Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

The Two State solution can work IF both States are economically viable and have the usual powers of State such as control of their borders, resource development, immigration, etc.

Yes, you wrote that already. And I wrote that it's not like flipping a switch. It's a process.

Gaza after the settlers returned to the Israel side of the barrier wasn't economically viable because Israel maintained an economic stranglehold through control of the borders, airspace, coastal waters, etc.

While Gazans did not get complete control of course, the "stranglehold" did not occur until Hamas took over in 2007. Also, Gaza also has a border with Egypt.
Had Gazans decided to live in peace, the process toward statehood could have moved forward. But, they decided to shoot more rockets at Israel. If they cannot be trusted with limited autonomy, how could they be trusted with full control of their borders etc.?

The Gazans couldn't get their produce or their products to market, or import needed goods, or develop their natural gas deposits, etc., without Israel's permission, and without it being beneficial to Israelis. They couldn't keep their workers employed or pay for upkeep or improvements to their infrastructure. Their economy stagnated and it was all downhill from there.

It went downhill because Gazans chose to attack Israel over and over again. Had they decided otherwise, I am sure we'd have had a Palestinian state by now.

You know Israel kept the Gazans isolated and dependent, and you have always approved of it.

Because it is necessary to limit the threat from Gaza.

Why are you pretending the Gazans could have struck deals with British Petroleum or Sysco Corporation without first getting permission from Israel?

I am not pretending. I am saying that, had Gazans chosen peace in 2005, then, by 2025 and probably much sooner, they would have been able to strike such deals on their own.

If Israelis want peace with the Palestinians they have to allow the Palestinians to prosper. Peace isn't possible while Israelis are keeping Palestinians impoverished and dependent.

Gaza prospering now would just mean more funds and more resources for Hamas to control. No. First must come dehamasification, then we can talk about economic development.

You are correct. I meant to cite Islamic Jihad, as I did earlier in the thread and by the time I realized I had typed the wrong acronym it was too late to fix my error.

No problem.

The closest was the Oslo Accords. The camp David Summit was an attempt by the Israelis to walk away from that agreement after Rabin was assassinated and to get a different deal that did not promise the same end result.

Oslo was the beginning of the process. Important issues were left for future negotiations, negotiations like were happening at Camp David. I do not know why you think CD2000 was an "attempt to walk away".
Why is it that Netanyahu, who is not a big fan of the Two State Solution is successful in Israeli politics but the likes of Ehud Barak are not. It's because of what happened at Camp David. Arafat rejected the proposal, and Palestinians started the "Second Intifada" where they went around murdering Israelis.
The Peace Process was discredited by this, and it yet has to recover. Actions like 10/7 have not helped any either.
Oh, and by the way, many "Second Intifada" terrorists are now being released from prison because of this ceasefire. What nonsense!

If you think there was an actual proposal on the table, please post a summary or document that outlines it. IIRC, Ehud Barak didn't offer anything in writing, it was all word of mouth 'trust me' vagueness. There is no way of knowing what exactly was on offer, only that it wasn't what had been agreed to when the Oslo Accords were signed.

There was nothing in writing because Arafat walked out before that stage of the process. Yet again, Palestinians did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

[Derec]

What is your null hypothesis?

That there is no difference in the demographic distribution of amputations and the overall population distribution of Gaza.
If the Gaza bombing was indiscriminate, as the anti-Israel side maintains, that would be expected.
What we see instead is that adult men are heavily overrepresented among the amputees (OR = 7.07, 95% CI [6.64, 7.54]).

More importantly, this justifies the observation that "Once again, numbers that only make sense if most of the cases are combatants." because an injured Gazan is most likely a combatant?

Again, if bombing were indiscriminate, we would expect that amputees would be distributed like the population at large. But we do not see that. We see far more adult men and far fewer women and minors than under that null hypothesis.
So what could account for this marked difference?
Well, most combatants are adult men, with some older minors (15-17) and few if any women. So if the bombings mostly injured adult men, this is consistent with the hypothesis that combatants are targeted.

Not only does that seem like circular reasoning to me, but it implicitly takes for granted that amputations of non-combatants is okay as long as combatants are getting injured.

In urban combat, especially against an enemy that hides among and under their civilian population, there are by necessity civilian casualties.
Blame Hamas et al. First for starting this war, and second for the criminal way they are conducting it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

 

[Arctish]

The Two State solution can work IF both States are economically viable and have the usual powers of State such as control of their borders, resource development, immigration, etc.

Yes, you wrote that already. And I wrote that it's not like flipping a switch. It's a process.

We do not disagree that it's a process. But you didn't mention the process until later.

You responded to my opening paragraph by saying the 2005 withdrawal of the Israeli settlers from Gaza was a dress rehearsal for a Palestinian State and completely ignored my point about the importance of economic viability and the powers of a state over borders, immigration, etc. I believe you did that in order to gloss over Israel maintaining a choke hold on Gaza and strangling the Gazan economy whenever the Israeli government wanted to demonstrate its power to cut off water, electricity, and the movement of goods into and out of the Strip.

