2023 Israel - Hamas / Hezbollah war

[JamesT]

True that extremisms on either side will lead to a response, but Isreal are responsible for many more deaths and this should be subject to more scrutiny.

It is not a level playing field by any means.

Absolutely, but the number of Palestinian civilians suffering is vastly higher than Isrelis, so why single one side out like this?

True but many more Palestinian civilians have suffered over the course of the conflict than Isrelis; however it is deemed to be far more newsworthy when Isrelis suffer compared to Palestinians suffering.

Isn’t the number of deaths reflective of the fact that Israel is a properly equipped army, unlike the Palestinians? They perform an airstrike and the target is likely to be destroyed. Whereas Hamas launched unguided rockets which often land in fields or destroyed by the Iron Dome defence system.

 

[Falcon1200]

Absolutely, but the number of Palestinian civilians suffering is vastly higher than Isrelis, so why single one side out like this?

Are the actions of Hamas as morally acceptable as those of the Israeli state? I fully agree BTW that the Palestinians have suffered grievously at the hands of Israel, but given what Hamas have done, yesterday and ongoing, can anyone really be surprised at the ferocity of the Israeli response; And what else should, and could, they have done - nothing?

 

[yorkie]

Isn’t the number of deaths reflective of the fact that Israel is a properly equipped army, unlike the Palestinians? They perform an airstrike and the target is likely to be destroyed. Whereas Hamas launched unguided rockets which often land in fields or destroyed by the Iron Dome defence system.

It's certainly not a level playing field in any way whatsoever; Israel is indeed vastly more powerful.

Are the actions of Hamas as morally acceptable as those of the Israeli state? I fully agree BTW that the Palestinians have suffered grievously at the hands of Israel, but given what Hamas have done, yesterday and ongoing, can anyone really be surprised at the ferocity of the Israeli response; And what else should, and could, they have done - nothing?

It is difficult to compare a state acting illegally with the actions of a group of people who have no state backing and are perhaps freedom fighters to some and terrorists to others.

Israel should adhere to international law; also any defences should not constitute 'retaliation'.

 

[nw1]

The two sides really need to calm down and talk to each other.

As I said above, there are too many hot-headed militant extremists on both sides. It's symptomatic of a general problem the world has at the moment.

Replacing Netanyahu with a moderate and replacing Hamas with a non-violent Palestinian independence organisation would help a great deal.

 

[Noddy]

Not so. Myth 10 states 'Myth #10: Israel is explicitly seeking Palestinians' total destruction', nowhere have I suggested that!

Which is why I said

This is a good article although Myth 10, to some degree, contradicts your point.

I think you need to look beyond the headline and at the substance of the text, which is very good.

 

[dakta]

Without taking sides, it doesnt seem disputed the accounts of Israeli civilians been sought out and systematically shot as per bbc news this morning

The response seems to be targeted attacks on specific buildings and infrastructure in cases with warnings given in advance to allow civilians some hope of avoiding being on the worst of it, though obviously they are getting impacted.

Its been repeated over and over that more Palestinians have died than Israelis. Im not sure if that changes my perception given the manner in which the dispute appears to be fought

 

[alex397]

When people say that Palestine should become an independent state (and I agree they should have their own land), does this mean the current State of Palestine, or the more historical Palestine borders which cover all of current Israel? I’ve seen a map of Mandatory Palestine (which existed from 1920 to 1948) being posted on Twitter/X saying this is what it the state of Palestine should be, so in other words getting rid of Israel. There isn’t any point taking much on Twitter seriously, as it’s increasingly full of extremists, but I’m curious to know what the general consensus is about what the borders of an independent Palestine should be.

 

[Farigiraf]

When people say that Palestine should become an independent state (and I agree they should have their own land), does this mean the current State of Palestine, or the more historical Palestine borders which cover all of current Israel? I’ve seen a map of Mandatory Palestine (which existed from 1920 to 1948) being posted on Twitter/X saying this is what it the state of Palestine should be, so in other words getting rid of Israel. There isn’t any point taking much on Twitter seriously, as it’s increasingly full of extremists, but I’m curious to know what the general consensus is about what the borders of an independent Palestine should be.

Of course there are Palestinians who want all of Israel but at the same time there are those who want the British Empire back- Here is what is generally proposed (Palestine in beige)

 

[yorkie]

Which is why I said



I think you need to look beyond the headline and at the substance of the text, which is very good.

