Middle East Conflict

[ChicagoBlue]

When Israel can take hostages (sorry, detain people) at will, the rate of exchange isn't particularly relevant.

Possibly, but it emphasizes the requirement for Hamas to release the hostages and the fact that the Israelis are working towards a solution separate than the common narrative of genocide.

 

[Vic]

You see it on here quite obviously where it seems it's extremely easy to criticise Israel on a daily basis but extremely difficult to find any real criticism of Hamas except from a handful of posters. Some posters stretch to believe that a country can and should make peace whilst a terrorist organisation holds hostages, it's just completely mad.

I still maintain that the current suffering on the part of the Palestinians can be ended tomorrow if Hamas surrenders. Israel would have no choice but to end its war and then it all comes down to diplomacy. This really isn't a difficult concept but it is for some because they would seemingly rather that this armed struggle continues.

The diplomacy is another topic and I would agree with anyone that Israel must be held to account for what came next. However, irrespective I'd say that this diplomacy is much easier than trying to enact peace whilst the bullets are flying.

None of that justifies what you claimed.

Why should any Palestinian make peace with a state that steals their land in order to prevent peace?

 

[Vic]

Has it got better or worse over the last 6 months following 7/10? The Palestinians have not benefited from Hamas and will never benefit from Hamas and currently more than ever are dying. Why is it not a sensible choice to therefore at least remove Hamas from the equation given the circumstances? I'm not interested in the last 70 years, repeating what has already happened makes no difference to how to end the current situation.

I don't see what else works, Israel is under attack at its borders and it probably isn't going to think towards something like a two-state solution right now (if ever). The only way to change that is to remove the aggressors or reduce the power they hold, or hurt Israel's ability to defend itself through sanctions or arms sanctions which is clearly going to an extremely difficult conversation.

If the attacks stop and the violence stops then there's a greater chance of something good happening because the west will be more inclined to pressure Israel to come to the table. The west is however less inclined to do something whilst its ally is effectively at war and even more less so whilst hostages are held in Gaza, the place where a Palestinian state could potentially be formed...

" I'm not interested in the last 70 years..."

I think you've disqualified yourself from any serious consideration of the issues.

 

[Vic]

Possibly, but it emphasizes the requirement for Ganas to release the hostages and the fact that the Israelis are working towards a solution separate then the common narrative of genocide.

What solution is that? Solution to what?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

What solution us that? Solution to what?

All the hostages released.

It might not be Bibi’s desired ultimate solution, but returning them all (alive or dead) undercuts any continuation of hostilities.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

@Vic I see you have decided you are the arbiter of morality and reality on this subject of Israel & Gaza/Hamas, and have staked out your position on where the fault lies.

It has shown me that we will probably never agree on what is being undertaken, what caused it and what might solve it.

Accordingly, I wish you well and hope you find peace in your life, but will resist the temptation to engage further, as it will not provide either of us with good solutions or a resolution.

Take care and be well.

 

[Postman Pep]

The Israeli approach to security is damage limitation

I should have stopped reading at this point

because in truth it isn't really threatened by threats such as Hamas or Hezbollah

Yet Hamas being an existential threat is used as the justification for the ongoing slaughter. You've argued the same point yourself. The bolded bit says it all.

but state supporters such as Iran are a massive threat.

From the not really threatening threats to the 'massive' threats.....

I mean christ, Iran has tried to acquire nuclear weapons so that it can destroy Israel with them.

Change 'can' to 'has the capability to' and you are talking about the rationale all nuclear states use, mutually assured destruction. Which direction do you think those Israeli nukes are targeted?

Support from the west is therefore critical if Israel is going to defend itself and continue to exist.

Yeah because the one thing Israel is lacking here is support from the West ....

I see a strange hypocrisy on here all the time where people say that Palestine should be recognised by the west and a two-state solution etc but what about recognition of Israel?

Again .... the lack of recognition of Israel ....

Will peace and recognition of Israel be part of that conversation? If there was a two-state solution then would Iran come to make peace and finally recognise Israel? I won't hold my breath.

Don't hold your breath just give your fingers a rest ...

No supporter of Palestine gives a damn about the Israeli security situation elsewhere, they couldn't give a damn if Israel was destroyed tomorrow by Iran and this is actually where they forfit their right to argue for peace.

