to have disappeared, so maybe it won't happen? In practical terms, it wouldn't mean much, but the optics would be ugly.

 

[Donnager]

Who is driving all the anti Israel sentiment?

 

[boatgeek]

Who is driving all the anti Israel sentiment?

In my case at least, Israel. And that goes back 30 or so years when I visited near the end of high school. Even then when relations were relatively good, there was a culture of impunity where Israelis could commit all sorts of crimes against Palestinians and just get away with it. From vandalism to land theft to murder. And that hasn't gotten any better.

They've conducted this war more or less with indifference to human lives in lots of ways. Yes, they do some things well, but they're still at a combatant:civilian casualty ratio approximating the siege of Mariupol in 2022, and their practical rules of engagement are to shoot first, ask questions later. I can give plenty of examples if you want, but I've said most of them already in this thread.

 

[jqavins]

I wouldn't call my sentiment anti Israel, but highly critical of Israel. Israel needs to change its ways. Israel should be there, and it should have a place in the community of nations, and it needs to stop what it's doing. It needs to stop acting like the big bully on the block with regard to its neighbors, stop acting like South Africa's apartheid government toward its Palestinian residence, and stop acting like Russia toward the Palestinian territories.

I have a view from thousands of miles away, and don't read enough news to give details. (I get my new on the radio from NPR.) From here, I blame the ultra-orthodox for a lot of this. Israel is, in theory, both a Jewish homeland and a secular state. Jews are always welcome to immigrate, but no one is required to live by Jewish religious law. There have been Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Knesset. It's a Jewish homeland that is not a theocracy. In theory.

The ultra-orthodox are given privileges not allowed to others. They don't pay tax. They were, until very recently, exempt from mandatory military service. My own opinion is that if the Jewish homeland wants to give those privileges to those "super Jews" then they can, but if the ultra-orthodox don't accept the obligations of civil society then they should not expect all of the other things that come with them: no tax, no military service; no vote! The ultra-orthodox tend to vote with an ultra-conservative, nationalist, better-than-everybody-else attitude that risk war, or just start wars that they don't feel the pain from. They don't feel the financial burden of paying for national defense and they don't loose their children in the fighting, so naturally they're ready to vote for war. And if that's not solely to blame for Israel's bad behavior, it surely is a big part.

 

[teepot]

Lets not forget that Hamas is responsible for this war. If they hadn't committed the atrocity they did then this war wouldn't have happened. If Hamas and Hezbollah didn't shoot rockets into Israel then there would be no reason for Israel to respond. Hamas has been firing mortars at the pier that is being built to bring in humanitarian aid. They do not care about civilian deaths. It serves their purpose to have the dead the dying the homeless and hungry on the news every night. At one time or another every country around Israel has tried to destroy it. If they hadn't attacked Israel then Israel wouldn't have needed to fight back. Iran's number one stated goal is to destroy Israel. They are the power behind their proxies. If Iran hadn't created and funded them then Israel wouldn't have to fight them. Iran has been causing problems in the Middle East for decades. They have been sanctioned, been asked diplomatically, threatened, cyber attacked and probably a lot of things nobody knows about. But they will not change. They will not abandon their goal of destroying Israel. While the chances of this are small it's not zero that an Iranian fanatic launches a nuclear weapon at them. Does what is happening in Israel bother me. Yes it does greatly. But based on the history of the region I don't see a change for the better coming any time soon or possibly ever. Now don't rip my arm off and beat me over the head with it. I realize my opinions are in the minority but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. If you want to comment please keep it civil.

 

[cwbullet]

Lets not forget that Hamas is responsible for this war.

This is the key point. There is no sane way to justify slaughtering civilians like they did. Criticizing the policies of Israel is fine, but the attack in early OCT went over the line.

 

[CalebJ]

I don't think anyone has tried to justify the Hamas attack at the beginning of this current round of conflict.

 

[jqavins]

Lets not forget that Hamas is responsible for this war. If they hadn't committed the atrocity they did then this war wouldn't have happened. If Hamas and Hezbollah didn't shoot rockets into Israel then there would be no reason for Israel to respond. Hamas has been firing mortars at the pier that is being built to bring in humanitarian aid. They do not care about civilian deaths. It serves their purpose to have the dead the dying the homeless and hungry on the news every night. At one time or another every country around Israel has tried to destroy it. If they hadn't attacked Israel then Israel wouldn't have needed to fight back. Iran's number one stated goal is to destroy Israel. They are the power behind their proxies. If Iran hadn't created and funded them then Israel wouldn't have to fight them. Iran has been causing problems in the Middle East for decades. They have been sanctioned, been asked diplomatically, threatened, cyber attacked and probably a lot of things nobody knows about. But they will not change. They will not abandon their goal of destroying Israel. While the chances of this are small it's not zero that an Iranian fanatic launches a nuclear weapon at them. Does what is happening in Israel bother me. Yes it does greatly. But based on the history of the region I don't see a change for the better coming any time soon or possibly ever. Now don't rip my arm off and beat me over the head with it. I realize my opinions are in the minority but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. If you want to comment please keep it civil.