But it doesn't contradict the points I've made.

Its been repeated over and over that more Palestinians have died than Israelis. Im not sure if that changes my perception given the manner in which the dispute appears to be fought

Infographic: The Human Cost Of The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

This chart shows Israeli & Palestinian deaths/injuries documented by the UN in Gaza and the West Bank.

www.statista.com

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has been tracking deaths in the conflict since 2008 and its data shows that 5,600 Palestinians died up to 2020 while 115,000 were injured. 250 Israelis died during the same period while 5,600 were injured....

The Human Cost of the Israeli-Palestinian confict
Total deaths from 2008 to 2020
Palestinian: 5,590
Israeli: 251
Source: United Nations

 

[dakta]

Im not disputing that more palestinians have died, im more musing over what one is supposed to do with that information when responding to your own citizens being systematically identified and shot

 

[21C101]

,

 

[BananaRepublic]

…..Retaliation by Israel is vastly disrporportionate; you appear to be justifying these retaliations, is that the case?


Nonsense. It is a direct result of Isreal's action, which is a vastly disprportionate and an indirect result of Hamas' actions.

So what do you suggest would be a proportionate response ?

.

 

[yorkie]

So what do you suggest would be a proportionate response ?

Any response should be reasonable, proportionate and fully compliant with international law; they should not be retaliatory/inflammatory in nature.

Retaliatory/inflammatory actions by either side will only result in more extremism from the other side and be used by those who seek to perpetuate and escalate the hostilities to justify those actions.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Just as an aside, I seem to recall reading a Tom Clancy novel years ago (possibly The Sum of All Fears?) which started with the US brokering a seemingly successful solution to the Jerusalem temple/mosque issue, along the lines of a neutral territory agreement policed by the Swiss Guard, a bit like in the Vatican.

It didn‘t quite succeed as planned though, as a PLF terrorist ends up detonating a nuclear bomb in Denver at a major sports event. I think the underlying point was ‘don’t try and get involved’!

 

[Noddy]

But it doesn't contradict the points I've made.

As you seem to want to continue I'm not sure what the 'points' are. The point I explicitly referenced in post 23 was this one:

Israel seems keen to deny the existence of a Palestinian state

As you've already quoted myth 10 begins with:

The status quo of the Israel-Palestine conflict is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for Palestinians, who are under a suffocating blockade in Gaza and military occupation in the West Bank. They do not have a state or full rights, while Israelis have both. And the longer the conflict drags on, the tougher it will be to change that. So you can see why some might think that all Israelis want this to happen and want the conflict to drag on forever or to end it by permanently expelling or subjugating Palestinians

Unless you care to argue something different your statement that 'Israel seems keen to deny the existence of a Palestinian state' directly aligns with this view.

The next line of the article goes on to say:

- but when you look at how Israel makes decisions, and what Israeli voters want, it becomes pretty clear that this is not the case.

I'm not sure how it could be any clearer.

The section then goes on to say (in full):

As is true of any country, especially a parliamentary democracy, Israel's actions are less the result of a single calculated strategy than they are about messy internal politics, short-term thinking, and strategic drift. Take, as a micro example, Israel's approach to Gaza since Hamas took over in 2006. Israel has invaded or launched extended bombing campaigns in Gaza every few years; this costs many Israeli lives, in addition to the much higher Palestinian death toll, and it never actually solves the underlying problems. Clearly Israel does not have long-term strategy here at all, much less a nefarious secret plan. That lack of a strategy is bad and helps perpetuate the cycle of violence, but it is a cycle that's painful for Israelis, as well.

Israeli policy has changed over time; just like American politics, it has been different depending on who is leading the government. In the early 1990s, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed a peace deal with the Palestinians, even though Israel's concessions for the deal were so unpopular among Israelis that a far-right extremist assassinated Rabin. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians a two-state peace deal. There were valid reasons the offer failed (Nathan Thrall has written a good history of what happened), but the point is that Israel would not have offered this plan if it secretly desired the permanent occupation of the West Bank.

There are certainly extremists in Israeli politics — sometimes quite prominent extremists — who want to permanently annex the West Bank and make Palestinians second-class citizens, or to systemically expel Palestinians from their land en masse in an act of 21st-century ethnic cleansing. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has at times indulged these extremists in a cynical ploy to keep himself in power. But there are also prominent Israeli politicians who want and push publicly for a two-state peace deal that would grant Palestinians independence and full rights. There are other political factions involved in this, as well; they fight all the time, and very publicly, pushing and pulling Israeli government policy in one direction or another. When you watch that happening, and watch Israel's short-term thinking on problems like Gaza, it becomes clearer that Israeli policy on the conflict is often formed day to day and week to week by a messy process.