I think this is actually where you have forfeited the right to be taken seriously on this thread

The fact though is there will never be a peaceful solution where Israel exists and lives happily whilst Palestinians continue to be subjected to violence and aggression from Israel.

...... but then again a little bit of editing and you are not that far away.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[Palerider]

The Israeli approach to security is damage limitation because in truth it isn't really threatened by threats such as Hamas or Hezbollah but state supporters such as Iran are a massive threat. I mean christ, Iran has tried to acquire nuclear weapons so that it can destroy Israel with them. Support from the west is therefore critical if Israel is going to defend itself and continue to exist.

I see a strange hypocrisy on here all the time where people say that Palestine should be recognised by the west and a two-state solution etc but what about recognition of Israel? Will peace and recognition of Israel be part of that conversation? If there was a two-state solution then would Iran come to make peace and finally recognise Israel? I won't hold my breath.

No supporter of Palestine gives a damn about the Israeli security situation elsewhere, they couldn't give a damn if Israel was destroyed tomorrow by Iran and this is actually where they forfit their right to argue for peace. The fact though is there will never be a peaceful solution where Palestine exists and lives happily whilst Israel continues to be subjected to violence and aggression from elsewhere.

I don't know why this isn't clear. Israel does not need to find a political settlement with these bad actors because how can you negotiate peace with people who themselves do not have peace in mind? You're asking for Israel to negotiate a peaceful settlement with a government in Iran which has a stated goal of the genocide of Israel.

The only reason why Iran has not gone further to achieve its goals is because the west has seriously hampered its ability to do so. Iran almost certainly would have acquired nuclear weapons several years ago had it not been for western sanctions and the probable military actions of Mossad.

There is a very good reason why Iran is supporting Hamas and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians. So like I said before decoupling Hamas from Gaza is very important for the Palestinians but it isn't going to happen until Hamas surrenders and then the Palestinian authorities are able to organise away from geopolitical meddling.

Personally I think Israel has definitely gone way too far in Gaza and even the West Bank and they will be held accountable for that in time. However, if you're going to talk of peace then when will the likes of Iran and Yemen be held accountable for the threats against Israel? If we're only talking of peace then this cannot be ignored.

Brilliant couple of posts there mate and pretty much, from reading elsewhere, where every reasonable person stands. Sympathy for innocent Palestinians but appreciation that Israel are facing an enemy that wants all them dead.

 

[robbieh]

Brilliant couple of posts there mate and pretty much, from reading elsewhere, where every reasonable person stands. Sympathy for innocent Palestinians but appreciation that Israel are facing an enemy that wants all them dead.

Complete misunderstanding of history.

The only people who ever wanted 'them all dead' were European.

Quite understandably Palestinians are pissed off that a new country was foisted on them containing people equally hostile to them as they are to the incomers.

 

[bluethrunthru]

They change the face delivering the message but its still appalling heartless rhetoric

 

[cucumberman]

• The Israeli approach to security is damage limitation because in truth it isn't really threatened by threats such as Hamas or Hezbollah but state supporters such as Iran are a massive threat.

On what basis. Reads as more an assumption than based on evidence. Iran was the 2nd Arab country (after Turkey) that recognised and accepted Israel in 1948, even after the 1st Nakba. It was only a few years after, when zionist Israel vision/ambition of a greater Israel that the middle East countries fell favour of Israel.

• Iran has tried to acquire nuclear weapons so that it can destroy Israel with them. Support from the west is therefore critical if Israel is going to defend itself and continue to exist.

Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons in hiding, nor was nuclear use itself in hiding. They requested to develop nuclear for non-weaponised purposes specifically for CIRUS like reactors, as how Canada worked on for India.

Israel on the other hand, did their nuclear for weaponised purposes 1950. The facade being was to protect from Nazis. The nuclear weapons were built in secret, with covert assistance from France. Years after France began a rift with Israel because Israel did not maintain transparency. That was in the 1960s when France pulled out from providing uranium sourced from Gabon. Not wanting to lose the uranium supply, Israel alluded that the nuclear was for non-weaponised reasons. The US caught wind of what exactly was being built, and investigations over investigations ended up with dead-ends. No surprise that around early 1970s, the nuclear built was indeed for weaponised builds. Too late.

• I see a strange hypocrisy on here all the time where people say that Palestine should be recognised by the west and a two-state solution etc but what about recognition of Israel? Will peace and recognition of Israel be part of that conversation? If there was a two-state solution then would Iran come to make peace and finally recognise Israel?