All true, except the part about yours being the minority opinion. With as many deaths that Israel could have avoided but didn't, I can't call them the good guys (I've written in this thread before that there are no good guys here) but there's no doubt that Hamas are the worse guys. And Iran is the evil mastermind, stroking it's white cat in the background.

I think the chances are also very slim but non-zero that a maniac running Israel (not Netanyahu) will nuke Iran. (Netanyahu is part of the problem, but he's not that kind of maniac.) It saddens me hugely that the once shining example of a modern democracy in the middle east has descended to the point that that seems possible. And yet, Hamas and Iran are still worse.

Regime change in Iran in Iran would help, but only if it come about internally. Preferably peaceful. There are many Iranians, just like many Israelis and Palestinians, who want peace. A few posts back I stated my belief that the religious hardliners in Israel are part of the problem; the religious hardliners in Iran are a bigger part. And the Palestinian maniacs (Hamas and Hezbollah) who think murder is a legitimate political tool and take Iranian money to do it are the biggest part.

And it's all none of Iran's business! They call it a religious conflict, while the Quran is about peace and requires respect for the "people of the book", meaning Jews and Christians. And in the actual civil and political conflict, Iranians are not arabs. So eff you, Iran; butt out!

 

[Donnager]

In this case, Israel was first attacked by Hamas rockets, not the other way around. They (Israel) responded by at least a factor of two over the attackers, and is now explaining (in the court of public International opinion--the mob) why they hit back so hard. Normally, you hit back hard because you want to send a message, like "DON'T FIRE ROCKETS AT OUR PEOPLE"... The implicit warning is that your people will be hurt worse, and they have been. If Hamas doesn't fire rockets at Israel, this conflict does not occur. Hamas knows this, and is using the internet to sway world opinion against Israel after all Israel is doing is responding heavily to an unprovoked attack (by what most would call terrorists).

My thought is don't poke the bear if you don't want to see what the teeth look like. Hamas poked the bear with a stick, and is upset at the results, and we have vast internet media campaigns to promote anti-semitism, because Israel is mean. And, Hamas is trying to gain help from others in the area, to help fight "the oppressor"?.

It appears that the Hamas political message has legs, and their efforts are being espoused here in the US media, and even on this forum.

I'm totally baffled.

 

[CalebJ]

That's a pretty horrific interpretation of the situation, IMO.

Just because Hamas started this does not create a blank check for doing anything you want in response. Both sides can be wrong, and if they are, no one should look the other way proclaiming 'but he started it!'.

And saying that Israel is wrong in their response is hardly anti-semitism. That's patently ridiculous.

 

[boatgeek]

In this case, Israel was first attacked by Hamas rockets, not the other way around. They (Israel) responded by at least a factor of two over the attackers, and is now explaining (in the court of public International opinion--the mob) why they hit back so hard. Normally, you hit back hard because you want to send a message, like "DON'T FIRE ROCKETS AT OUR PEOPLE"... The implicit warning is that your people will be hurt worse, and they have been. If Hamas doesn't fire rockets at Israel, this conflict does not occur. Hamas knows this, and is using the internet to sway world opinion against Israel after all Israel is doing is responding heavily to an unprovoked attack (by what most would call terrorists).

My thought is don't poke the bear if you don't want to see what the teeth look like. Hamas poked the bear with a stick, and is upset at the results, and we have vast internet media campaigns to promote anti-semitism, because Israel is mean. And, Hamas is trying to gain help from others in the area, to help fight "the oppressor"?.

It appears that the Hamas political message has legs, and their efforts are being espoused here in the US media, and even on this forum.

I'm totally baffled.

Hamas killing civilians on 10/7 does not give Israel the right to shoot nuns inside their own convent.
Hamas killing civilians on 10/7 does not give Israel the right to shoot unarmed civilians following published "safe" evacuation routes.
Hamas raping women on 10/7 does not give Israel the right to threaten or actually rape women in their custody.
Hamas conducting assassinations does not give Israel the right to commit extrajudicial killings outside the war zone.

Hamas is evil. But nearly all of the evil that Hamas has done is also being done by the Israeli military. Sure, Hamas is doing it with more enthusiasm, but that doesn't make it right for Israel to do it a little bit.