To be clear, none of that is to absolve Israel of responsibility for its actions, only to honestly assess how those actions come to be. It is also not to absolve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is clearly not a peacenik. But he has often seemed more interested in managing internal Israeli politics, keeping his parliamentary coalition together, catering to Israeli public opinion, and delivering short-term security, all over taking difficult steps toward long-term peace. That is a massive failure in its own right, and it has contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict regardless of his motive, but it is also not the same thing as a deliberate, continuous Israeli strategy to achieve the destruction of the Palestinian identity — even if it may one day be the effect.

Myth 10 is stating that Isreal is not intentionally seeking (or 'keen') to deny the existence of a Palestinian state but that this is happening as a by-product of internal and short term politics within Isreal itself.

 

[yorkie]

As you seem to want to continue I'm not sure what the 'points' are. The point I explicitly referenced in post 23 was this one:



As you've already quoted myth 10 begins with:



Unless you care to argue something different your statement that 'Israel seems keen to deny the existence of a Palestinian state' directly aligns with this view.

The next line of the article goes on to say:



I'm not sure how it could be any clearer.

The section then goes on to say (in full):


Myth 10 is stating that Isreal is not intentionally seeking (or 'keen') to deny the existence of a Palestinian state but that this is happening as a by-product of internal and short term politics within Isreal itself.

The majority of Israeli people do want a two state solution (as stated in the article; I've not contradicted that).

But are you really saying the current state of Israel is keen? If so I would be interested to see tangible evidence of this; it would need to be a good faith recognition, complying with UN law and resolutions and giving back land illegally claimed.

 

[21C101]

.

 

[Noddy]

The majority of Israeli people do want a two state solution (as stated in the article; I've not contradicted that).

But are you really saying the current state of Israel is keen? If so I would be interested to see tangible evidence of this; it would need to be a good faith recognition, complying with UN law and resolutions and giving back land illegally claimed.

No I'm not saying this, but I note you've subsequently introduced a number of key words; 'people', 'current', 'state', and reversed the question (my bold). The point of myth 10 is that as a parliamentary democracy Isreal's actions are not about actively trying deny the existence of a Palestinian state (which is what you stated), but the result of 'messy internal politics, short-term thinking, and strategic drift'.

 

[yorkie]

No I'm not saying this, but I note you've subsequently introduced a number of key words; 'people', 'current', 'state', and reversed the question. The point of myth 10 is that as a parliamentary democracy Isreal's actions are not about actively trying deny the existence of a Palestinian state (which is what you stated), but the result of 'messy internal politics, short-term thinking, and strategic drift'.

I've not reversed anything; I was talking about Israel as in the state of Israel, not necessarily the majority of the population.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

For me, this war is potentially a lot scarier than the Russia-Ukraine conflict because of Israel’s nuclear capability and what Iran - Hamas’s backer - has stated is their long term strategic goal, to wipe Israel from the world map. Personally I think the extreme right wing government in Tel Aviv as being one of the most likely parties to actually use a nuclear weapon, compared to superpowers who generally have considerably more restraint internally.

 

[DustyBin]

A two-state solution is the most likely (probably only) way to resolve this, ultimately. The conditions under which such an agreement could be implemented however seem further away than ever, unfortunately.

Israel is not squeaky clean, to put it mildly. However, the Palestinian people are “led” by a terrorist organisation and a de facto dictator, both of whom openly state their desire to commit genocide, and need conflict to stay in power. They also happen to be proxies of external actors who wish to see Israel cease to exist. How can the Israelis be expected to negotiate with these people? It’s impossible.

 

[renegademaster]

A two-state solution is the most likely (probably only) way to resolve this, ultimately. The conditions under which such an agreement could be implemented however seem further away than ever, unfortunately.

Israel is not squeaky clean, to put it mildly. However, the Palestinian people are “led” by a terrorist organisation and a de facto dictator, both of whom openly state their desire to commit genocide, and need conflict to stay in power. They also happen to be proxies of external actors who wish to see Israel cease to exist. How can the Israelis be expected to negotiate with these people? It’s impossible.

