Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 196

On January 20 2024 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:


I think the situation is similar to Taiwan from what I was reading. I am not sure how much you know about the Taiwan/China situation, but the gist of it is that the US or any other country recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would force China to attack Taiwan because it would mean it is no longer an internal dispute as a part of a civil war. So long as the situation remains on pause as a civil war, China does not need to "save face" and whatnot by formally retaking Taiwan.

Its all a huge farce, since the US has a billion missiles in Taiwan and the US defends Taiwan and has indicated they would respond with military force and all that kinda thing. But my understanding from some article I was reading was that it is essential for Taiwan to still be considered a part of China in order to not force China to attack in some weird way.

Anyway, I'm comparing it to China/Taiwan because the US is forced to be entirely dishonest publicly even though the writing is on the wall in every possible way. My impression is a firm stance on a 2 state solution is entirely necessary to maintain diplomatic relations with various Muslim nations that totally hate Israel. Egypt, Jordan, and many other "kinda allies" have enormous populations that would prefer their governments just flat out declare war on Israel. Their governments are forced to walk this weird line where they pretend they give a shit about Israel for the sake of not being overthrown by the huge % of their citizens that just straight up want to bomb and eliminate Israel.

So these governments have this weird, dishonest relationship with their populations while maintaining diplomatic ties with the US. But that forces the US to talk about 2 state solution stuff. But none of it is true IMO. There are a few reasons to think its all dog shit:

1: Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution right now

2: Israelis don't want a 2 state solution right now

3: Hamas being removed from power in both WB and Gaza is of course a firm requirement for any 2 state solution

4: Hamas is supported by around 75% of Palestinians

5: The PA recently used the PLO Commission of Prisoners fund to financially support Hamas terrorists involved with October 7

So Hamas is Hamas. And the PA is paying members of Hamas for participating in October 7.

Now, I beg you to resist the urge to respond with "well this is what the US SHOULLLDDD be doing", and please consider what you think the US and Israel think of the situation. Do you think the US views the PA as a valid option for a Palestinian government? Of course not. But they need to signal some level of support for PA to appease the masses of various Muslim nations who could overthrow their governments at any moment. And what about Hamas? Of course not.

So Palestinians don't want a 2 state solution. Israelis don't want a 2 state solution. Hamas is a hard no. PA is trying to support Hamas in any way they can because their approval ratings are in the toilet while Hamas is wildly popular among Palestinians. And that's another thing. Palestinians mostly totally love October 7. That of course makes things dicey too.

Is there some kinda 2 state solution widely supported by Palestinians right now? If so, can you give me a description of it? And again, even if there is some set of borders Palestinians all agree would be great, it doesn't solve the Hamas/PA/Oct7 problem. The US and Israel aren't going to just agree to that kinda mindset.

*AND AGAIN, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T DO THE USUAL* "well if the US doesn't like genocide, shouldn't they return the illegally stolen land?" because I want to be abundantly clear all of that is totally clear to me. There is no shortage of historic context here. But even though I could make sure to describe the color of the sky in every post, it doesn't help the conversation. Let's please focus on what appears to be an actual path to 2 state.

I am saying there is no actual disagreement between Israel and the US here. Its just diplomatic signaling. Hamas/PA polling among Palestinians and Palestinian support for Oct7, when combined with the perspectives of Israelis, makes the entire idea completely and totally dead. No one who is actually involved with these conversations between the US and Israel are saying "well tbh the PA is actually fairly moderate and peaceful".

Oh actually, I am going to try this. Please reply with your thoughts on a path to a 2 state solution with the following assumptions already made:

1: The US supports genocide, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, imperialism, racism, hatred, bigotry, and literally all other bad things

2: ^Same for Israel

3: Israel is 100% illegal and very bad and hateful

4: Palestinians do not possess any guilt because they are only responding to violence inflected upon them

I am curious what your thoughts are AFTER these assumptions are already carved into stone.

On January 20 2024 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:

+ Show Spoiler +

I am saying there is no actual disagreement between Israel and the US here. Its just diplomatic signaling. + Show Spoiler +

Oh actually, I am going to try this. Please reply with your thoughts on a path to a 2 state solution with the following assumptions already made:

1: The US supports genocide, ethnic cleansing, colonialism, imperialism, racism, hatred, bigotry, and literally all other bad things

2: ^Same for Israel

3: Israel is 100% illegal and very bad and hateful

4: Palestinians do not possess any guilt because they are only responding to violence inflected upon them

I am curious what your thoughts are AFTER these assumptions are already carved into stone.

