Israel and Palestine Again: Are we all hopeless and have given up?

123457»

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54, apologies for my ignorance, clearly the Obama administration is similarly culpable of starting something for which they, too, were unprepared to take responsibility. There's no such thing as a just war on the cheap.

    Sir. Don't you dare apologize to the likes of me, whose ignorance knows no bounds.
  • Bottom line for why Israel is supported: it is strategically useful for USA. More jadedly, we could boil it down to that it supports American business.

    I'm not convinced. Without Israel, the US could have a more fruitful relationship with many Arab countries, and wouldn't have anything like as much to fear from free and fair elections. US support for Israel is ideological, not real politik. It's about the founding myths of the US, about colonists carving out a new nation, and to hell with any brown people that already live there. Add in a dash of apocalyptic fundamentalism to taste.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.

    I note that some of the "facts" stated in the Wikipedia article had (Citation Needed). In any case, it was a NATO operation, led by Britain and France with United States backup.
  • Bottom line for why Israel is supported: it is strategically useful for USA. More jadedly, we could boil it down to that it supports American business.

    I'm not convinced. Without Israel, the US could have a more fruitful relationship with many Arab countries, and wouldn't have anything like as much to fear from free and fair elections. US support for Israel is ideological, not real politik. It's about the founding myths of the US, about colonists carving out a new nation, and to hell with any brown people that already live there. Add in a dash of apocalyptic fundamentalism to taste.

    Jews were brown people at the time of Israel's formation. They may have graduated to the level of honourary white people since.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Interesting answer to the above question. "Are Jews White? It's Complicated." From the Atlanta Jewish Times.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.

    I note that some of the "facts" stated in the Wikipedia article had (Citation Needed). In any case, it was a NATO operation, led by Britain and France with United States backup.

    It was overwhelmingly American.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Well, from the sounds of it, a new coalition government has from in Israel, outing the man we all love to hate, Netyenahu. Any bets on how long this government will last?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.

    I note that some of the "facts" stated in the Wikipedia article had (Citation Needed). In any case, it was a NATO operation, led by Britain and France with United States backup.

    It was overwhelmingly American.

    You are quite deceptive in your arguments, Martin54. I took a full read of the Wikipedia article you listed. You neglected to mention that all total, NATO launched 26.500 sorties against Lybia, yet the sorties you listed the Americans did really paled in relation to the total sorties the other 19 nations that were involved. Everyone in Europe and North America wanted Qadafi gone.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Gramps49: Everyone in Europe and North America wanted Qadafi gone.

    Apart from those who understood the situation. (Ditto Saddam Hussein).
  • Politicians often don't remember that their Great Ideas have to run up against complexity a,nd facts they don't believe in, or wish would bend to their Great Ideas. The pandemic shows this yet again, though not in a war , cruise missile or drone party.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.

    I note that some of the "facts" stated in the Wikipedia article had (Citation Needed). In any case, it was a NATO operation, led by Britain and France with United States backup.

    It was overwhelmingly American.

    You are quite deceptive in your arguments, Martin54. I took a full read of the Wikipedia article you listed. You neglected to mention that all total, NATO launched 26.500 sorties against Lybia, yet the sorties you listed the Americans did really paled in relation to the total sorties the other 19 nations that were involved. Everyone in Europe and North America wanted Qadafi gone.

    Where did all the cruise missiles come from? And what business of Europe and North America was it?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.

    I note that some of the "facts" stated in the Wikipedia article had (Citation Needed). In any case, it was a NATO operation, led by Britain and France with United States backup.

    It was overwhelmingly American.

    You are quite deceptive in your arguments, Martin54. I took a full read of the Wikipedia article you listed. You neglected to mention that all total, NATO launched 26.500 sorties against Lybia, yet the sorties you listed the Americans did really paled in relation to the total sorties the other 19 nations that were involved. Everyone in Europe and North America wanted Qadafi gone.

    We won't say, but we may have outspent America. Or spent less than Canada.

    Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya

    United Kingdom US$336–1,500 million
    United States US$896–1,100 million
    Italy €700 million EUR
    France €450 million EUR
    Canada $347.5 million CAD
    Turkey US$300 million
    Denmark €120 million EUR
    Belgium €58 million EUR
    Spain €50 million EUR
    Sweden US$50 million

    so, American overwhelment is an overstatement. I beg its pardon.
  • Jews were brown people at the time of Israel's formation. They may have graduated to the level of honourary white people since.