 

[Bravo52]

That's a pretty horrific interpretation of the situation, IMO.

Just because Hamas started this does not create a blank check for doing anything you want in response. Both sides can be wrong, and if they are, no one should look the other way proclaiming 'but he started it!'.

And saying that Israel is wrong in their response is hardly anti-semitism. That's patently ridiculous.

That is one interpretation of how war is to be conducted. It isn't the only one. To put it in liberal terms, war is on a spectrum. However, ultimately, there is no second place, only a winner and a loser. In order to determine where that conflict resides on the spectrum, you have to understand the context of the fight. Israel and the Arab world have been at war for a very long time. Like as in "biblical" long time. "But he started it" is nothing more than the "but he started the latest round".

This war is certainly not anti-semitic by today's definitions. Supporting one side or the other is not necessarily anti-semitic. What is anti-semitic is the motivation for doing one or the other. The definition of anti-semitic really has many meanings in the modern world some of which has nothing to do at all with armed conflict. I would venture to say that the vast majority of "students" on campuses in the US are not anti-semitic in their motivation but just plain ignorant. Their motivations are misguided and because they are easily led by those that do have a specific agenda. Some Arabs in Gaza might even be the same. However, that does not excuse any lawlessness (I haven't seen where anyone here has said the protestors are excused).

The Arab stated goal is "from the river to the sea"; in other words, total annihilation. What is the "proportional" response to that stated goal?

 

[CalebJ]

That is one interpretation of how war is to be conducted. It isn't the only one. To put it in liberal terms, war is on a spectrum. However, ultimately, there is no second place, only a winner and a loser. In order to determine where that conflict resides on the spectrum, you have to understand the context of the fight. Israel and the Arab world have been at war for a very long time. Like as in "biblical" long time. "But he started it" is nothing more than the "but he started the latest round".

This war is certainly not anti-semitic by today's definitions. Supporting one side or the other is not necessarily anti-semitic. What is anti-semitic is the motivation for doing one or the other. The definition of anti-semitic really has many meanings in the modern world some of which has nothing to do at all with armed conflict. I would venture to say that the vast majority of "students" on campuses in the US are not anti-semitic in their motivation but just plain ignorant. Their motivations are misguided and because they are easily led by those that do have a specific agenda. Some Arabs in Gaza might even be the same. However, that does not excuse any lawlessness (I haven't seen where anyone here has said the protestors are excused).

The Arab stated goal is "from the river to the sea"; in other words, total annihilation. What is the "proportional" response to that stated goal?

Thank you for taking the time to define war to a fellow veteran as if I'm ignorant.
Thank you for taking the time to define students seeking higher education as ignorant.

It says a lot that you're unwilling to consider others opinions as informed simply because you disagree with their perspective.

 

[Bravo52]

Thank you for taking the time to define war to a fellow veteran as if I'm ignorant.
Thank you for taking the time to define students seeking higher education as ignorant.

It says a lot that you're unwilling to consider others opinions as informed simply because you disagree with their perspective.

Who said I was talking just to you? I referenced your post as it was a reference of another post that was a reference of another post. You are not the only person in this conversation. Who is "their"?

But hey, if you want to take it that way, then fine, "You're Welcome".

 

[CalebJ]

I'm sorry...
You quoted my post, but now you don't have the intestinal fortitude to even acknowledge that you were talking to me?

That's just pathetic.

 

[Bravo52]

I'm sorry...
You quoted my post, but now you don't have the intestinal fortitude to even acknowledge that you were talking to me?

That's just pathetic.

Look Caleb...if I'm talking just to you, I'll use your name. So there is no mistake, Caleb. You will know I specifically mean you, Caleb. Just because you got your feelings hurt is on you, Caleb. Cry harder, Caleb.

 

[CalebJ]

Better left unsaid...

 

[NTP2]

In this case, Israel was first attacked by Hamas rockets, not the other way around. They (Israel) responded by at least a factor of two over the attackers, and is now explaining (in the court of public International opinion--the mob) why they hit back so hard. Normally, you hit back hard because you want to send a message, like "DON'T FIRE ROCKETS AT OUR PEOPLE"... The implicit warning is that your people will be hurt worse, and they have been. If Hamas doesn't fire rockets at Israel, this conflict does not occur. Hamas knows this, and is using the internet to sway world opinion against Israel after all Israel is doing is responding heavily to an unprovoked attack (by what most would call terrorists).

My thought is don't poke the bear if you don't want to see what the teeth look like. Hamas poked the bear with a stick, and is upset at the results, and we have vast internet media campaigns to promote anti-semitism, because Israel is mean. And, Hamas is trying to gain help from others in the area, to help fight "the oppressor"?.