BEIRUT, Jan 20 (Reuters) - An Israeli air strike on Damascus on Saturday killed four members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, including a senior figure in its information unit, a security source in the regional pro-Syrian alliance told Reuters.

The strike, using precision-guided missiles according to the source, flattened a multi-storey building in the neighbourhood of Mazzeh in the Syrian capital.

On January 20 2024 09:56 Razyda wrote:


I will take you on that in reverse way - will show you there is a way for 2 state solution if even one of those points is false:

1 - if false - US gives Israel Cuba treatment - Israel is not self sufficient state the way US and Russia are, I would be surprised if it took as much as 10 years for them to sit down at negotiation table.

2 and 3 (this are basically same point, unless things mentioned in 1 are considered good and non hateful) + illegal which I consider settlements as such) - if false - Israel stops occupation, withdraws from settlements and stop with provocations. Hamas starts loosing support ( on the bases: if you lost kids, wife, family, friends, due to one country actions, you rather happily join to anyone who declares this country his enemy, If however your family is fine, you have house, job and some prospects for future, then it would take hell of a demagogue to convince you to some bizarre crusade, on which you have nothing to win, but everything to loose) and eventually someone reasonable takes over and some long term solutions can be found.

4 - this one is odd, I dont think anyone here suggested that Palestinians arent guilty of anything, while I would say that a lot of their recent actions is result of oppression rather than violence I would certainly not use the word "only" there. For this one then I'll try to show road to piece if it is true - If there aren't any terrorist actions (or any other which may be considered provocation) coming from Palestine and if domestic situation is stable, then any aggressive action taken by Israel, would tarnish its image (there is a big "if" though, considering that before October 7 this thread had 16 pages) and if news spread, then a lot of people would get mad and politicians want to win elections, eventually international pressure would reach the threshold where some actions would have to be taken which would lead to more actions (actions of governments tend to have self accelerating mechanism, as they generate interest, which generates more actions and so on. vide: Germany on the beginning of Ukraine war)

Fact that there doesnt seem to be the way to peace in foreseeable future ⇒ 1, 2 and 3 are true while 4 is false.

On January 21 2024 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:


Before you read this reply, I encourage you to read the post I wrote for you here: https://tl.net/forum/general/573090-things-arent-peaceful-in-palestine?page=179#3562

When I posted the history of Pan-Islamism, you asked me to do the same for Zionism. It took me a long time, but I did. In the link above, I also link back to my Pan-Islamism summary. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Pan-Islamism and/or Zionism, it is reasonable for us to disagree. But please keep in mind the facts I reference in both of my summaries are not commentary. They are direct references to events in history. Those facts are important when assessing these critical questions.

What you are describing in [1] is just a conscious decision to let Israel suffer under the weight of being surrounded by enemies geographically. You are saying they would negotiate more desperately because of the threat of being wiped out. As I already described, Palestinians are not looking to negotiate right now either. It is inaccurate and dishonest to frame the situation as Israel being the only ones who are not seeking negotiation. What you are describing is just making Israel so desperate that they would accept some sort of consolation prize rather than being wiped out entirely.

I already showed why [2]/[3/] is not true in my summaries of both Pan-Islamism and Zionism. I wrote up the summary of Zionism by your request, so I do hope you read it. It took me a long time to read up on everything and make sure I had all the facts right. The idea that Hamas and other hatred towards Israel is a result of Israel's existence/formation/conduct is conclusively shown to be false. In my summaries, I documented the history of antisemitism in the middle east, and a variety of reasons the victim blaming is bogus. Jews were victims all around the middle east throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. The targeting of Jews within middle eastern countries is well-documented and I even summarized it for the participants in this thread to make sure people have all the facts right. Jews had been present in the region in large numbers very recently, the victims of hatred very recently, and all of it came way before partitioning a Jewish state out of Palestine.