If two people get into a fight and one prevails by driving a knee into the other person's solar plexus while strangling them, the fight doesn't end if the knee is removed but the strangling hands aren't. The exchange of blows might stop, but as long as one person is controlling how much air the other one gets, there is no peace between them.

Gaza after the settlers returned to the Israel side of the barrier wasn't economically viable because Israel maintained an economic stranglehold through control of the borders, airspace, coastal waters, etc.

While Gazans did not get complete control of course, the "stranglehold" did not occur until Hamas took over in 2007. Also, Gaza also has a border with Egypt.

And here you are proving that you don't read or don't retain the information found in the links I post, you just keep repeating erroneous claims.

I already posted information about what happened to the greenhouse project when Israel devastated the Gazan economy when it slowed the shipments of produce from Gaza to a crawl in 2005. I also pointed out that the cargo terminal at the Karni Crossing was an essential link in the transportation chain, and that the crossings into Egypt lacked the infrastructure necessary to be a usable replacement. I did not point out that Israel signed an international agreement to keep the Karni Crossing open and then reneged, because that information was included in the Mondoweiss article. Apparently I should have driven that point home with a 10 lb. hammer.

Had Gazans decided to live in peace, the process toward statehood could have moved forward. But, they decided to shoot more rockets at Israel.

After Israel crushed their economy when it reneged on its agreement to keep the Karni Crossing open and wiped out an industry that employed approx. 4,000 Gazans (support for this claim can be found in the previously linked articles).

If they cannot be trusted with limited autonomy, how could they be trusted with full control of their borders etc.?

If Israel can't be trusted to keep its promises wrt keeping an essential border crossing open and allowing an isolated enclave to export strawberries and flowers, how can anyone trust Israelis to keep their word about anything?

Seriously, how can anyone trust Israel to respect the human rights of the people it is holding captive in the walls it built around them when it adopts a policy of economic warfare euphemistically described as putting Gazans on " a diet"?

I think if someone was holding Jews in an isolated enclave like the Rome Ghetto, and inflicting collective punishments whenever a Zionist pops up, you'd be howling about the abuse. But you appear to judge the rightness and wrongness of things depending on who is doing them to whom, and so we constantly disagree.

The Gazans couldn't get their produce or their products to market, or import needed goods, or develop their natural gas deposits, etc., without Israel's permission, and without it being beneficial to Israelis. They couldn't keep their workers employed or pay for upkeep or improvements to their infrastructure. Their economy stagnated and it was all downhill from there.

It went downhill because Gazans chose to attack Israel over and over again. Had they decided otherwise, I am sure we'd have had a Palestinian state by now.

You know Israel kept the Gazans isolated and dependent, and you have always approved of it.

Because it is necessary to limit the threat from Gaza.

Why are you pretending the Gazans could have struck deals with British Petroleum or Sysco Corporation without first getting permission from Israel?

I am not pretending. I am saying that, had Gazans chosen peace in 2005, then, by 2025 and probably much sooner, they would have been able to strike such deals on their own.

If Israelis want peace with the Palestinians they have to allow the Palestinians to prosper. Peace isn't possible while Israelis are keeping Palestinians impoverished and dependent.

Gaza prospering now would just mean more funds and more resources for Hamas to control. No. First must come dehamasification, then we can talk about economic development.

You are correct. I meant to cite Islamic Jihad, as I did earlier in the thread and by the time I realized I had typed the wrong acronym it was too late to fix my error.

No problem.

The closest was the Oslo Accords. The camp David Summit was an attempt by the Israelis to walk away from that agreement after Rabin was assassinated and to get a different deal that did not promise the same end result.

Oslo was the beginning of the process. Important issues were left for future negotiations, negotiations like were happening at Camp David.

That is incorrect.

The Camp David Summit was held when the Oslo Accords were no longer being implemented following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. They were not part of the process outlined in the Accords themselves.

I do not know why you think CD2000 was an "attempt to walk away".
Why is it that Netanyahu, who is not a big fan of the Two State Solution is successful in Israeli politics but the likes of Ehud Barak are not. It's because of what happened at Camp David. Arafat rejected the proposal,

Full stop.

What proposal? Link to it. Show us what was being proposed.

Remember, any invisible parts of the deal are just speculation on your part.

and Palestinians started the "Second Intifada" where they went around murdering Israelis.

The Peace Process was discredited by this, and it yet has to recover. Actions like 10/7 have not helped any either.
Oh, and by the way, many "Second Intifada" terrorists are now being released from prison because of this ceasefire. What nonsense!

If you think there was an actual proposal on the table, please post a summary or document that outlines it. IIRC, Ehud Barak didn't offer anything in writing, it was all word of mouth 'trust me' vagueness. There is no way of knowing what exactly was on offer, only that it wasn't what had been agreed to when the Oslo Accords were signed.

There was nothing in writing because Arafat walked out before that stage of the process. Yet again, Palestinians did not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Post links to your sources.

If there was nothing in writing, then how do you know it wasn't a figment of someone's imagination?

"Oh, we had a deal. It was a really, really good deal, the greatest deal ever, but we were offering things to Arafat so quickly we didn't have time to write them all down!"

Does ^that^ sound legit to you?