    Can you convince me that the following Jewish people involved in the debates around drawing up the original plans for the Jewish settlement in Palestine in 1916 were brown?
    1. second Baron Rothschild (link to Wiki), the Jewish banker, and campaigner for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the recipient of the Balfour Declaration
    2. Herbert Samuel (link to Wikipedia), at one time the leader of the Liberal party and promoter of the Zionist cause in Parliament, eventually the first High Commissioner for Palestine
    3. Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jew settled in Manchester and campaigner for a Jewish homeland in Palestine;
    4. or Edwin Montagu, another British Jew serving in Parliament, but the leader of the anti-Zionist party.

    Link to History Magazine article on the Balfour Declaration
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    edited June 2021
    Jews were brown people at the time of Israel's formation. They may have graduated to the level of honourary white people since.

    Can you convince me that the following Jewish people involved in the debates around drawing up the original plans for the Jewish settlement in Palestine in 1916 were brown?
    I think NOprophet_NØprofit is saying that in racist thought in 1916 everyone who wasn't White Anglo-Saxon Protestant counted as some shade of brown or another. White, brown, yellow, and black are not being used as literal descriptions of anybody's skin tone.
  • Jews were brown people at the time of Israel's formation. They may have graduated to the level of honourary white people since.

    Can you convince me that the following Jewish people involved in the debates around drawing up the original plans for the Jewish settlement in Palestine in 1916 were brown?
    1. second Baron Rothschild (link to Wiki), the Jewish banker, and campaigner for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the recipient of the Balfour Declaration
    2. Herbert Samuel (link to Wikipedia), at one time the leader of the Liberal party and promoter of the Zionist cause in Parliament, eventually the first High Commissioner for Palestine
    3. Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jew settled in Manchester and campaigner for a Jewish homeland in Palestine;
    4. or Edwin Montagu, another British Jew serving in Parliament, but the leader of the anti-Zionist party.

    Link to History Magazine article on the Balfour Declaration

    Classifying Jews as white says that they are in the group. I think they were white, those you mention. I don't think that ordinary Jews were white. Its the same with Greek Australians. In the 1970's, they were not white. Now, they are.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Yup, Martin54. From what I recollect, the action was largely on the part of the French and British administrations wanting positive newspaper headlines without having to commit troops or an occupying force to reconstitute Libya. To what extent Obama can be held culpable, I'm not sure. Kofi Annan, in particular, was unimpressed by the ignorance of those involved.

    Obama's bit: United States: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[148][149] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,[150] three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers,[151] AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle[152] and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.[153] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[154] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[155]

    Especially.

    I note that some of the "facts" stated in the Wikipedia article had (Citation Needed). In any case, it was a NATO operation, led by Britain and France with United States backup.

    It was overwhelmingly American.

    You are quite deceptive in your arguments, Martin54. I took a full read of the Wikipedia article you listed. You neglected to mention that all total, NATO launched 26.500 sorties against Lybia, yet the sorties you listed the Americans did really paled in relation to the total sorties the other 19 nations that were involved. Everyone in Europe and North America wanted Qadafi gone.

    We won't say, but we may have outspent America. Or spent less than Canada.

    Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya

    United Kingdom US$336–1,500 million
    United States US$896–1,100 million
    Italy €700 million EUR
    France €450 million EUR
    Canada $347.5 million CAD
    Turkey US$300 million
    Denmark €120 million EUR
    Belgium €58 million EUR
    Spain €50 million EUR
    Sweden US$50 million

    so, American overwhelment is an overstatement. I beg its pardon.

    And you only listed ten of the nineteen countries involved. I wonder what they contributed as well. Interesting, Sweden is listed. She is not a NATO county.

    You asked why American and European countries should have been so interested in the overthrow of Qadafi. Well, because he was supporting many revolutionary movements throughout the world. On top of that he dispatched hit squads to track down and kill his oppenants no matter where they lived. And then there was the Lockerbie incident.

    And, about the cruise missles. Of the 19 countries that where in the coalition against Qadaffie besides the United States, six other countries also contributed some. The others: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway--can't forget Norway.

    Granted, the United States did have the largest naval force in the region, but there were UK, Spanish, French, and Italian ships also involved. Not sure about other nations, but Greece, and Turkey and even Eygpt would have had boats in that little pond as well. I think the other nations would have been too far away to have moved naval forces in such a short amount of time.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    The list shows how involved they were. The UK cost partially due to insane 3000 m bombing missions.

