History in the making, Part 2, V.2 - Israel/Palestine - NO RELIGION

The_Jed said:

...I can't be 100% sure who said it at the moment but I think it was AngryCorvair. He said that about 1% of the population are shiny happy people. Clearly that's false... it's waaay more than 1%. 
:)
.....

Right car, wrong person.  That was me.  

To explain it a bit more.  Obviously a very general statement, but to expand a bit, it is essentially: The vast majority of people, most anywhere, are generally decent people (at their base), and that a small percentage of people cause a vast majority of the problems.

Of course... in cases like this... the 1%, when left to their devices long enough, will figure out how to "force multiply" their a-hole-ness.  In this example, in the case of Palestine for example, there has been mass education of the evil of the Jews and how they need to be exterminated, thus taking what might normally have been reasonable people (even those with zero experience with the enemy), fully pulled into "the 1%".  I don't know that percentage, but it could be anywhere from 10% to 80%(!?)

As noted previously, there are certainly hard core types in Israel who think exactly the same thing in the other directions, but I highly suspect the percentages in Palestine are FAR higher.

Also noteworthy, these percentages, in both these populations, will only tend to expand as horrible things happen to each sides populations.

Iran has made it very clear they are going to intervene if Israel does not back off, and Hezbollah is just itching to use their missile stockpile. Russia is new best friends with Iran and has been collaborating on arms, China sees the west as a worse devil they know than the other Devils they know but are at least politically aligned with, and North Korea will help anyone if it will poke the US in the eye. The whole thing is becoming very worrying. We are one political decision or miscalculation away from hell on earth again

Spoke with a Marine who was on a task force that was going to provide "humanitarian aid" to help Israel during the mid 2000s over some issues with Lebanon.  He said that they were loaded out more than they had ever been for a patrol in Iraq, getting ready to load up in the AAVs to hit the beach and the mission got called off.  

I REALLY don't want to see direct military intervention by the USA in and around Israel. We have way too many domestic problems already, and we do not need to spend a bunch of money whilst making more Muslim enemies. Then there's that little brouhaha in Ukraine, and our friends in Taiwan living with a hammer over their heads. Which happens first? WWIII, financial insolvency and collapse, or  environmental catastrophe? 

Sorry to be a debbie downer, but this is very discomfiting. 

tuna55 said:

aircooled said:

In reply to tuna55 :

In general, it's way better to be over prepared, than under prepared (obviously, un-intended escalation is a concern here).

Also of note, there also needs to be some understanding of "attitude" or cultural norms.  I am no expert, but from what I have seen and heard, the middle east (and many other areas certainly) have far more respect for showing power and strength, than to being conciliatory or "nice".  Being "nice" in many areas will just give the impression of being weak and essentially begging to be taken advantage of.  

Absolutely, and I respect our administration for being that strong. Granted I don't have an excellent military strategist background, but isn't 1 carrier strike group a strong message? Bringing two seems like overkill. Bringing in three marine boats on top of that seems like overoveroveroverkill. I'm okay with it as a taxpayer and I see the benefit as a tactical and strategic message, but WOW. When was the last time we deployed this much firepower?

One flattop is for show, two is about operational considerations and surge capability. It's consistent with all the US shuttle diplomacy of the last few days. The biggest concern for the US right now is trying to keep things contained to Israel and Gaza. Everyone knows that if Hezbollah and/or Iran get involved directly, things get much, much worse. No one else in the region wants it, the US doesn't want it, Israel doesn't want it, but Iran's the one making the call. Everything that's been going on is to try to keep the other regional partners on board (note the muted statements from Egypt and Jordan, and the Saudis merely "pausing talks" on normalization) and at the same time make it very clear to Iran and its proxies that the cost for making the wrong choice is going to be very high.

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

One thing I found interesting in my re-learning of history of the area is that "Israel" as a "state" in the more modern sense (as you mention) was created, and relatively soon afterwards there was a very sudden need to move Jews there, as a result of what was going on in Germany.  The timing of these events make it seem unlikely it was a coincidence.  

I heard last night that there have been some antisemitic protests popping up in Germany recently, over the events in this region.  History doesn't repeat itself, but there sure are some recurring themes.  

The idea of a state of Israel and the fact of a state of Israel are two different things, separated by about 60 years. Zionism began in the late 19th Century in response to the persecution of Jews in Russia primarily. While there was some migration during the first decades of the 20th Century, the big numbers only came post-1945, and especially post-1947.

In reply to 02Pilot :

To make it even weirder, I think you could even call the Jews of the ancient world Palestinians, since they lived (and originated) in the area of Palestine.  Which just adds to the absurdity of course.