Also, I have asked this before: an opportunity for what? If it's an opportunity to have all the settlers move back inside the 1967 border and full independence from Israeli control, then that's one thing. If it's an opportunity to go pound sand, that's something else.

 

[laughing dog]

What is your null hypothesis?

That there is no difference in the demographic distribution of amputations and the overall population distribution of Gaza.
If the Gaza bombing was indiscriminate, as the anti-Israel side maintains, that would be expected.
What we see instead is that adult men are heavily overrepresented among the amputees (OR = 7.07, 95% CI [6.64, 7.54]).

More importantly, this justifies the observation that "Once again, numbers that only make sense if most of the cases are combatants." because an injured Gazan is most likely a combatant?

Again, if bombing were indiscriminate, we would expect that amputees would be distributed like the population at large. But we do not see that. We see far more adult men and far fewer women and minors than under that null hypothesis.
So what could account for this marked difference?
Well, most combatants are adult men, with some older minors (15-17) and few if any women. So if the bombings mostly injured adult men, this is consistent with the hypothesis that combatants are targeted.

Not only does that seem like circular reasoning to me, but it implicitly takes for granted that amputations of non-combatants is okay as long as combatants are getting injured.

In urban combat, especially against an enemy that hides among and under their civilian population, there are by necessity civilian casualties.
Blame Hamas et al. First for starting this war, and second for the criminal way they are conducting it.

Your analysis is based on the false null hypothesis of indiscriminate bombing. A more accurate one in my opinion is the IDF is mildly to middling indifferent to collateral damage.

Hamas is under no obligation to make their extirpation easy for the IDF. But the IDF is responsible for their conduct, just as Hamas is.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

Everyone is entitled to their illusions, but it is irrational to think others will share them.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

All that statement does is confirm how shallow your thinking is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I see two main problems with the argument aside from the point that it isn't well stated:
1. Some of the methods that the IDF uses will tend to target the demographic of adult men, such as that they have used AI to try to do face recognition of terrorists. When the AI has a false positive, this will tend to be the correct demographic, i.e. an adult man. This isn't just true for AI, but also for human "intelligence," i.e. the observation of a cluster of men or mostly men would have a higher incidence of being perceived as legitimate targets. On the flip side, it may also be the case that men will tend to feel more obligated to travel for survival and therefore be out in the open, risking survival, in hopes to hide away children and women. All of these things can create a skew in the distribution. Some of these factors are well-documented and others are reasonable, but none are considered as factors in Derec's "analysis," just simply assumed away and counted as legitimate targets.
2. There is an assumption that the demographic distribution of amputations should be expected to be exactly equal to the distribution of bombing. Reading the article, however, one can infer that there are two main causes of the amputations: "a result of the continuous Israeli airstrikes and ground attacks," i.e. bombings and shootings. One might expect shootings to be more in line with adult male demographic targets and we do not know the casualty/survival rates for either cause. Would gun fights with semi-effective resistance naturally create more amputations than severe bombings that simply wipe everyone out, for example? What happens to female and child survivors when the IDF finds them, do they capture them, and then medically treat them themselves, i.e. not include amputations in the statistics or perhaps not even need to do amputations with better medical treatment?

 

[Derec]

You responded to my opening paragraph by saying the 2005 withdrawal of the Israeli settlers from Gaza was a dress rehearsal for a Palestinian State and completely ignored my point about the importance of economic viability and the powers of a state over borders, immigration, etc.

I did not ignore it. Gazans did not give the process a chance because they kept attacking Israel. You can't fault Israel for not working toward Gaza's "economic prosperity" or for not giving them progressively more autonomy when Gazans are shooting rockets into Israel.

I believe you did that in order to gloss over Israel maintaining a choke hold on Gaza and strangling the Gazan economy whenever the Israeli government wanted to demonstrate its power to cut off water, electricity, and the movement of goods into and out of the Strip.

Most of water Gazans have been using has always come form the Coastal Aquifer. But Gaza has been increasing in population exponentially for decades, in large part as a demographic weapon against Israel. But that has a consequence that the Coastal Aquifer got overdrawn. It is not Israel's fault that Gaza has overbred itself beyond the Strip's carrying capacity - it's the fault of Gazans having 5 children or more. You saw in during this war - all the sob stories about the "father of seven" or even the "mother of eleven". That is not sustainable.
As far as electricity, why should Israel be compelled to export electricity to a polity that is actively attacking it and has a stated goal to destroy it?

If two people get into a fight and one prevails by driving a knee into the other person's solar plexus while strangling them, the fight doesn't end if the knee is removed but the strangling hands aren't. The exchange of blows might stop, but as long as one person is controlling how much air the other one gets, there is no peace between them.

The person being thus controlled still has a knife in his hands and is desperately trying to stab the other. Would you let go?

I also pointed out that the cargo terminal at the Karni Crossing was an essential link in the transportation chain,

Karni crossing was only closed after Hamas took over Gaza. It proves my point.

because that information was included in the Mondoweiss article.

Mondoweiss is a rabidly anti-Israel outfit and they advocate for its destruction. Hardly a credible source.
Also, given the high volume of this thread, I do not see all the links that are posted.