    We're fully aware of Gaddafi's behaviour over 40 years, what has that got to do with NATO destabilizing Libya, the affect on Africa, migration, the Arab Spring, Syria, Russia, North Korea?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    And here's as fine a wiki error as I ever did see, 'Eight NATO and two non-NATO countries flew strike sorties. Of these, Denmark, Canada, and Norway together were responsible for 31%,[280] the United States was responsible for 16%, Italy 10%, France 33%, Britain 21%, and Belgium, Qatar, and the UAE the remainder.[281]' the latter three must have been responsible for -11%.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Jews were brown people at the time of Israel's formation. They may have graduated to the level of honourary white people since.

    Can you convince me that the following Jewish people involved in the debates around drawing up the original plans for the Jewish settlement in Palestine in 1916 were brown?
    I think NOprophet_NØprofit is saying that in racist thought in 1916 everyone who wasn't White Anglo-Saxon Protestant counted as some shade of brown or another. White, brown, yellow, and black are not being used as literal descriptions of anybody's skin tone.

    Except the people who were involved in writing the Balfour Declaration were establishment figures in the UK Government and society - and considered white as originating from European Jewish backgrounds. The Rothschilds trace back to Frankfurt in the 18th century, Herbert Samuel is linked to the Montagu family, the family of Samuel Montagu, the founder of the Federation of Synagogues, and their family is linked back to Liverpool in the 18th Century.

    Like Churchill's welcome to Britain to workers of the Commonwealth post-WW2; when he only visualised the white Commonwealth citizens from NZ, Canada and Australia and failed to consider the black and brown citizens from the Caribbean, Africa and Asia, I wonder if those British statesmen had any thought that Jews came in a range of hues. (Israel has not been great at acknowledging the Berber Jews)
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    It looks like they're acknowledged all right. Extremely negatively.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    White is not a description of skin colour. People from the north of the Indian subcontinent can be at least as pale as southern Europeans. This is perhaps clearer if you look at 19th century texts. Heathcliff is described as being dark: it is a matter of scholarly debate as to whether Bronte meant him to be Irish or part-African. The Irish are not literally dark. Trollope often describes Jewish characters as being dark even when he also makes it clear that many of them are visually indistinguishable from Anglo-Saxon Protestant characters.
  • edited June 2021
    The local racism where I grew up was anti-Ukrainian*. Which was really about culture, language, food, purported alcohol consumption. They were considered swarthy. Not accurate.

    *Ukrainian was used as a summary term for a number of groups. Ukes and worse words that rhyme or almost rhyme.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Three days with no new comments! And the last posts are pretty tangential.
    Got it all out of your systems now and moved to the comfy chair to watch the cricket?
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    Isn't it more that a story drops out of the news when there's nothing new going on ?

    Until some reporter comes up with an interesting follow-up story that happens to coincide with a slow news day ?

    Mostly that's how we armchair philosophers get to hear about what's going on.

    However much lack of closure there is for those involved...
  • The new coalition in the Knesset includes Israeli arabs for the first time: maybe some of Bibi's worst policies will be halted or reversed?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited June 2021
    The new coalition in the Knesset includes Israeli arabs for the first time: maybe some of Bibi's worst policies will be halted or reversed?

    I'm trying to make sense of the new coalition. It's a bit like if in December 2019 Jeremy Corbyn had formed a coalition with the Lib Dems, Greens, DUP, Brexit Party and the BNP. With Farage getting first go at being PM.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Agreed. Highly unlikely to be a stable coalition. I suspect the only thing they all agreed on was unseating Netanyahu.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Agreed. Highly unlikely to be a stable coalition. I suspect the only thing they all agreed on was unseating Netanyahu.

    Which is not a bad first step, to be sure. At least in France the choice (as the slogan had it a few years ago) between a crook and a fascist. For years Israel has had both.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    If the coalition lasts more than a few months it will have to do so by everyone compromising a bit where they can, while also holding onto their own red lines. If it holds for a year then by then it would have had to lead the government to step back from any extreme positions towards an approximately central ground. Even a year without new settlements in the West Bank, with a moratorium on evicting Palestinians from their homes, an easing of the economic strangulation of Palestinian communities may create enough breathing space for the region to take a step towards peace. When the coalition collapses, as it surely will, and the nation goes to the polling station again, maybe the legacy of the coalition would be to show that there is a moderate centre ground in Israeli politics taking seats away from the extremists.
  • I'm not sure electing Naftali Bennett as the first Premier will bring about some of those objectives, when the Yamina party has as a manifesto promise the permanent settlement of the West Bank.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Well we snatched a draw from the jaws of defeat. As for the cricket..
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate

