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

Some bits of info:

RUMOR - There is suspicion that there may be negotiations going on to have some Arab country act as a police / government force within Gaza.  While this seems like a potentially good idea, I am not sure anyone who you would want to do it, would do it.  I can see such a force would either become the new "oppressor" and the new target, and of course traders to their kind.  You could also see the potential for them to encourage the bad behavior.

Qatar is apparently negotiating for more hostages releases, but you have to wonder what the end game is here.  Is the idea (Qatar is very pro-HAMAS) that eventually they will get all the hostages out, and all is good again?   I see almost no way that would be the case.  From the Israeli perspective that would effectively rewarding the HAMAS killing spree.  No repercussions.  Rewarded for taking hostages etc.

Also, the mention of the Israelis taking some of the Gaza territory maybe to create a demilitarized zone.  Which brings up the question of:  Why shouldn't all of Gaza be an demilitarized zone?  Of course, the retort will be "how will they defend themselves".  Well... they really can't defend themselves for the primary Israeli attack anyway (bombs and artillery) and most any weapons there are primarily used to attack Israelis (yes, in revenge for revenge for revenge for revenge....) and most Israeli attacks are revenge for revenge for revenge for revenge....

Sort of a curiosity: The Israelis are putting "hats" on their vehicles.  These are primarily to prevent drones from either flying into the tops or dropping things onto the tops.  Those who have been paying attention to Ukraine will note that the Russian were doing something similar at the start of the Ukraine war.  In that case they were trying to stop top attack anti-tank weapons (which attack the weak armor on top), which was entirely in-effective.  Recently they have been seen to be somewhat effective against drones, which are getting very popular, and HAMAS is rumored to have a number of (I also suspect they might easily be jammed by the Israelis).

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant at the IAF's command center: "This needs to be the last [ground] maneuver in Gaza, for the simple reason that after it there will be no Hamas. It will take a month, two months, three, but in the end there will be no Hamas"

Sounds like a plan.  But how do you know who is Hamas, who is pretending not to be, or the likely many who will want to part after the fighting? (family, friend etc killed, be they Hamas or not)  Of course, there are many other groups, or a similar ilk, who could easily replace them.

Honestly, it all very much reminds me of the (sadly) rather accurate historical based movie I saw:

--------

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the F'ing Judean People's Front.
    P.F.J.: Yeah...
    JUDITH: Splitters.
    P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
    P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
    P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
    REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
     REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
    REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
    REG: He's over there.
    P.F.J.: Splitter!

In reply to aircooled :

I don't think protests where you hear those sort of dog-whistling slogans or worse are driven primarily by ignorance or disinformation - I'm sure a decent fraction of those who attend are, but the organizers who start those chants know exactly what they're doing and I'd suspect a majority of protestors do as well.

I don't think "Free Palestine" is a shortened version of the "river to sea" dog-whistling phrase, but rather a vague call for the occupied Palestinian territories to be freed from Israeli occupation and granted autonomy. If I had to guess how exactly they want that to be achieved, I'd guess that they're supporting a two-state solution. It's a slogan that always bothered me because it's so vague that it's almost useless, like showing up to an environmental protest and chanting "save the environment" - yes, your basic aims are clear enough, but maybe you'd like to request something more specific that would work toward achieving that goal?

I think part of the reason you see more pro-Palestine protests than pro-Israel is just because Palestine is the underdog (also a reason I think people easily fall into disinformation rabbit holes that lead to effectively supporting Hamas). Israel is more than capable of defending themselves and there aren't many people who think they're not getting enough support from the West already.

I got nothing except 2 things:

1. Every forum knows it, religion is toxically polarizing.

2. Man, I am in the business of deferring war with the hopes of deferring it forever. I feel like A TON needs to happen to prevent the US from getting embroiled in this to the point of WW3.

OK...3 things:

3. berkeley war. The world needs to listen to more reggae and chill.

In reply to aircooled :

I think your analysis of that is not inaccurate. 

Something to be aware of but I am not sure how it is different from pretty much every other day.

When the volume is always at 10, it's hard to crank it up.

(Excluding Spinal Taps solution of course)
 

Al-Qaida and IS call on followers to strike Israeli, US and Jewish targets

Al-Qaida and Islamic State (IS) have called on their followers to strike Israeli, US and Jewish targets, raising the prospect of new terrorist violence in the Middle East or the west....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/22/al-qaida-and-is-call-on-followers-to-strike-israeli-us-and-jewish-targets

I think this goes down under "not helping the situation":

China Deploys 6 Warships To Middle East Over Fears Israel Crisis Could Spark World War 

https://saharareporters.com/2023/10/22/china-deploys-6-warships-middle-east-over-fears-israel-crisis-could-spark-world-war-3

aircooled said:

Something to be aware of but I am not sure how it is different from pretty much every other day.