After Israel crushed their economy when it reneged on its agreement to keep the Karni Crossing open and wiped out an industry that employed approx. 4,000 Gazans (support for this claim can be found in the previously linked articles).

No, the volume of rockets increased after Disengagement and before Karni was closed.

If Israel can't be trusted to keep its promises wrt keeping an essential border crossing open and allowing an isolated enclave to export strawberries and flowers, how can anyone trust Israelis to keep their word about anything?

Why should Israel allow the entry of exports from an entity that is actively shooting rockets at them?

Seriously, how can anyone trust Israel to respect the human rights of the people it is holding captive in the walls it built around them when it adopts a policy of economic warfare euphemistically described as putting Gazans on " a diet"?

The language may be a bit crass, but note that those deliveries are in addition to food produced in Gaza. In any case, it did not stop Gaza from having high obesity rates, especially among women.

I think if someone was holding Jews in an isolated enclave like the Rome Ghetto, and inflicting collective punishments whenever a Zionist pops up, you'd be howling about the abuse. But you appear to judge the rightness and wrongness of things depending on who is doing them to whom, and so we constantly disagree.

There is a difference between enclosing some of your citizens in a ghetto for no reason and partially blocking off a foreign territory that keeps attacking you.

The Camp David Summit was held when the Oslo Accords were no longer being implemented following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. They were not part of the process outlined in the Accords themselves.

PA is the product of Oslo, so if it was truly, then PA would no longer exist. and Oslo itself never spelled out exact borders but left that for future negotiations. Negotiations like Camp David that were broken off by Arafat.
We can split hairs about this provision or that, or about timelines, but the fact is that Arafat rejected the best chance for a Palestinian state.
The problem is that Palestinians do not want to give up unreasonable things like the so-called "right to return" which would flood Israel with millions of Palestinians.

What proposal? Link to it. Show us what was being proposed.

Israel agreed to give up sovereignty in part of Jerusalem Old City in 2000 — document

If you think there was an actual proposal on the table, please post a summary or document that outlines it. IIRC, Ehud Barak didn't offer anything in writing, it was all word of mouth 'trust me' vagueness. There is no way of knowing what exactly was on offer, only that it wasn't what had been agreed to when the Oslo Accords were signed.

How do you know that? Afaik Oslo explicitly left the details for future negotiations.

Does ^that^ sound legit to you?

Certainly more legit than that Arafat was in the right when he walked away.

 

[Arctish]

You responded to my opening paragraph by saying the 2005 withdrawal of the Israeli settlers from Gaza was a dress rehearsal for a Palestinian State and completely ignored my point about the importance of economic viability and the powers of a state over borders, immigration, etc.

I did not ignore it. Gazans did not give the process a chance because they kept attacking Israel. You can't fault Israel for not working toward Gaza's "economic prosperity" or for not giving them progressively more autonomy when Gazans are shooting rockets into Israel.

Show me the timeline you are using. And then show me what changed when Palestinians began growing crops in those greenhouses and trying to get them to market, other than it no longer being Israeli Jews doing it.

Israel honoring its agreement to keep the Karni Crossing open and allowing Gazans to export flowers and produce is hardly Israel "working toward Gaza's economic prosperity." It's Israel getting out of the way so the Gazan's can work for it themselves.

I believe you did that in order to gloss over Israel maintaining a choke hold on Gaza and strangling the Gazan economy whenever the Israeli government wanted to demonstrate its power to cut off water, electricity, and the movement of goods into and out of the Strip.

Most of water Gazans have been using has always come form the Coastal Aquifer. But Gaza has been increasing in population exponentially for decades, in large part as a demographic weapon against Israel. But that has a consequence that the Coastal Aquifer got overdrawn. It is not Israel's fault that Gaza has overbred itself beyond the Strip's carrying capacity - it's the fault of Gazans having 5 children or more. You saw in during this war - all the sob stories about the "father of seven" or even the "mother of eleven". That is not sustainable.
As far as electricity, why should Israel be compelled to export electricity to a polity that is actively attacking it and has a stated goal to destroy it?

More glossing over of the choke hold with an extra side of victim blaming. And of course, the usual handwaving of collective punishments and imprisoning people due to their race/religion/ethnicity.

Israel is compelled to provide electricity to Gaza because it has made the Gazans completely reliant on Israel for everything, including food, medicine, and electricity.

IMO the Gazans should be allowed to generate electricity themselves, which they were doing before Israel blew up the power plant. The Gazans repaired the plant and were generating electricity again when Israel blew it up a second time. The Gazans brought the plant back online but it shut down when Israel imposed a blockade and did not allow fuel to be delivered to the Strip.

So now the Gazans are utterly reliant on Israel to provide electricity and Israel can (and does) restrict when it's available. That's part of the stranglehold Israel has on the Gazan economy.

If two people get into a fight and one prevails by driving a knee into the other person's solar plexus while strangling them, the fight doesn't end if the knee is removed but the strangling hands aren't. The exchange of blows might stop, but as long as one person is controlling how much air the other one gets, there is no peace between them.

The person being thus controlled still has a knife in his hands and is desperately trying to stab the other. Would you let go?