As for [4], this fits in with the history of pan-islamism. In my summary of pan-islamism, i highlighted founding members of Hamas and where their ideology was derived from. I traced the lineage of that ideology and showed why it came before Israel's formation. Since antisemitism was deeply widespread throughout the middle east, the formation of Israel was viewed by bigots as an atrocity beyond measure, but it wasn't the root-cause for the hatred.

On January 22 2024 05:59 stilt wrote:


So your pov is :

1/ current jews are natives of palestine
2/ palestinian and arabs are antisemetic because of Islam and solely because of it
3/ Israel is a constant victim of its antisemite neighbours
4/ Murica is the great guy who is protecting the oppressed

On January 22 2024 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:


No, that’s not my point of view. I don’t think you read the posts I linked if you came away with that. You’re welcome to point out my inaccuracies in my summaries of Pan-Islamism and Zionism if you would like. Would be happy to learn more.

I think I recall previous posts of yours where you did not agree with me. Are there historical inaccuracies in my 2 summaries? It would be interesting to know what the key differences in our understanding of history is that causes us to reach different conclusions.

On January 22 2024 06:24 stilt wrote:
Okok, i'll answer tomorrow, I have to go to bed.
But overall there is disagrement over the beginning of zionnism (I have mainly two points on that)
On the rise of antisemitism at least in both algeria, palestine and lebanon.
And on the demographic argument during antiquity even if that's the point which I am not super well versed but it's generally impossible to be sure of a number at this period concerning the ethnic cleansing and yours is most likely very inflated.

DUBAI—The U.S., Egypt and Qatar are pushing Israel and Hamas to join a phased diplomatic process that would start with a release of hostages and, eventually, lead to a withdrawal of Israeli forces and an end to the war in Gaza, diplomats involved in mediating the talks said.

Taher Al-Nono, a media adviser to Hamas, said there was no real progress. After The Wall Street Journal’s report, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he rejected Hamas’s demands because they included an end to the war.

“If we agree to this, then our warriors fell in vain. If we agree to this, we won’t be able to ensure the security of our citizens,” Netanyahu said in a statement Sunday.

But people briefed on the talks said Israel and Hamas at least were again willing to engage in discussions after weeks of stalled talks following the end of the last cease-fire on Nov. 30. Negotiations were set to continue in Cairo in coming days, the people said.

The two parties’ “willingness to discuss the framework was a positive step. Mediators are now working to bridge the gap,” one of the people briefed on the talks said.

The new proposal, backed by Washington, Cairo and Doha, represents a new approach to defusing the conflict—aiming to make the release of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas part of a comprehensive deal that could lead to an end to hostilities.

In November, a pause in fighting lasted a week and was accompanied by an exchange of 100 Israeli hostages in Gaza for more than 300 Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

Israeli negotiators have continued to push for a two-week halt to fighting to allow for hostage-prisoner exchanges and have been reluctant to discuss plans that envision a permanent cease-fire, Egyptian officials said.

Hamas, on the other hand, is seeking to gain maximum advantage from the captives it holds, and only wants to trade them for thousands of Palestinian prisoners and a permanent cease-fire. Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar believes that the Israelis will prioritize hostages over the battlefield and that Hamas needs to hold out as long as possible to exhaust Israel and keep international pressure on it, the officials said. Sinwar is willing to release hostages but wants a longer cease-fire and better terms than last time, the officials said.

In his remarks on Sunday, Netanyahu said he rejected Hamas’s demands, which he said included ending the war, pulling Israel’s troops out of Gaza, releasing Hamas militants involved in the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, and leaving Hamas intact.

Netanyahu said he told Biden in the phone call on Friday that Israel would accept nothing but “total victory” in Gaza.

“I greatly appreciate U.S. support for Israel, and I said this to Biden. But I also stand firmly by our vital interest,” Netanyahu said.

Hamas took more than 200 hostages in a surprise assault on Israel on Oct. 7 that Israel says also left about 1,200 people dead. Some of those killed were tortured and raped, according to Israeli officials. Israeli officials have said the attack profoundly changed Israeli society and have vowed to destroy Hamas and kill its leaders.

The U.S., Egypt and Qatar see another hostage deal as the key to bringing a prolonged halt to the fighting. Egyptian officials say that while Israeli leaders publicly take an uncompromising stance, there are divisions within the Israeli cabinet, with some calling for prioritization of hostages.

