Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.

 

[TomC]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.

Under what terms do you think Iran would accept terms that didn't include the utter destruction of Israel and replacement with an Islamic theocracy? "From the river to the sea"?
Frankly, I don't think they will. And even they did, other islamicists would step in to support the Islamic terrorists amongst the Palestinians.
Tom
ETA ~ I am trying to imagine a deal under which the US government would agree to stop supporting Israeli Zionists. "For Peace" Nope, I can't imagine it. ~

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.

Under what terms do you think Iran would accept terms that didn't include the utter destruction of Israel and replacement with an Islamic theocracy? "From the river to the sea"?
Frankly, I don't think they will. And even they did, other islamicists would step in to support the Islamic terrorists amongst the Palestinians.
Tom
ETA ~ I am trying to imagine a deal under which the US government would agree to stop supporting Israeli Zionists. "For Peace" Nope, I can't imagine it. ~

Despite their cleric's public posturing, Iran has been amenable to pragmatic deals. Since Iran is supporting its proxies "sub rosa", any deal would mean a public climb down from their public persona of the destruction of Israel. So, I think it is premature to write off Iran. I also think Netanhyu has worn out his welcome with the current administration. If Biden is re-elected, Bibi will have no friends in the administration. And if the House republicans keep holding up the aid package to Ukraine and Israel, Bibi might be more willing to make some sort of deal,

That is not saying that the interested parties - specifically the US and Israel - would be willing to make a deal with Iran that is acceptable to all the relevant parties. I'm just saying it is a possibility.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.

Under what terms do you think Iran would accept terms that didn't include the utter destruction of Israel and replacement with an Islamic theocracy? "From the river to the sea"?

This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics. Iran's issue is they want the big bad wolf / windmill to the west to rail on against.

Frankly, I don't think they will. And even they did, other islamicists would step in to support the Islamic terrorists amongst the Palestinians.

But those groups wouldn't be funded nearly as well. It would make a HUGE difference. The goal isn't utopia. But it'll be a very tough sell because the Iranian power structure wouldn't exactly want to cede to Western authority over Israel. That and they don't actually care about the Palestinians, so it isn't like a concession to the Palestinians does Iran anything.

ETA ~ I am trying to imagine a deal under which the US government would agree to stop supporting Israeli Zionists. "For Peace" Nope, I can't imagine it. ~

The US has made deals in the past. How much has the US spent to pay for Jordanian and Egyptian peace with Israel?

 

[TomC]

Despite their cleric's public posturing, Iran has been amenable to pragmatic deals.

Well, Iran has been screwed, more than once, by the USA. Google "Obama peace deal with Iran".
But still, you're ignoring my main point. Iran isn't the only player in the "money for Islamic terrorists game".

Hamas controls Gaza. If Iran stopped supplying money, someone else will do it. Hamas remains in control. Nothing gets better for Gazan civilians or Israelis.

Hoping for peace deals with violent theocratic terrorists is pissing into the wind.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Despite their cleric's public posturing, Iran has been amenable to pragmatic deals.

Well, Iran has been screwed, more than once, by the USA. Google "Obama peace deal with Iran".

Iran was not screwed. When Trump reneged on the plan, it became defunct.

But still, you're ignoring my main point. Iran isn't the only player in the "money for Islamic terrorists game".

Hamas controls Gaza. If Iran stopped supplying money, someone else will do it. Hamas remains in control. Nothing gets better for Gazan civilians or Israelis.

Hoping for peace deals with violent theocratic terrorists is pissing into the wind.
Tom

In your view, who is going to step in to Iran's role in the "money for Islamic terrorists game" if Iran steps out with Hamas?

 

[Bomb#20]

There have been many other genetic studies which support the current consensus that the Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Do you want links to them?

Go for it, if they're quantitative and they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites. "The Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites" is a dog-bites-man story. Everybody in the Middle East is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites.

Why would it be important that they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites?

Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.

A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.

If you say so. So what conclusion do you propose that we should derive from somebody being a descendant?

(The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the rights and wrongs of the modern conflict aren't determined by genetics. Politesse had it right: "But I don't think the concept of indigeneity applies to the situation at all." Everybody born there has the same right not to be kicked out, just like an anchor baby born in America to illegal immigrants has the same right to stay here as a full-blooded Sioux.)

I do think the concept applies.

How would you apply it? What follows from indigeneity? If being a descendant makes you indigenous then the Ashkenazi and Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who immigrated in the 30s and 40s were indigenous too. A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.

Golda Meir once called Palestine "a land without a people for a people without a land".

That's anachronistic. Cite?

The saying was made up by British evangelical Christians in the 19th century. A few Jewish Zionists repeated it before they realized how many Arabs were there. It's unlikely Golda Meir ever said it; if she did it would have been when she was a teenager.