Desperately trying to stab the other in order to get him/her to stop strangling them? That sounds like a situation in which letting go and immediately backing off should be given serious consideration. It might not resolve the fight but there's a chance it will, whereas continuing to strangle the other person can only be interpreted as trying to capture or kill them, which makes their attempts to stab you justified.

What is Israel's goal in Gaza? Is it to have an enslaved population forced to work for low wages for the benefit of Israelis? Is it to have the Gazans eventually become citizens of Israel when the Strip is annexed? Is it to depopulate Gaza so Israeli Jews can live there instead of the indigenous people of different faiths? Or is it to have peaceful, prosperous neighbors who have no reason to hold a grudge and would be willing to work cooperatively with Israelis in ways that benefit both?

Strangling the Gazan economy furthers the plan to keep Gazans as slaves but not the one where they will eventually be citizens. It helps depopulate the Strip but hinders peace and cooperation for mutual benefit.

I also pointed out that the cargo terminal at the Karni Crossing was an essential link in the transportation chain,

Karni crossing was only closed after Hamas took over Gaza. It proves my point.

No it does not.

Israel closed the Karni Crossing on 15 January, 2006.

The legislative elections were held on 25 January.

Ismail Haniyeh was sworn in as Prime Minister and formed a government with Hamas in the majority on 29 March, 2006 and the Gaza Civil War was fought in 2007, which is when Hamas took complete control of Gaza.

Please post a link to the timeline you are using.

because that information was included in the Mondoweiss article.

Mondoweiss is a rabidly anti-Israel outfit and they advocate for its destruction. Hardly a credible source.
Also, given the high volume of this thread, I do not see all the links that are posted.

The Mondoweiss articles I posted have links to other articles from other outlets. Also, you can do your own research.

In fact, I've been encouraging people to do their own research for years and asking that they share their search results. The more information the better. Of course, if your sources are crap, don't expect anyone to take them seriously. Bloggers claiming to be 'in the know' are not in the same league as scholars, historians, and reporters working for reputable sources.

After Israel crushed their economy when it reneged on its agreement to keep the Karni Crossing open and wiped out an industry that employed approx. 4,000 Gazans (support for this claim can be found in the previously linked articles).

No, the volume of rockets increased after Disengagement and before Karni was closed.

Support this claim, please.

If Israel can't be trusted to keep its promises wrt keeping an essential border crossing open and allowing an isolated enclave to export strawberries and flowers, how can anyone trust Israelis to keep their word about anything?

Why should Israel allow the entry of exports from an entity that is actively shooting rockets at them?

And here you are making an argument based on an unsupported assertion, advocating collective punishments of a captive population, ignoring Israel's responsibility to ensure the people it is holding captive in a giant internment camp have the means to either provide for themselves or for Israel to provide food, housing, medical care, etc, that meets their needs, and ignoring the question:
If Israel can't be trusted to keep its promises with regards to keeping an essential border crossing open and allowing an isolated enclave to export strawberries and flowers, how can anyone trust Israelis to keep their word about anything?

Seriously, how can anyone trust Israel to respect the human rights of the people it is holding captive in the walls it built around them when it adopts a policy of economic warfare euphemistically described as putting Gazans on " a diet"?

The language may be a bit crass, but note that those deliveries are in addition to food produced in Gaza. In any case, it did not stop Gaza from having high obesity rates, especially among women.

Support your claims. And be prepared for a rebuttal especially if your source is some misogynist ranting racist like Alex Jones.

I think if someone was holding Jews in an isolated enclave like the Rome Ghetto, and inflicting collective punishments whenever a Zionist pops up, you'd be howling about the abuse. But you appear to judge the rightness and wrongness of things depending on who is doing them to whom, and so we constantly disagree.

There is a difference between enclosing some of your citizens in a ghetto for no reason and partially blocking off a foreign territory that keeps attacking you.

The Camp David Summit was held when the Oslo Accords were no longer being implemented following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. They were not part of the process outlined in the Accords themselves.

PA is the product of Oslo, so if it was truly, then PA would no longer exist. and Oslo itself never spelled out exact borders but left that for future negotiations. Negotiations like Camp David that were broken off by Arafat.
We can split hairs about this provision or that, or about timelines, but the fact is that Arafat rejected the best chance for a Palestinian state.

How would the PA no longer exist? That's like saying Israel no longer exists because the agreement that affirmed it's existence, it's Right to exist, and the location of where it has a Right to exist in Palestine, aka the Oslo Accords, was not fully implemented. I'm sure factions like Islamic Jihad would argue that, but why would you?

The Accords broke down when Israel did not transfer control of Area C to the Palestinians as per the agreement. The militant Zionist factions rejected that part of the deal, the Prime Minister advocating for it was assassinated, Ehud Barak tried and failed to renegotiate the terms, and after a short delay Netanyahu came to power and killed any chance the agreed upon process of implementing the Oslo Accords would be resumed.

You keep claiming Arafat rejected something. You say it was the best chance for peace. But what did Barak offer? What were the terms, the scope, the means by which it would be implemented and/or enforced? Was he offering official recognition by the State of Israel of the State of Palestine, which would be recognized as existing in the West Bank and Gaza, encompassing all of Areas A and B, and nearly all of Area C? Be specific.