In a rare interview with Israeli television, Gadi Eisenkot, a former general who is now a nonvoting member of Israel’s war cabinet, said: “We should say bravely that it is impossible to return the hostages alive in the near future without an agreement.”

Other senior Israeli leaders disagree, saying that only continued military pressure on Hamas will compel the group to return captives.

On Tuesday in Cairo, Israeli negotiators offered another counterproposal on hostages that didn’t include a path to ending the war, Egyptian officials said. They said Egypt’s top negotiator, its intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, accused Israel’s team of not being serious about the talks.

Meanwhile, Hamas has told Egyptian and Qatari officials that the previous, short-term hostage deal was unsatisfactory, with less aid than promised reaching Gaza and many of its freed prisoners getting arrested again later.

A Qatari official said the Gulf state “continues to communicate with all parties with the objective of mediating an immediate end to the bloodshed, protecting the lives of innocent civilians, securing the release of hostages, and facilitating the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

The mediators have proposed a 90-day plan that would first pause fighting for an unspecified number of days for Hamas to first release all Israeli civilian hostages, while Israel would release hundreds of Palestinians that Israel has imprisoned, withdraw forces from Gaza’s towns and cities, allow freedom of movement in the Gaza Strip, end drone surveillance and double the amount of aid going into the enclave, according to the plan.

In the second phase, Hamas would free female Israeli soldiers and turn over bodies while Israel would release more Palestinians. A third phase would involve the release of Israeli soldiers and fighting-age men Hamas considers soldiers, according to Egyptian officials, while Israel would redeploy some of its forces outside the current borders of the Gaza Strip.

Israel says it has destroyed more than half of Hamas’s fighting battalions and largely cleared the enclave’s largest city, Gaza City, and its surroundings of militants. But its forces are now fighting in Khan Younis, a densely packed city in the Gaza Strip’s south, and looking ahead to clashes in the border town of Rafah, where more than 1.3 million civilians have sought refuge.

Also on the table: the formation of an international fund for the reconstruction of Gaza, and safety guarantees for Hamas political leaders, Egyptian officials said.

The plan then envisions talks for a permanent cease-fire, normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the relaunching of a process to create a Palestinian state, Egyptian officials said.

Gulf countries have ruled out funding a reconstruction of Gaza—as the Israelis have called for—without a clear and irreversible path to a Palestinian state.

A particular hindrance in the talks, said Egyptian officials, has been Hamas’s internal rifts.

On one side is Sinwar, an architect of the Oct. 7 attacks who is believed to be hiding deep in Gaza’s underground tunnel network with at least some of the hostages. Sinwar has told mediators that Hamas has essentially won the war, the officials said, despite heavy military losses, and at least 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s offensive, mostly women and children—a Palestinian health ministry figure that doesn’t distinguish between civilians and militants.

The death and destruction has sparked criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war from Arab and other governments and protesters in the West. South Africa’s government filed a claim of genocide against Israel in the International Court of Justice. Israel has denied the allegation.

On the other side is Hamas’s political leadership outside of Gaza. Based in Doha, these officials have led the talks with Qatar and Egypt, are vying to keep Hamas relevant after the war ends and have indicated a willingness to demilitarize in Gaza—something Sinwar vehemently opposes, the Egyptian officials said.

Israel opposes a role for Hamas in any future Gaza government and has also expressed opposition to suggestions that the secular Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, should run the Gaza Strip, as the U.S. envisions.

Sinwar and Hamas’s political leader in Doha, Ismail Haniyeh, haven’t communicated directly in almost a month, the officials said. That has made progress on a deal difficult, they said.

On January 22 2024 08:35 Mohdoo wrote:


Sounds good, thanks. Just so that people don't feel like they need to spend hours reading a bunch of history crap to reply to the conversation, this is what the conclusions of my research have indicated:

1: Jews have lived in "The Jerusalem area" for a really long time. Even after their largest kingdoms were destroyed, they continued to lived in the area ever since then. People often assume Jews were entirely genocided from Jerusalem by the Romans, but many fled to nearby areas, such as the coast. They continued to occupy the area as well as move to Europe.

2: In the 1800s, Jews were victims of extreme antisemitism in both the middle east and Europe. We have well-documented antisemitism in both regions.