If Israel wants peace, then abide to the laws that were agreed by the majority vote in the mid 1947. Don’t dream of a greater Israel, like the Kach, Kahane, Irgun, Lehi, Palmach, Haganah aspired to. That ambition is a mirror vision of the Qanuyqa, Qurayza and Nadir Jews. The other Jew tribes centuries ago are relatively peaceful and live amongst Arabs, Druze, Christians, Pagans under the Medina Charter.

• No supporter of Palestine gives a damn about the Israeli security situation elsewhere, they couldn't give a damn if Israel was destroyed tomorrow by Iran and this is actually where they forfit their right to argue for peace. The fact though is there will never be a peaceful solution where Palestine exists and lives happily whilst Israel continues to be subjected to violence and aggression from elsewhere.

No need to go farther than the supporter of Palestine who are also Jews in Israel. There are in-fighting between Jews and Zionists in Israel. Regardless of Arabs, Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, Western world, the crux is that sociopathic and psychopathic behaviour has no exception.

Remember the Volkisch movement? Of racial supremacy and biological motherland. The founders of Nazism and Zionism both were inspired by Volkisch. The difference being that Nazis already had their motherland but Zionists longed for theirs.

When you said Israel continues to be subjected to violence and aggression from elsewhere, you were not informed that the anti-black movement in the states in the 60s and 70s between US zionists and US black community, which side was conducting violence and aggression?

 

[inbetween]

Complete misunderstanding of history.

The only people who ever wanted 'them all dead' were European.

Quite understandably Palestinians are pissed off that a new country was foisted on them containing people equally hostile to them as they are to the incomers.

False, a simple google search of "Iran Destroy Israel" reveals everything you need to know, it can be more than proven that the Iranian regime wants to obliterate Israel. Also look up the Houthi slogan, something that is rather ironically derived from the Iranian revolution which called for the genocide of the US...

And Israel should negotiate peace with these people? It's laughable and will never happen.

 

[inbetween]

I should have stopped reading at this point

Yet Hamas being an existential threat is used as the justification for the ongoing slaughter. You've argued the same point yourself. The bolded bit says it all.

From the not really threatening threats to the 'massive' threats.....

Change 'can' to 'has the capability to' and you are talking about the rationale all nuclear states use, mutually assured destruction. Which direction do you think those Israeli nukes are targeted?

Yeah because the one thing Israel is lacking here is support from the West ....

Again .... the lack of recognition of Israel ....

Don't hold your breath just give your fingers a rest ...

I think this is actually where you have forfeited the right to be taken seriously on this thread

...... but then again a little bit of editing and you are not that far away.

You only have to ask why Israel has acquired nuclear weapons. Is it because it may need to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, seriously? It's actually because who do you think is arming Hamas? Did those guns and rockets appear from thin air? Are the Houthis bombing ships in the Red Sea because of the Palestinian issue? Really?

Framing this problem in terms of the Palestinians is moronic because the Iranians and Houthis do not give a toss about the Palestinians. I can prove this because the wellbeing of the Palestinians has become infinitely worse since Iranian proxies decided to attack Israel and continue to attack Israel. Meanwhile how many Palestinian refugees has Iran or Yemen taken so far?

I actually believe that a contributing factor to 7/10 and why Hamas was pushed to act was because the Arab nations were progressing towards a historic normalisation of ties with Israel, ie, PEACE.

In effect Hamas and its axis of friends do not want a peaceful settlement in the Middle East and they certainly do not want middle eastern alignment to the west. Iranian proxies such as Hamas are also supported by Russia who is committing its own genocide in Ukraine, and what about Assad's genocide of his own people in Syria... It's all a bit ironic to talk about peace really isn't it?

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[bluethrunthru]

well fancy that

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/shin-bet-finds-that-gazans-working-in-israel-before-oct-7-did-not-provide-intel-to-hamas-report/

 

[BayernMan]

It’s funny how the US/UK just want Israel to just pretend to care for PR reasons and Israel is like “na we rather just do our thing”

 

[KPXBLN]

Has it got better or worse over the last 6 months following 7/10? The Palestinians have not benefited from Hamas and will never benefit from Hamas and currently more than ever are dying. Why is it not a sensible choice to therefore at least remove Hamas from the equation given the circumstances? I'm not interested in the last 70 years, repeating what has already happened makes no difference to how to end the current situation.