The US Secretary of State has been making furious rounds to the various states in the areas (which of course are essentially all Arab except Israel).  Exactly what he is doing / saying is not known, but he is likely making it clear what the US position is (which is likely not all in super pro Israel, at least in words) and the dangers and resulting actions of things that might develop (e.g. Hezbollah attacks).

The interesting / critical part of that might be discussions with Egypt, who are taking an interesting stance here.  They seem to have zero interest in letting any Gaza Palestinians into their country (despite it actually being part of their country at one point).

A guess one person I heard said he was guessing that Egypt is waiting for some payday to take some action to help it's (not so much) fellow Arabs.  It also should be noted, that Egypt gets a good amount of aid from the US....

I am going to guess #1 is not #1 anymore, and this might be a bit out of date... but you probably can see interesting amount of relevance in the countries listed here.   

Most US aid, by country:

• Afghanistan ($4.89 billion)
• Israel ($3.3 billion)
• Jordan ($1.72 billion)
• Egypt ($1.46 billion)
• Iraq ($960 million)
• Ethiopia ($922 million)
• Yemen ($809 million)
• Colombia ($800 million)
• Nigeria ($793 million)
• Lebanon ($790 million)

wearymicrobe said:

I could not give you an opinion that after all that...

It saddens me that there are so few voices that are this well-reasoned.

Another interesting move, the president will visit Israel (and Jordan apparently).  This is supposed to happen Wednesday, tomorrow.  I cannot IMAGINE the security situation here.  Israel is actively being rocketed.  Hezbollah is said to have thousands of rockets ready to go.  Thousands of rockets will easily overwhelm Israeli defenses.  It should be noted that these rockets "should" be unguided.  It also should be noted that one of the features of Iron Dome is to predict impact points, so, Israeli defenses could certainly concentrate on protecting the Americans there, which of course will leave other areas open to attack.

Would Hezbollah actually attack at this point?  Likely not, WAY to many downsides, to them at least.  Of course, the same thing could have been said for HAMAS attack into Israel.... which was likely pushed by Iran, and Iran of course is a major backer of Hezbollah. It's mostly their rockets they will be firing.

President Joe Biden will visit Israel in high-stakes trip

President Joe Biden will make an extraordinary wartime visit to Israel this week as he seeks to demonstrate staunch support for the country as it works to eliminate Hamas while also pressing for ways to ease humanitarian suffering in Gaza.

02Pilot said: ... It's the 20th Century that's been so tumultuous.

Industrialization has made things like vehicles and weapons easily available. The world is a lot smaller now.

Moving big armies was expensive and success was difficult when you were fighting with handheld weapons on horseback.

In reply to tuna55 :

One of the carriers (Ford, currently on station) is on it's first deployment and has already extended the original duration.  It may be that the second task group is intended to relieve the first, The Ford task group may have been the closest to be first on station.   New ship / first deployment also can mean more stuff breaks and the Ford is the lead ship of the new class with a lot of new technology, catapults and aircraft elevators being two big ones.

Also of note, and something I tend to warn occasionally about the Ukraine situation, the media situation, can be... interesting. In the case of Ukraine, most all the information either comes out of Ukraine or Russia, both of which have clear motives.  The Russian of course are so predictable in their motives and methods, you can sometimes gain some very useful information in how they report stuff.

This situation is less clear cut, with less clearly defined "lines", but slants certainly will still exist, and should be looked out for.  In many cases, it will likely just incomplete information or context.  As an potential example, BBC just suspended some journalists over support for HAMAS. 

Now, I think most should be able to agree that HAMAS is, overall, very bad.  Both for Israelis' and Palestinians.  This of course is one of the subtlety areas.  If you support Palestinians, does that mean you support HAMAS?   If you support Palestinians, does it mean you don't support HAMAS?  This is very unclear in some situations, but is very critical to understanding motivations.

I should also note that I honestly suspect there are a large number of people (at least in the US) who do not realize what HAMAS really is.  Now, I could be entirely wrong with this assessment / assumption, but I think it's reasonable to say, it would be very hard to defend HAMAS in almost any way other than out of ignorance (or severe hatred of Jews I guess).

Thus, the BBC assess support as inappropriate (?):

BBC Suspends, Investigates 7 Arab Journalists Over Hamas Support

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bbc-urgently-investigating-group-arab-173746683.html

aircooled said:

Now, I think most should be able to agree that HAMAS is, overall, very bad.  Both for Israelis' and Palestinians.  This of course is one of the subtlety areas.  If you support Palestinians, does that mean you support HAMAS?   If you support Palestinians, does it mean you don't support HAMAS?  This is very unclear in some situations, but is very critical to understanding motivations.