If you can't show us the actual offer, all you have is a cute little fairy tale you really like.

The problem is that Palestinians do not want to give up unreasonable things like the so-called "right to return" which would flood Israel with millions of Palestinians.

What proposal? Link to it. Show us what was being proposed.

Israel agreed to give up sovereignty in part of Jerusalem Old City in 2000 — document

Thank you for the link.

That is very informative. I missed that story back in 2023. I'll have to do some research of my own now.

If you think there was an actual proposal on the table, please post a summary or document that outlines it. IIRC, Ehud Barak didn't offer anything in writing, it was all word of mouth 'trust me' vagueness. There is no way of knowing what exactly was on offer, only that it wasn't what had been agreed to when the Oslo Accords were signed.

How do you know that? Afaik Oslo explicitly left the details for future negotiations.

Under the terms of the Oslo Accords, Area C was supposed to come under Palestinian Authority governance and the IDF was supposed to withdraw. That was the sticking point for the most ardent Zionists. It's what got Yitzhak Rabin vilified as a traitor to Zionism. It's what Ehud Barak was trying to renegotiate. That's why he was there at Camp David following Rabin's assassination.

Whatever Barak might have been offering, I truly doubt he was offering to face the wrath of the militant Zionists in his country by pulling the IDF out of Area C and turning it over to the PA. My impression of the man is he's not that brave or that visionary.

Does ^that^ sound legit to you?

Certainly more legit than that Arafat was in the right when he walked away.

Whether Arafat was in the right when he walked away depends on what was going on at the time.

If all Arafat was getting was the run around from Ehud Barak and bullshitting from Bill Clinton, what would have been the point of staying?

The reports I have read about the Camp David Summit said it was chaotic, the verbal-only negotiating Barak insisted on created a huge amount of confusion, and that it was basically a cluster fuck of conflicting proposals and counter-proposals with absolutely no way of telling if progress was being made because no one had a clear idea of what anyone was proposing, or agreeing to, at any given time.

 

[Arctish]

I'm just going to repost the link to the Cinema Therapy review of Princess Mononoke, See With Eyes Unclouded By Hate.

The choices made by the character Ashitaka are genuine strategies for conflict resolution in real life, as the therapist reviewer points out. I highly recommend watching the episode and giving it some thought. Heck, I highly recommend watching the movie.

Side note: in the original Japanese, Ashitaka says he seeks to see with eyes unclouded. The "by hate" was added in the English dub, apparently so the lip movements would match. But Ashitaka is aware that love can cloud one's eyes just as much as hate can. He's seeking to understand other people's perspectives, not to reinforce his own beliefs, although he has them and holds to them strongly.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

All that statement does is confirm how shallow your thinking is.

So people who don't agree with you are shallow? Yeah, that must be it. You win the patronizing prize.

This latest conflict has brought the pretty extreme antisemitism of the world to the surface. It's fascinating how the western left never managed to break from it's antisemitic past, and just keep repeating the same nonsense. But now dress it up in academic and patronizing language.

But sure, the reason I don't agree with you must be that I don't know enough about this conflict. Or is it because my brain is small?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

All that statement does is confirm how shallow your thinking is.

So people who don't agree with you are shallow? Yeah, that must be it. You win the patronizing prize….

Ironically, you confirmed again your shallow thinking in about what constitutes antisemitism by wrongly focusing on disagreement.

 

[steve_bank]

Anyone who is thinking about applying conflict resolution strategies in the Mid East is ignoring history and observed reality,.

You have Israeli Zionists with a narrative going back thousands of years that a god gave Jews the land. It has been voiced by Netanyahu.

A long running racial and religious conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Arabs vs Prussians. Iranians vs Saudis. If you want to get an Iranian angry refer to him as Arab instead of Persian. I once did that without thinking and got a sharp repose from an Iranian immigrant teacher I had for a night class..

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

All that statement does is confirm how shallow your thinking is.

So people who don't agree with you are shallow? Yeah, that must be it. You win the patronizing prize….

Ironically, you confirmed again your shallow thinking in about what constitutes antisemitism by wrongly focusing on disagreement.

The world has now sharply turned antisemitic. I think it can be hard to stay level headed in this pretty extreme antisemitic sentiment right now. That's why its more important than ever to call it out.

If calling that "shallow" is your best defence, then you have no argument

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

All that statement does is confirm how shallow your thinking is.

So people who don't agree with you are shallow? Yeah, that must be it. You win the patronizing prize….

Ironically, you confirmed again your shallow thinking in about what constitutes antisemitism by wrongly focusing on disagreement.

The world has now sharply turned antisemitic. I think it can be hard to stay level headed in this pretty extreme antisemitic sentiment right now. That's why its more important than ever to call it out.

Calling out antisemitism is important. But it just as important to call out actual antisemitism. You are not doing that. It is not antisemitic to disagree with Israel's decisions despite what you believe.

The world has not changed. Antisemtism never left. It has been festering all this time. Your perception has changed.

If calling that "shallow" is your best defence, then you have no argument

No one called that shallow.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not going to stop calling out antisemitism and racism.