3: Jews have been ethnically cleansed, genocided, victims of hatred, whatever you wanna call it, so many times that it feels entirely reasonable for them to want to have some safe haven where they will not be wiped out. Its just happened so many times at this point I think its totally fair to want some kinda safe haven.

4: Since Jews have lived in the Jerusalem area many times throughout history, and they never actually left the region, it is a decent candidate for where they would try to make a safe haven.

I think the specific % of Jews and specific populations throughout history are difficult to nail down from my research. But at the very least, we do 100% know many Jews have lived in the area continuously for a super long time. But I honestly don't think its necessary for Jews to even be a majority in the region to have the region be a valid place for their safe haven.

In fact, since no matter where you try to establish a new partition of land for Jews you will always be displacing someone from that area, there isn't really any such thing as an "ideal place". Deciding to give Jews a safe haven is also deciding to kick someone out from wherever that safe haven is. But since Jews have lived there a crazy long time, in many ways its the closest we can get to the "ideal" place. I think the only point that I could see being contentious is whether or not the whole safe haven thing should exist at all. I can understand why someone would say no. But in the case of the Jews, my research showed that they have had an insane history of being persecuted and just straight up wiped out from regions many times. I am compelled to cut them some slack and give them a home SOMEWHERE that they don't have to rely on people being nice to them. They just keep getting genocided over and over.

So since we can conclusively show they stuck around the region for a really long time and they were the victims of antisemitism throughout both Europe and the Middle East in the 1800s, it feels like its impossible to frame the situation as Israel causing the antisemitism. Of course the partition of Israel pissed a lot of people off, but that was going to happen no matter where Israel was placed. That's why I'm saying the only thing I could see someone disagreeing with me on is whether it should exist at all. But I definitely think it should exist.

On January 22 2024 09:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So on one hand Hamas internal fighting has increased making diplomacy nearly impossible. While at the same Hamas leadership is fleeing Qatar and other countries as said countries cannot be seen as sponsors or safe havens for terrorism etc., otherwise no more investments. They also don't like Hamas and want them dealt with but don't want to say so publicly. Then there is Netanyahu who knows he might be headed to prison and will no longer see any position of power once he's gone. So why end the war?



Source

On January 22 2024 14:37 Cerebrate1 wrote:

It may also benefit Netanyahu to prolong the war (note that his problem is that no one is above the law in Israel. Even Prime Ministers can go to jail. A bar some other Western nations don't even reach.) But the whole point of the war was to remove Hamas from power so they can't just re-arm and commit another Oct 7 in a year or two. Any deal that leaves Hamas in power is missing the primary point of Israel fighting in the first place. They are like 80% of the way to removing Hamas from power entirely. It doesn’t make sense to give up on that goal now that it's in reach (and most of the fighting needed to make it happen is already done) and just return to the status quo of Oct 6.

Edit: Even the word "ceasefire" shows that it's a bad idea. A ceasefire is by definition a temporary cessation of fighting during a continuing war. Why is no one asking for "peace" (i.e. an end to war)? I want peace, not a ceasefire. That can only be achieved if Hamas (whose raison d'être is violently attacking Israel) is no longer in power in Gaza.

On January 22 2024 16:34 Acrofales wrote:

If the task is 80% complete then why is Israel warning that the war is still going to take long? If it took 3 1/2 months to get 80%, then the war should last roughly another month. I don't think that is the timeline Israel is working with. So either the task is not "80% complete", or the 80% was the easy but, and the remaining 20% is really damned hard. In neither case is 80% an accurate way to describe progress on something that is boolean in nature and has to be 100% complete to go home: the messaging is that it'll take months more, so in time, it's at most 50% complete, and in reality probably a lot less. Dismantling Hamas' ability to wage war is not the same as removing them as a local political power, which requires chopping off heads. Hamas leadership has so far remained mostly unscathed. As a comparison, it took the US over 9 years to find Obama. Would you be prepared for 9 years of occupying Gaza in order to find Yahya Sinwar and other top brass?

On January 22 2024 12:23 JimmiC wrote:

Does it get to keep existing? Was the natural question to ask from your preamble. And I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of you are scared to say it but you believe it should not.

On January 22 2024 16:50 WombaT wrote:

I hope this was a typo and not an oblique reference to the birther conspiracy!

But on a more serious note yeah, agreed.