    Gordon Bennett!
  • Perhaps a problem with the attempts to get an agreement between these two groups is that there's not a dear enough cost to not getting an agreement. They just say no, go on to perform on the world stage again, and ask everyone else how could they possibly agree on anything.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I dunno: there seems to be a very large, clear and ongoing cost to not getting an agreement. It's just that everyone is "used" to paying it.
  • [Possibly unhelpful parallel]
    I was reminded by something someone said yesterday (maybe here) about a Star Trek (ToS) story where Captain Kirk got involved in a war between two planets. They'd long ago given up on all-out war as too destructive and 'settled' for random deaths chosen by computer, where each side painlessly killed those selected after each pseudo-attack.

    Kirk thought this had gone on long enough and wrecked one side's war computer to end the arrangement to precipitate all-out war. He knew this would result in short-term death and destruction but bring an end to the stalemate. He said the only way to avoid the likely carnage was to negotiate terms and come to peaceful co-existence.[/parallel]

    What can we learn? Well, it's a daft example as we don't have anything like equality of freedom for each side to act in Palestine and Israel. The world powers can't allow one side to continue to brutalise the weaker people and steal their land, prevent their normal rights to exist, while those underdogs launch missles little better than fireworks (with a few casualties and little damage) and the jackbooted IDF destroy Gaza and kneel on their collective windpipe. (Palestinian Lives Matter!)
  • Are the interests of those firing the rockets at Israel the same as those living in Gaza? I don't know enough to even guess.

    What would happen to an Israeli Government if it decided not to retaliate, and instead focus on the iron dome (is that the term?). Would it get better press in the West? Would it make the Hamas strategy (which is a publicity strategy I reckon) redundant if every time they fired a rocket the TV showed terrified Israelis?

    A problem is that you can't time your test, as an Israeli PM. You never know when one of your coalition partners is going to pull the plug and force an election. If you had four years guaranteed, you might be able to ride out the electoral liability if the Israeli public decides you are not doing enough to protect them.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Are the interests of those firing the rockets at Israel the same as those living in Gaza? I don't know enough to even guess.

    This seems to presume that the only thing that ever happens is that groups of Palestinians randomly choose a date to start firing rockets at Israel, and then Israel is forced to respond in the way they do.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 2021
    I'm not assuming that at all. I asked the question because the interests of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland was never the same as the interests of the IRA. I don't know enough about the Palestinian side of things to make the comparison, hence the question.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    The only hope is global warming...
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm not assuming that at all. I asked the question because the interests of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland was never the same as the interests of the IRA. I don't know enough about the Palestinian side of things to make the comparison, hence the question.
    It's difficult to make a comparison because Hamas is a different organisation than the IRA. Whereas the IRA was a small paramilitary organisation, Hamas is a political organisation that was elected to represent the people (albeit without a recent election to confirm that) who (as they see it) use what military options they have to defend the people. The comparison would be with Sinn Fein rather than the IRA, and Sinn Fein have always had significant support within the Catholic population of NI (enough to have MPs and councillors elected, and to have power within the NI Assembly post devolution).
  • Hamas is a political organisation that was elected to represent the people (albeit without a recent election to confirm that) who (as they see it) use what military options they have to defend the people. The comparison would be with Sinn Fein rather than the IRA, and Sinn Fein have always had significant support within the Catholic population of NI (enough to have MPs and councillors elected, and to have power within the NI Assembly post devolution).

    And even that comparison isn't exact, because Hamas has a social services wing that runs things like nurseries, orphanages etc - and running a 'state within a state' in this way was a big part of the key to their initial popularity (especially as Fatah were fairly corrupt by comparison).
  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    For Furtive Gander: the Star Trek episode they are thinking of is A Taste of Armageddon.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Hamas is a political organisation that was elected to represent the people (albeit without a recent election to confirm that) who (as they see it) use what military options they have to defend the people. The comparison would be with Sinn Fein rather than the IRA, and Sinn Fein have always had significant support within the Catholic population of NI (enough to have MPs and councillors elected, and to have power within the NI Assembly post devolution).

    And even that comparison isn't exact, because Hamas has a social services wing that runs things like nurseries, orphanages etc - and running a 'state within a state' in this way was a big part of the key to their initial popularity (especially as Fatah were fairly corrupt by comparison).