No one should stop calling out actual antisemitism or racism. But you are not doing that, because your usage makes it clear
you do not share the same understanding of the generally accepted meaning.

From what I can tell, your usage has therapeutic value for you but no communication value for any rational person.

That's the nice thing about forums. There's space for differing opinons. We disagree. I think I am calling out racism and antisemitism

All that statement does is confirm how shallow your thinking is.

So people who don't agree with you are shallow? Yeah, that must be it. You win the patronizing prize….

Ironically, you confirmed again your shallow thinking in about what constitutes antisemitism by wrongly focusing on disagreement.

The world has now sharply turned antisemitic. I think it can be hard to stay level headed in this pretty extreme antisemitic sentiment right now. That's why its more important than ever to call it out.

Calling out antisemitism is important. But it just as important to call out actual antisemitism. You are not doing that.

I strongly disagree.

It is not antisemitic to disagree with Israel's decisions despite what you believe.

I think it is. Israel is just responding like any country should, when attacked. Gaza had autonomy.

Don't attack another country unless you got a plan. What exactly was Hamas plan here? Hamas were in power in Gaza. They represented the Gazan people. It's not like Jewish genocide is a secret agenda of Hamas. The Palestinians had every opportunity to stop Hamas before this attack. There's the same problem in Lebanon.

Obviously Israel was going to attack if hostages were taken. That was a given.

I think anyone who thinks Israel shouldn’t have attacked is antisemitic imho. Hamas spent 20 years preparing Gaza for bloody Street by Street fighting. IDF knew that. The obvious and only rational choice is to just bomb it.

Why would Hamas attack in a situation where Gaza is densely populated and civilians have nowhere to go?

Anyone who willingly let's themselves be duped by Hamas', less than subtle, media manipulation isn't only antisemitic imho, but also anti-Palestinian. That's why I called people in this thread Hamas apologists. Because I think its accurate

The world has not changed. Antisemtism never left. It has been festering all this time. Your perception has changed.

My ex wife is Israeli. A close friend came to Copenhagen as a Palestinian refugee. I've travelled in the middle east.

I think my perception is just fine

If calling that "shallow" is your best defence, then you have no argument

No one called that shallow.

So what did you say was shallow?

 

[Arctish]

Anyone who is thinking about applying conflict resolution strategies in the Mid East is ignoring history and observed reality,.

I see it being the other way.

The first step in conflict resolution is identifying the source(s) of the conflict. Anyone who ignores the history of the region has no idea how things reached this point or what to do about it. That's why an honest, accurate account is necessary. And that's why propaganda and bullshit is so frequently slung around by people trying to 'spin' the narrative and protect their preferred myths rather than grapple with harsh realities.

There's the religious factor to consider, sure. But religious beliefs come in all sorts of varieties and intensities. The relations between Palestinian Jews and their Palestinian Christian and Muslim neighbors were almost universally peaceful for centuries before the early years of the 20th century, when the Ottoman Empire fell and the European powers backed the British takeover of Palestine and the French initiative to govern Lebanon, thereby thwarting the ambitions of the Palestinian and Lebanese people to form their own governments. They stoked a conflict between Jews, Christians, Sunni, Shiites, and Druze that had barely been simmering prior to their meddling.

There's also generational trauma to consider. Both the descendants of European Jews who survived the Holocaust and the descendants of Muslim and Christian Palestinians who survived the Nabka may have been raised on horror stories about massacres and being forced into ghettos and refugee camps. Their family members who died defending their comrades or their villages might be lauded as heroes. That's going to influence how they see the world and what they teach their children.

A few years back, one of our right wing Christian senators, Ted Cruz, put both feet in his mouth when he told a group of Middle Eastern Christians that Israel was their greatest friend, and had no idea why that message earned boos from the audience. He hadn't a clue he was talking to descendants of people who had been attacked by Zionists, and he had absolutely no interest in hearing from them, either. Instead of trying to understand why his statement was divisive, he just doubled down on the divisiveness by telling them "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you" and then walked off the stage. That sort of close minded either-or mentality isn't helpful.

And then there's the interest/influence of outside powers who want something, be it wealth, access to resources, platforms for weapons systems aimed at enemies, or whatever, and are supporting one faction over the others for their own gain. The influence that has had on the development of the region and the concurrent development of the conflict between Zionists, Pan-Arabists, Islamists, Nationalists, and everyone caught in between them, should not be underestimated. It's a huge driver of the on-going violence.

Anyway, that's my take. YMMV.

 

[steve_bank]

Putting aside how they did it by taking land. One thing Israel did was create a modern state wihj democratic processes, agriculture, medicine, education, and manufacturing.

You would think Palestinians would rationally look at it and think it would a good thing to emulate. Never happened.

Before the Intifada the border was petty much open between Gaza-West Bank and Israel. People crossed to work. Palestinian business had a market in Israel and shipped throughout Israel.

The rise in terrorism led to Israel closing birders and walling off Gaza.

he Arabic word “Intifada” translates to “uprising” or “shaking off.” It has been used to describe periods of intense Palestinian protest against Israel, mainly in the form of violent terrorism: The First Intifada from 1987-1990 and the Second Intifada from 2000-05.Dec 31, 2024

Intifada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iranian state policy and that of Hamas is the violent destruction of Israel, which is not likely. We would not let it happen.