She was explicitly denying the existence of an indigenous population in order to obfuscate the ethnic cleansing that Israel was founded on.

First show she said it; then we can consider whether you're imputing the right purpose.

The denial that there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people has direct bearing on the current conflict.

"such a thing as an"? "People" is plural for "person". Using it in the singular is always an exercise in propaganda, whether you're claiming the Palestinians aren't "a people", or are. There exists no "truth-maker", no objective criterion, for one group of people having "a people"-hood and another group not. Whether "there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people" is irreducibly a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[Tigers!]

An error was made somewhere, possibly by me, that caused other people's words to appear to be mine. I am not the author of the paragraph that begins with the comparison of Hamas to Bin Laden.

That was me a lot of posts ago.

Also, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism. I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might), or that they think Jews are their only enemies. I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.

I believe. too, that Hamas want a single Palestinian state. It is the composition of said state that is the question. It would be Palestinian but I fear with no Jews at least and perhaps no non-Palestinians

Well, since no one posting in this thread appears to want Hamas to win, or believes Hamas could possibly win, can we move on to discussing the kind of State the PA wants, and the kind of State the Zionist hardliners Netanyahu leads want?

By all means. Lead on MacDuff.

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference. Israel's chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.

If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.

No argument from me on that score

Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.
Perhaps Hamas could stop raining rockets on Israel, not slaughter and kidnap Jews, start looking after their own people? That would be a good start to a deal.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

It will be very messy.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal?

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

That is a start. Tenuous but a start.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?

They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.

When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.

Should have been a bit clearer. Yes the Nazis were there but they were told this is what is going to happen. Their opinion, views, wishes were neither sought nor needed.
Hamas should be treated the same way.

If Hamas has no role in the peace negotiations it will be easy for them to disavow any peace agreement reached between Israel and the PA. There's no good reason to provide them with such an easy out. IMO they must be signatories in order for the agreement to have any legitimacy or enforceability.

Like the Nazis they should be told where to sign and shut up.

 

[Tigers!]

Tigers thought he scored a point.

Out of bounds on the full (Aust, footy analogy)

 

[ZiprHead]

Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.

Really? Please cite your sources for this.

 

[Arctish]

There have been many other genetic studies which support the current consensus that the Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Do you want links to them?

Go for it, if they're quantitative and they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites. "The Palestinian people are descendants of the ancient Canaanites" is a dog-bites-man story. Everybody in the Middle East is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites.

Why would it be important that they show the Palestinian gene pool is primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites?

Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.

A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.

If you say so. So what conclusion do you propose that we should derive from somebody being a descendant?

(The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the rights and wrongs of the modern conflict aren't determined by genetics. Politesse had it right: "But I don't think the concept of indigeneity applies to the situation at all." Everybody born there has the same right not to be kicked out, just like an anchor baby born in America to illegal immigrants has the same right to stay here as a full-blooded Sioux.)

I do think the concept applies.

How would you apply it? What follows from indigeneity? If being a descendant makes you indigenous then the Ashkenazi and Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who immigrated in the 30s and 40s were indigenous too. A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.

Being a descendant does not imply indigeneity. It only implies some degree of ancestry.

The term indigenous means something else.

The Ashkenazi are of mixed European and Middle Eastern ancestry. They might be considered indigenous in parts of Europe where their families lived for thousands of years but they don't have the same heritage as the Palestinian Jews who are part of the indigenous population of Palestine.

Golda Meir once called Palestine "a land without a people for a people without a land".

That's anachronistic. Cite?

The saying was made up by British evangelical Christians in the 19th century. A few Jewish Zionists repeated it before they realized how many Arabs were there. It's unlikely Golda Meir ever said it; if she did it would have been when she was a teenager.

You're right. I apologize for the error.

She said:

"There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist." <link>

She later said this:

"When were Palestinians born? What was all of this area before the First World War when Britain got the Mandate over Palestine? What was Palestine, then? Palestine was then the area between the Mediterranean and the Iraqian border. East and West Bank was Palestine. I am a Palestinian, from 1921 and 1948, I carried a Palestinian passport. There was no such thing in this area as Jews, and Arabs, and Palestinians, There were Jews and Arabs." <link>

Then she made a bit of a quibble:

"I don't say there are no Palestinians, but I say there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people."

So first she says Palestinian people did not exist, even as she admits there were people in what she herself calls Palestine and that the Zionists threw them out. Then she asks "what was all this before Britain got the Mandate over Palestine?" Obviously the answer is, it was Palestine. And then she pivoted to talking about "a distinct Palestinian people", which begs the question, distinct from what? Egyptians?