    Well arguably a wing of Sinn Fein ran certain social services such as ... policing...
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Hamas is a political organisation that was elected to represent the people (albeit without a recent election to confirm that) who (as they see it) use what military options they have to defend the people. The comparison would be with Sinn Fein rather than the IRA, and Sinn Fein have always had significant support within the Catholic population of NI (enough to have MPs and councillors elected, and to have power within the NI Assembly post devolution).

    And even that comparison isn't exact, because Hamas has a social services wing that runs things like nurseries, orphanages etc - and running a 'state within a state' in this way was a big part of the key to their initial popularity (especially as Fatah were fairly corrupt by comparison).
    Yes, I wasn't sure whether that was because Hamas was running those because it's part of what Hamas do, or if they're running those because they're the elected government and if when the next elections come around and Fatah win then Fatah will take over those roles.
  • Hamas is a political organisation that was elected to represent the people (albeit without a recent election to confirm that) who (as they see it) use what military options they have to defend the people. The comparison would be with Sinn Fein rather than the IRA, and Sinn Fein have always had significant support within the Catholic population of NI (enough to have MPs and councillors elected, and to have power within the NI Assembly post devolution).

    And even that comparison isn't exact, because Hamas has a social services wing that runs things like nurseries, orphanages etc - and running a 'state within a state' in this way was a big part of the key to their initial popularity (especially as Fatah were fairly corrupt by comparison).
    Yes, I wasn't sure whether that was because Hamas was running those because it's part of what Hamas do, or if they're running those because they're the elected government and if when the next elections come around and Fatah win then Fatah will take over those roles.

    It's the former. It's something they took from the Muslim Brotherhood and they roll it into the generally injunction for Muslims to do charitable work. I suspect they would have been less likely to do it on such a large scale if there had been a functioning state/government providing similar support.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    So, in answer to the OP, yes, we've finally caught up with the hardening of reality, since 1917 made 1896 possible. The Jews didn't give up for 1800 years, why would Palestinians give up for any less? No state in the region can ever achieve even Israel's flawed democratic status, including Turkey. Enlightenment is impossible.

    Iron Dome is only 90% effective against single front attacks and 10x simultaneous mass attacks of 100 would overwhelm it. Trying to intercept 1000 rockets - easy to organize for a day - would cost $100 M. 10s would get through. Not retaliating is not an option. There'd be a coup. A week at that rate and not invading isn't. The Iron Beam needs an OOM more power and range. Years, a decade, away if ever.
  • Cheers. I forgot that Hamas had widespread support in 2010, in part because of the social work they did. I really only bought in the Irish comparison to try and show where I was coming from, in the face of @chrisstiles response, which at first blush I found offensive, but in the morning realised was not. I was thinking specifically about the organised crime aspect of the IRA's operations, and wondering whether there was something like that happening in Gaza. But that's a massive distraction, and I agree that you can't really draw comparisons, only perhaps refer to a similar situation in trying to get to grips with another. I'm not trying to blacken Hamas' reputation, I'm trying to get past the headlines. The real solution is to deep dive, and I'm diving elsewhere at present.
    Iron Dome is only 90% effective against single front attacks and 10x simultaneous mass attacks of 100 would overwhelm it. Trying to intercept 1000 rockets - easy to organize for a day - would cost $100 M. 10s would get through. Not retaliating is not an option. There'd be a coup. A week at that rate and not invading isn't. The Iron Beam needs an OOM more power and range. Years, a decade, away if ever.

    That's right. It would be ineffective. But Israel has the systems in place to minimise the damage. Buildings will still get hit, and there will be casualties. But you won't have the pictures of destruction coming out of Gaza, the horrible unevenness of it all. Instead, you will have pictures of Israelis fearful and crying, Israelis fleeing to shelters, Israelis in hospital.

    ...

    Yeah, you're right. It can't be done.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    That's right. It would be ineffective. But Israel has the systems in place to minimise the damage. Buildings will still get hit, and there will be casualties. But you won't have the pictures of destruction coming out of Gaza, the horrible unevenness of it all. Instead, you will have pictures of Israelis fearful and crying, Israelis fleeing to shelters, Israelis in hospital.

    Between the bouts of violence, there are years when the Palestinians generally hold to the agreements that have been signed, Israel acknowledges this while continuing to blockade Gaza and expand their presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, until the next bout of violence and spate of 'mowing the lawn'.
Sign In or Register to comment.