To translate for the American audience, consider this version: If you support Americans (or America), does that mean you support President Trump (or any other controversial president)?   If you support Americans, does it mean you don't support President Trump?

There is so much nuance here, and that on top of cultural misunderstandings and emotions, makes full comprehension of the nature of the problem extremely challenging for non-locals. I've had the US version of this conversation with educated Europeans, and they simply cannot grasp much of it, just as I cannot understand the conflicts and tensions they live every day as fully as they do.

OK... well, while I was posting the above apparently.... s%$t kinda of hit the fan, media wise:

- Keep an eye out for this, as it is certainly developing -

When I click on the link.  This is the article I get: 

Hundreds likely dead in Gaza hospital blast, as Israeli blockade cripples medical response

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-accused-of-blasting-hospital-and-school-in-gaza-as-blockade-cripples-healthcare-system/ar-AA1ikJAn

Why the difference?  Well, not long after the news, and clear assumptions, the Israelis' went into rapid investigation mode, and came up with a video (interestingly enough, not in the article above) that showed this:

A massive barrage of rockets, coming from Gaza (lower right):

and a few seconds later, a large explosion, geo-located to where the hospital is:

Now.  Is this absolutely confirmed (it is coming from Israel)?  Not sure.  But CNN certainly changed their headline rather quickly... and why the assumption in the first headline... not very "news" like. 

Here is Reuters (generally VERY neutral):

In Gaza's deadliest day, hospital strike kills about 500

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/least-500-victims-israeli-air-strike-hospital-gaza-health-ministry-2023-10-17/

It should also be noted, that, as expected, parts of the Arab world are going absolutely ape sh#t over this horrific attack by Israel, and I suspect they will have little concern for any evidence otherwise... such is the way.

(updated): To see the video, you have to go to an actual Israeli outlet (journalistically, I guess you could still call it unconfirmed):  https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-islamic-jihad-rocket-misfire-caused-gaza-hospital-blast/

In reply to 02Pilot :

Uhmmm, I am not sure comparing that person to HAMAS is going to keep us clear of US politics here.  

Maybe use another example?  Say some historical S storm the US military has gotten into.

In reply to aircooled :

That's why I said "(or any other controversial president)". Use LBJ and the Vietnam War if you want. It has nothing to do with the individual, and everything to do with relationship between leaders or factions and the broader populace.

More recent news.  Apparently a "Day of Rage" is scheduled tomorrow.  Specifically for Americans and the west.

So... keep a look out for that (actions in the US are unlikely... but...)

The HAMAS rocketing of their own hospital (?) has also create such outrage, it looks like the President may not make it to Jordan, who knows with Israel....

There of course is the possibility what hit the hospital was an intercepting rocket, or parts of both.  Even in that case, is Israel really to blame?  If that was the case, it would certainly be a good (very direct) metapore for the current situation.

hamas is known for using these facilities to garner these very responses ..... 

759NRNG said:

hamas is known for using these facilities to garner these very responses ..... 

Sacrificing the weak to raise ire in the masses has been a tactic for a real long time. E36 M3, there was an episode of the Twilight Zone about this and a certain extremist group right around the time of WW2. 

More info (obviously from Israel).  Pretty sure an Iron Dome would not intercept a missile that early:

aircooled said:

The HAMAS rocketing of their own hospital (?)

That was one hell of a rocket then, I thought the warheads they were using were like 15-20kg?

So this is a discussion about a problem without a discussion about the underlying causes of the problem?  That's very modern.  It's also why the problems tend to grow in size and never get solved, also quite modern.  
 

I'll make some popcorn.

In reply to red_stapler :

You are thinking of the old school stuff.  They now get actual rockets from Iran and are making more and more sophisticated ones (including drones etc):

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

If you want to "solve" the underlying problem, feel free to make a suggestion.  Many haves tried.

I am pretty sure there has been a fair amount of discussion about the underlying problems. I, personally, don't think they really mater all that much realistically.  If you want to talk about oil.... I think we all are pretty damn aware of that...

My contention, and I don't think it's unreasonable, there is no real solution to the underlying problems (there honestly are a LOT of inter wound ones, yes, even oil).  Even if there was, I don't think it would mater because there are WAY to many parties who very much want death and aggression, with almost no regard to who gets killed, including their supposed "kin" or "allies". 

Because of that, they will twist their motivations to a point where they can never be resolved, short of genocide, and honestly, probably not even that.  A-holes continue to be a-holes, even after they get what they want.