It appears that the Hamas political message has legs, and their efforts are being espoused here in the US media, and even on this forum.

I'm totally baffled.

Let’s say I think the pope has horrible fashion sense and I go and criticize him as such, does that mean I think that all christians have bad fashion sense? Because that’s what you’re saying.

 

[Bravo52]

Better left unsaid...

I agree with you, Caleb.

 

[NTP2]

Hamas killing civilians on 10/7 does not give Israel the right to shoot nuns inside their own convent.
Hamas killing civilians on 10/7 does not give Israel the right to shoot unarmed civilians following published "safe" evacuation routes.
Hamas raping women on 10/7 does not give Israel the right to threaten or actually rape women in their custody.
Hamas conducting assassinations does not give Israel the right to commit extrajudicial killings outside the war zone.

Hamas is evil. But nearly all of the evil that Hamas has done is also being done by the Israeli military. Sure, Hamas is doing it with more enthusiasm, but that doesn't make it right for Israel to do it a little bit.

“He who fights monsters becomes a monster himself”

 

[boatgeek]

“He who fights monsters becomes a monster himself”

The actual quote from Nietzsche is "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." And that is very relevant to this situation.

 

[NTP2]

The actual quote from Nietzsche is "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." And that is very relevant to this situation.

Ahhh ok I did not remember who said it, I only heard it second hand in a book (it was obvious it wasn’t an original source).

Ps the book series is called he who fights with monsters

 

[jqavins]

In this case, Israel was first attacked by Hamas rockets, not the other way around. They (Israel) responded by at least a factor of two over the attackers, and is now explaining (in the court of public International opinion--the mob) why they hit back so hard. Normally, you hit back hard because you want to send a message, like "DON'T FIRE ROCKETS AT OUR PEOPLE"... The implicit warning is that your people will be hurt worse, and they have been. If Hamas doesn't fire rockets at Israel, this conflict does not occur. Hamas knows this, and is using the internet to sway world opinion against Israel after all Israel is doing is responding heavily to an unprovoked attack (by what most would call terrorists).

My thought is don't poke the bear if you don't want to see what the teeth look like. Hamas poked the bear with a stick, and is upset at the results, and we have vast internet media campaigns to promote anti-semitism, because Israel is mean. And, Hamas is trying to gain help from others in the area, to help fight "the oppressor"?.

It appears that the Hamas political message has legs, and their efforts are being espoused here in the US media, and even on this forum.

I'm totally baffled.

OK, since you say you're baffled, let me try to explain, as I see it. To say Israel has "responded by at least a factor of two" is technically correct, since they have responded by more than a factor of 25. I don't believe in proportionate responses; I believe in overwhelming and devastating responses against the enemy who attacks you. In this case, to use your metaphor, someone poked the bear and the bear is wiping out the entire village.

In modern usage "anti-Semitic" means against Jews and Judaism (although "Semitic" literally includes Arabs). The State of Israel and Judaism in general are not the same thing. It seems that no matter how many people say that, no matter how many times, no matter how clearly and loudly, there are still people who can't or won't get that through their skulls. Criticism of, or opposition to Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism! To be sure, there are those in the crowd criticizing Israel who are anti-Semitic, and there are many more who are not.

That's a pretty horrific interpretation of the situation, IMO...

That is one interpretation of how war is to be conducted...

@CalebJ, it was @Donnager who began a new fiber within this thread. You and @Bravo52 both replied to that fiber; he quoted you as the most recent reply to it. That's all. You two are sniping at each other over nothing.

 

[dr wogz]

Let’s say I think the pope has horrible fashion sense and I go and criticize him as such, does that mean I think that all christians have bad fashion sense? Because that’s what you’re saying.

I think the Pope is Catholic.. Therefore you would be going after the Catholics in society, not necessarily "Christians"

just being pedantic for the sake of it!

 

[Peartree]

If y'all want to keep banging each other over the head, please take it outside (or PMs) unless you want to be banned from the thread.

And now, let's get back on topic. (Please).

 

[NTP2]

I think the Pope is Catholic.. Therefore you would be going after the Catholics in society, not necessarily "Christians"

just being pedantic for the sake of it!

I think that actually makes my point work even better (it’s easy to forget that Cristian’s aren’t the only ones who do the “many different but almost identical religions thing)

 

[jderimig]

I think that actually makes my point work even better (it’s easy to forget that Cristian’s aren’t the only ones who do the “many different but almost identical religions thing)

I am for killing the worst monster. Then we can decide what do with new worst monster (who ever that is) and so on and so on....

That works alot better than trying to optimize the portfolio of monsters.