She also said this to Joe Biden:

“Don’t look so sad, Senator, we have a secret weapon in our battle against the Arabs. Senator, we have no place else to go.” <link>

No place else to recreate the Jewish State, perhaps. Not unless they're willing to take it by force and throw out the people already living there. Or give up on the idea of having a Jewish State and peacefully join an existing society like Jews did during the First and Second Aliyah.

She was explicitly denying the existence of an indigenous population in order to obfuscate the ethnic cleansing that Israel was founded on.

First show she said it; then we can consider whether you're imputing the right purpose.

She was denying the existence of the indigenous population of Palestine so she could hand wave away the "we came and threw them out and took their country from them" part.

The denial that there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people has direct bearing on the current conflict.

"such a thing as an"? "People" is plural for "person". Using it in the singular is always an exercise in propaganda,

It's the word sociologists, anthropologists, Native Alaskans, and probably quite a few others use when talking about communities of individual persons who share a common ancestry, history, heritage, culture, and long term occupation of a specific area across multiple generations. For example: the Zuni people, the Scottish people, the Alutiiq/Sugpiaq people, etc.

whether you're claiming the Palestinians aren't "a people", or are. There exists no "truth-maker", no objective criterion, for one group of people having "a people"-hood and another group not. Whether "there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people" is irreducibly a matter of subjective opinion.

Ah, semantics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.

As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.

The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.

Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.

Peace only comes after the funding stops.

I can only take your response to indicate you don't think the Gazans are culpable, but are quite irrelevant, as you hit on the main cause... and quite unintentionally indicate how peace actually starts... and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians, but the Iranian radical extremists funding the chaos exclusively for chaos' sake. Turning off the tap there is a major step in stopping the killing.

Yup. I consider the Palestinians victims--it's just I think the victimizer is the Muslim radicals (currently Iran but the problem goes back farther), not Israel.

What terrorist war has existed without outside funding? AFIAK, none (although FARC was funded by drug sales, not an outside puppetmaster.) What terrorist war has been defeated while said funding exists? (Again, AFIAK, none.)

 

[TomC]

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

Which was both intentional and no secret.
Even I knew about it.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

And what is Hamas to do as the obvious starting point for negotiated deal? Its always Israel that has to do this and that, never the other parties.

Look for your keys under the streetlight! Why do you think it's possible to find them in the dark?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The violence is going to continue so long as various nations are funding the terrorism.

Then the IDF's operations will not accomplish all of their goals. If you actually thought about it, you are undermining your defense of the IDF's destruction of Gaza and their killing of thousands of civilians.

Israel perfectly well knows it can't stop the attacks. This is about minimizing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

Repeat this ad nauseum won't make it true.

And the Israeli radicals only have power because "peace" has been repeatedly shown to make things worse. They have been repeatedly rewarded (fewer attacks) by aggressive actions, repeatedly punished (more attacks) by peaceful actions.

As it stands Israel has no reason to spend much political capital on opposing it's radicals because they aren't actually interfering with peace. Reigning them in would raise the chance of peace from 0% to 0%.

I think Israel should demand that while Hamas can be present at any negotiations, the PA act as principal negotiator and spokesperson for the Palestinian people as a whole. It is much better for Israel to be dealing with one of the authors of the Oslo Accords rather than one of the authors of the October massacre.

No peace that Iran doesn't agree to is worth the paper it's printed on.

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference. Israel's chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.

Falling for Hamas propaganda doesn't help things.

Gaza can freely import anything that has no military use. Dual-use things used to be permitted under a system of tracking them to their end use, but since the diversion is at least 10% that tracking system is obviously inadequate. Gaza, likewise, can freely export anything.

Note that the crossing points periodically come under Hamas fire and when the people take cover crossing obviously stops. Blame Hamas for that, not Israel.

And frequent withholding of aid?? No, there is a requirement to inspect anything coming in because all too often it's contraband, not aid. There is a limit to the capacity of the inspections but normally they do not saturate. Or are you thinking of that stupid ship that had a bunch of trash in the hold (things that could reasonably be called "aid" but simply thrown in a heap--they would not have been in useable shape after that) and a group of people that had made martyrdom videos? Yet another case of sacrificing people to make the world think Israel was bad.

And there's no way Israel is going to permit outsourcing of the inspections.

If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.

The lid is called Hamas.

They already controlled the majority of the economic activity in Gaza. If they remain in power they will have an even higher percent as a result of this because their economic source is external whereas the rest of it was internal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It seems to me that as a general rule excluding a principal combatant from peace negotiations makes no sense. If a principal combatant us excluded, they have no chance to agree to peace.

Iran is absent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.

As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.

The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.

Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

I mean Gaza, not some house in Gaza.