The only way a 2 state solution happens though is someone forcing it upon them from outside, neither side want it. Israel are more than happy to run down the status quo of slowly expanding Israel and the non-citizen Palestinians get squeezed onto ever smaller parcels. Today has just reinforced why Israel doesn't want a independent state on its border. An independent state would never settle permanently with 1948 borders, a core demand has always been the right of return of people who fled or where expelled from what became Israel


Maybe if there was a big turn in international opinion a la South Africa things would change but the present Palestinian movement will not achieve that , and Israel won the six day war essentially on their own.

An even higher and lofty sounding idea that gets thrown about is "binational state" where Israel-Palestine is one state, either as a liberal democracy one man one vote style or Northern Ireland/Lebanon style communal state, neither of which seem particularly sustainable

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

An even higher and lofty sounding idea that gets thrown about is "binational state" where Israel-Palestine is one state, either as a liberal democracy one man one vote style or Northern Ireland/Lebanon style communal state, neither of which seem particularly sustainable

At this moment, ‘ludicrously absurd’ is probably a more accurate description.

 

[Carlisle]

Which are the "many" Governments who "support Israel" and is this list more numerous than the other way round?

Whenever Israelis die, Israel ensures many more Palestinians die in retaliation.

USA, Canada & most of Europe’s governments (over this particular incident).

The retaliation idea that’s been ongoing for decades is disgusting ,hasn’t brought lasting peace & exposes the total failure of moderate voices on all sides but is always defended rightly or wrongly by claims we’d expect our government to do likewise under similar threats.

 

[Parjon]

As is always the case in scenarios like these, Hamas are self interested egotists putting their extreme agenda above all.

As a direct result, the two state solution, withdrawal from lands etc becomes impossible for Israel. If they aren't directly risking their people's safety, they would certainly be accused of it and not last long in government.

What's behind this? Not the suffering of the Palestinian people, in fact. But simply racism, a love of violence and chaos, and a hefty paycheck from Iran.

Iran is going through ongoing civil resistance, and its regime has been openly providing weapons to the equally fascist, inhumane and totalitarian regime in Russia, who have been using them to commit atrocities in Ukraine.

The Iranian regime knows that it's facing retribution on two fronts, and so turns to creating a problem to redirect effort. Even better as far as they are concerned if they can get to rally their people against a supposed enemy.

Hamas are merely tools, in every sense.

 

[brad465]

The only way a 2 state solution happens though is someone forcing it upon them from outside, neither side want it. Israel are more than happy to run down the status quo of slowly expanding Israel and the non-citizen Palestinians get squeezed onto ever smaller parcels. Today has just reinforced why Israel doesn't want a independent state on its border. An independent state would never settle permanently with 1948 borders, a core demand has always been the right of return of people who fled or where expelled from what became Israel

The United States have to want the 2 state solution. Even if all the other members of the UN Security Council, and/or the G7/20 agree, the US can just veto it, and Israel is one of two countries the US has a "special relationship" with (the other being Ireland, yes the UK does not have a special relationship with the US in the latter's eyes).

 

[21C101]

.

 

[JamesT]

The United States have to want the 2 state solution. Even if all the other members of the UN Security Council, and/or the G7/20 agree, the US can just veto it, and Israel is one of two countries the US has a "special relationship" with (the other being Ireland, yes the UK does not have a special relationship with the US in the latter's eyes).

As I understand it, the US supports a two state solution.
But they say that the borders should be negotiated between the two sides, rather than just reverting to pre-1967.

 

[Falcon1200]

Any response should not be reasonable, proportionate and fully compliant with international law; they should not be retaliatory/inflammatory in nature.

I take it you mean should be reasonable etc?

The question has to be asked, given that Hamas operate in a small enclave (thanks to Israel) and from areas heavily occupied by civilians, how could Israel effectively stop or at least hamper the terrorist actions of Hamas while at the same time preventing innocents becoming casualties?

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Unfortunately in all of this it is ordinary civilians who suffer the most. Particularly Palestinians.
As it stands I am very pessimistic about any chance of progress towards a peaceful and just solution.
There is too many hardliners on both sides, it doesn't help that Iran is involved.
Remove Hamas from the Palestinian side and replace Netanyahu with a less extreme Israeli leader, not dependent on the ultra nationalists, and their may, just, with luck and sensible support from other countries be some chance. Unfortunately Hamas isn't going anywhere, and won't unless Iran were to change tack, and tge government of Israel seems to get more and more extreme at every election.