Years back I looked at English language media sites in the region. Egypt was fairly balanced, more like western media. Israel had diverse views and opinions. Iran was strongly anti Israel. I found an Iranian antisemitic animation cartoon. It reminded me of a Nazi cartoon shown in theaters shwing Jews as rats and vermin in a city. Pretty ugly stuff.

Anti Israel and anti Jew is embedded in the Arab and Iranian cultures. It is down at the street level.

From reporting during the war the same has happened in Israel, a hatred and dehumanization of Palestinians. Not surprising.

After the recent destruction I doubt there can be any reconciliation. I don't think Israel wants it, right now they are on top. Hamas is weak as is Iran. Syria is no longer a threat. The Arabs are not going to mount another war. Israel has no reason to bargain.

A lot of very capable people from North America and western Europe for decades tried to work out out a solution and failed.

The biggest mistake IMO made by Iran, its proxies, and the Palestinians was thinking they could end and overcome Israel. The terrorism going back to the Intifada was futile and self defeating.

Yasar Arafat at one point accepted the existence of Israel, and he paid for that.

The sticking point for Israel now that Hussein is gone is Iran and its proxies accepting the existence of Israel. Not going to happen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Putting aside how they did it by taking land. One thing Israel did was create a modern state wihj democratic processes, agriculture, medicine, education, and manufacturing.

You would think Palestinians would rationally look at it and think it would a good thing to emulate. Never happened.

Before the Intifada the border was petty much open between Gaza-West Bank and Israel. People crossed to work. Palestinian business had a market in Israel and shipped throughout Israel.

The rise in terrorism led to Israel closing birders and walling off Gaza.

Agreement.

A huge disconnect in the west is that we don't realise that the Arabs/the Palestinians are culturally different than westerners. It's a tribal highly masculine culture. One thing I like about Arab culture is that they say what they believe and stand up for it. In the West it's more important to be seen as a good person. So when we're not, we'll creatively massage the narrative to allow ourselves to continue to tell ourselves we're good, while doing evil. The Palestine - Isreal conflict isn't a western conflict. The Arabs do not give a fuck about being good people. They just want to win. Damn the consequences. Their Islamic faith works in synergy with the cultural behaviour. The Palestinians aren't playing a game of peaceful coexistance. In the Palestinian mindset there's winners and loser, and if you are a loser you might as well be dead.

Israel is both an arabic country, and Mizrahi Jewish country (these are Jews but in every way culturally arab) and Ashkenhazi Jews (westerners with western liberal values). Luckily for everyone in the Middle-East the Ashenhazi Jews are in power in Israel. That's why they're the only side who gives a fuck about fairness. Which is why it's so absurd when the reporting is so one sided pro-Palestinian.

It's stupid to judge the Isreal-Palestine conflict through a western lens. It's not a western conflict.

The Arabs don't give a fuck about who has the right to the land. It's a question of projecting power. Whoever wins has a right to it, and they will fight until they win. ... like any culture up until the Western Enlightenment. Westerners really need to get a reality check and understand how unique we are. Enlightenment values are spreading over the world. Because they are superior values. It will win in the end. But values sprad slowly. Culture changes slowly. The Ottoman empire only fell apart in 1920. It was at that point insular and arrogant. Expecting that Arab culture will shift at lightning speed, is rediculous. It'll take whatever time is needed. Eventually it'll happen. But that's not now

After the recent destruction I doubt there can be any reconciliation. I don't think Israel wants it, right now they are on top. Hamas is weak as is Iran. Syria is no longer a threat. The Arabs are not going to mount another war. Israel has no reason to bargain.

I don't think that's inevitable. If that was true we'd never get peace in Europe. What needs to happen is that enough Palestinians see a value in cooperation. Israel is a modern western country. The moment Palestinians start getting serious about wanting to live in peace I think a shift to peaceful cooperation will be super fast.

A lot of very capable people from North America and western Europe for decades tried to work out out a solution and failed.

The biggest mistake IMO made by Iran, its proxies, and the Palestinians was thinking they could end and overcome Israel. The terrorism going back to the Intifada was futile and self defeating.

Yasar Arafat at one point accepted the existence of Israel, and he paid for that.

The sticking point for Israel now that Hussein is gone is Iran and its proxies accepting the existence of Israel. Not going to happen.

I think the biggest mistake was to buy into the Palestinian victimhood narrative and allow the Palestinians to be perpetual refugees. Thanks to the UNRWA the Palestinians have an incentive not to move on. Israel was founded in 1948. A time when there were millions and millions of refugees all over the world. Peak number of refugees ever. We've sorted it out for everyone else. The Palestinians is this one outlier WW2 era group of refugees we still haven't sorted out. I think the incentives are fucked. If the Palestinians don't have an incentive to stop being refugees and live on foreign handouts, it won't change.

I think Israel is absolutly right in the UNRWA has been complicit in the war. It now has it's own fucked up incentives. Perpetuating conflict.

I'm not sure what the solution is. But whatever it is we have been doing has been working.