When the volume is always at 10, it's hard to crank it up.

(Excluding Spinal Taps solution of course)
 

Al-Qaida and IS call on followers to strike Israeli, US and Jewish targets

Al-Qaida and Islamic State (IS) have called on their followers to strike Israeli, US and Jewish targets, raising the prospect of new terrorist violence in the Middle East or the west....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/22/al-qaida-and-is-call-on-followers-to-strike-israeli-us-and-jewish-targets

 

I think this goes down under "not helping the situation":

China Deploys 6 Warships To Middle East Over Fears Israel Crisis Could Spark World War 

https://saharareporters.com/2023/10/22/china-deploys-6-warships-middle-east-over-fears-israel-crisis-could-spark-world-war-3

So two of our carrier strike groups, and the added three marine boats are now in the same waters on the opposite side as six Chinese boats?

Wow. 

I would be aware of the slant of those two "news" sources when quoting them. There may be desire to stir up fear, particularly in this country, in support of a particular agenda. 

The map of Israel and the West Bank in particular always seemed poorly contrived.  They have Jerusalem surrounded on all 3 sides by another state. That would be like you were living in Angel Inlet, Minnesota, and Canada was a hostile entity. 

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of a 2 state solution, but drawing boundaries to look like some horribly gerrymandered election district is not a sustainable way to do that. Logically, the shorter the border, the better- there's less to patrol, and less to argue over. They need to let someone with a straightedge draw the map, not some kindergardener with a blue crayon. 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

It was a purple crayon. And he was a 2nd grader. 

This is a topic of which I could say plenty, but for the most part am so sickened and discouraged by it, I generally don't feel that I have much to offer. The one thing that does bump through my head is that the establishment of the state of Israel, whether intentional or not, seems like the cherry on the top of  the process of the West f-cking up the middle east while pulling out. They created all these artificial national borders, designed to a certain extent to weaken and divide the political entities of that region by arbitrarily cutting across ethnic and religious boundaries.  And then they plunked a mortal enemy right down in the middle. Lord knows that the Jews deserved a break after the horrors that they'd been through. But taking land away from a hostile people is such a flawed concept, and one that seems to be undermining world peace in perpetuity.

I don't think I've popped my useless opinion into this thread yet, but...

I don't see how anyone could think either side is innocent... and I also don't see how the USA can publicly have any position beyond fully supporting Israel to the extent that we're able while keeping the humanitarian atrocities, by both sides, in the view. 

Discussion of the funding of the 2 (so far) major conflicts the U.S. is involved in, coupled with border funding.  None of which can get through the House until a Speaker is elected.

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-press-us-role-primetime-address-ukraine-israel-2023-10-19/

One part of this article in particular strikes me as particularly crass:

"... weaponry sent to Israel and Ukraine comes from existing stockpiles and that the money approved by Congress will be used to build fresh supplies built in American factories."

Yes, we get it.  The gears of the economy are greased with human blood.  But to come right out and say so is pretty poor optics.  I didn't watch the speech, but I heard he went so far as to name companies and states that would benefit from this spending.  

A reference about mentioning the states that stand to benefit:  https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-ukraine-war-49354728b347178a4bf7508a0dc8f1d2

"...the spending will create jobs for U.S. workers, referencing the construction of missiles in Arizona and artillery shells in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas"

I also saw this, in the Federal Times (which is generally considered a somewhat centrist source) - 

"More broadly, the defense-industrial base has struggled to keep pace with efforts to backfill weapons sent to Ukraine from U.S. stockpiles and arm Taiwan. Taipei has frequently complained about a roughly $19 billion arms sales backlog in weapons it has purchased from the U.S."

Source:  https://www.federaltimes.com/congress/2023/10/20/biden-asks-congress-for-israel-ukraine-aid-in-giant-defense-package/

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

This is getting heavily into partisan politics. 

In reply to mtn :

As I said, the Federal Times, and Reuters/ AP are not too far off neutral.  My analysis would stand regardless of which letter the sides had after their names.  My assumption is that everyone reading this will understand this is not taking sides, but pointing out what's going on and what is being said.

It's talked about in the second documentary I posted at the top of the thread, but for reference, the map of Israel/Palestine went through several revisions that it's probably worth reviewing.

Here's the initial 1916 Sykes-Picot proposal:

Here it is after the settlement of 1922:

And here is a side-by-side comparison of the UN partition plan of 1947 and the result of the 1948 war that established Israel:

The interesting question to me is how things would look if the Arab states had agreed to the UN partition plan and allowed Israel to establish itself peacefully. There had been a time in living memory when Jews, Muslims, and Christians all lived together without issue; while there was certainly dissatisfaction with the situation post-WWII and the substantial increase in the Jewish population that began when the war ended, could the situation have been handled differently? Once the Arab states attacked in 1948 and demonstrated their hostility, Israel took the opportunity to expand its territory at their expense, just as states have always done. The great irony - in a part of the world well-versed in irony - is that I think most Palestinians would jump at the 1947 boundaries if offered today.

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Yeah... that is why I tend to say, ignore the "this is our land" argument.  Yes the British displace the Palestinian Muslims, but the Jews where in that same land long before them, and where of course displaced, so, as noted previously, you could even call the Jews of Israel Palestinians if wanted to twist it that way (use a modern description of an area for an otherwise named ancient land).

Who was there before the Jews?  Certainly another people (at least by name), but I don't know the name.

The Jewish diaspora (Hebrew: תְּפוּצָה, romanized: təfūṣā) or exile (Hebrew: גָּלוּת gālūṯ; Yiddish: golus)[N 1] is the biblical dispersion of Israelites or Jews out of their ancient ancestral homeland (the Land of Israel) and their subsequent settlement in other parts of the globe.[3][4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

Here is another source for the Chinese ship thing.... the Global Times(!):

Global Times is very much a state controlled outlet, but as noted previously, you can get some interesting info out of what these sort of outlets, it just takes a lot of reading between the lines many times.

China's warships in Middle East on routine Ford Econobox missions, not involved in Israel-Palestine conflict

China's deployment of warships in the Middle East is part of the country's routine Ford Econobox mission and friendly visits to the region, not an interference in the current Israel-Palestine conflict, Chinese analysts said after some Western media outlets started hyping China's navy deployment in the region......

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202310/1300424.shtml

In reply to aircooled :

I was a bit confused until clicking on the article about how Chinese naval vessels and Ford econoboxes were related.

Those Chinese ships were on exercise in Oman. If they're staying in the region, it's to show the flag and potentially be available to transport Chinese civilians if things heat up. They have no combat role to play in any case.

On the subject of forces being deployed, the US is sending its only two Iron Dome batteries, additional Patriot batteries, and a THAAD battery to Israel. This is an absolutely unmistakable signal to Iran. By establishing the most capable air defense system in the world, supplemented by these US capabilities, Israel is making clear to Iran that any attack by either Hezbollah, other proxies, or Iran itself will be substantially reduced in impact, while at the same time unleashing Israel's full capabilities against it. Israel has explicitly stated that Iran is a target if Hezbollah attacks in force. This force augmentation can be looked at as an attempt by both the US and Israel to play a employ a traditional deterrence strategy combined with a very robust retaliatory capability, much as SDI and the US nuclear triad was intended to do in the early 1980s, albeit with conventional weapons and existing technology.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Your maps above, and this one below, are why I do not think Israel entirely owns the moral high ground:

In reply to Duke :

I didn't say anything about moral high ground. I'm objectively concerned with who owns the ground, who wants the ground, and the process by which it might change hands. Morality just makes the whole thing subjective, with all sides claiming to be morally right, and their opponents morally wrong. No matter what, the winners, the losers, and everyone in between will claim to have been on the moral high ground, but only one of them will be in a position to plant their flag on it.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Oh, I completely understand that you are not putting any subjective opinions in your posts.  That's one of the reasons that your interpretations are so valuable and constructive.

I was referring to the number of posters, especially earlier in the thread, who seem to believe that Israel is 100% innocent and the only victim here.  I don't think anyone in the region can legitimately plant their flag in the moral high ground.

Duke said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

....I was referring to the number of posters, especially earlier in the thread, who seem to believe that Israel is 100% innocent and the only victim here....

I really did not notice this and would obviously be a huge misinterpretation of the situation.

I am sure, in reference to the attack in Israel, that is likely the case and honestly I think, reasonable, since I don't think anything would justify such things.

I most cases in history, there really is not a true "good guy" and "bad guy", just shades of gray, especially when you consider the perspectives of each side.  (Yes, the Allies did some pretty horrible things in WWII)

In reply to Duke :

I'm with aircooled.

I agree with you that the region is a hot mess and no one gets to claim to be right, specifically regarding the hospital incident there is a pretty strong position that appears to be well defined and defended. 
 

It's a pretty bold maneuver to accuse your opposition of war crimes when you make a dumb ass move and blow up your own hospital.  It's appropriate to respond with a strong position. 

In reply to Duke :

I misunderstood the direction of your comment. My apologies.