I don't see what else works, Israel is under attack at its borders and it probably isn't going to think towards something like a two-state solution right now (if ever). The only way to change that is to remove the aggressors or reduce the power they hold, or hurt Israel's ability to defend itself through sanctions or arms sanctions which is clearly going to an extremely difficult conversation.

If the attacks stop and the violence stops then there's a greater chance of something good happening because the west will be more inclined to pressure Israel to come to the table. The west is however less inclined to do something whilst its ally is effectively at war and even more less so whilst hostages are held in Gaza, the place where a Palestinian state could potentially be formed...

What are Israel's borders?

 

[robbieh]

False, a simple google search of "Iran Destroy Israel" reveals everything you need to know, it can be more than proven that the Iranian regime wants to obliterate Israel. Also look up the Houthi slogan, something that is rather ironically derived from the Iranian revolution which called for the genocide of the US...

And Israel should negotiate peace with these people? It's laughable and will never happen.

Imagine this scenario. In 1948 Wales Is chosen as the Jewish homeland. Israelis drive half the Welsh population out into England, Scotland and Ireland. The remaining Welsh live in an open prison in Anglesey from which they launch rocket attacks against the Israeli state. Israelis respond with overwhelming force.
Would your sympathy still lie with Israel?

 

[cucumberman]

False, a simple google search of "Iran Destroy Israel" reveals everything you need to know, it can be more than proven that the Iranian regime wants to obliterate Israel. Also look up the Houthi slogan, something that is rather ironically derived from the Iranian revolution which called for the genocide of the US...

And Israel should negotiate peace with these people? It's laughable and will never happen.

When expected to pass an MA thesis or PhD dissertation, the last and lowest source of reference is Google, or any other sources of grey literature like Wikipedia.

Read and refer on these instead:

• White, D. W. (2011). Treacherous alliance: the secret dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. The Historian, 73(1), 120-122.
• Bahgat, G. (2007). Iran, Israel and the United States the nuclear paradox. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 32(1), 3.
• Freilich, C. (2023). Israel and the Iran Nuclear Deal: The Best of Bad Options. In Survival: June-July 2022 (pp. 117-131). Routledge.
• Rajiv, S. S. C. (2016). Deep disquiet: Israel and the Iran nuclear deal. Contemporary Review of the Middle East, 3(1), 47-62.
• Alpher, J. (1989). Israel and the Iran-Iraq war. In The Iran-Iraq War: Impact and Implications (pp. 154-168). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Corsi, J. R. (2009). Why Israel Can't Wait: The Coming War Between Israel and Iran. Simon and Schuster.

the above are just a sliver of others available. To comprehend, give it 1 week to read through and pragmatically opine the history behind the veil of sensationalist media.

And if interested in the relations between Israel (Judeans) and Iran (Parthians), consider how the Parthians protected Judeans from Roman harm, yet with corruption, King Herod and his Roman partners formed an alliance to topple the Parthians.

• Widengren, G. (1966). Iran and Israel in Parthian Times: With Special Regard to the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (pp. 85-129). Akateeminen Kirjakauppa.

Also, during the early fledgling years of the Islamic religion (620+ CE), remember that in the Arab Muslims only ever 2nd war (Uhud Battle), Jews offered to assist the small Medinan Muslim community in fighting against the Pagans (Quraysh). But the Medinan Muslims declined the Judeans partnership, because the battle was only between Medinan Muslims and Meccan Quraysh.

Not surprisingly, in the Medina Muslim’s 3rd war (Battle of the Trench) when they dug trenches to protect Medina, the advancing attackers were a combined troops of Pagans and Judeans (Qurayza and Nadir Judeans).

When Medina Muslims maintained steadfast in their revolution and as more converts followed (including the Pagan war leader of the first wars Badr, Uhud and Trench), Muslims eventually became the Meccan and Medinan governance. The archenemies became friends, and the Medinan Charter ensured equal rights for all religion including the far right Judean Qanuyqa, Qurayza and Nadir (the moderate Judeans are peaceful). The Hudaibiya Treaty was also the 10-year ceasefire between Muslims and Pagans (who eventually converted to Islam). It didn’t take long for the far right Judeans to disobey the Medinan Charter for their wanting to only have Judean sovereignty. Their aggression and violence against all other races and religions, including other Judean tribes made them expelled and executed. They fled north to Europe and South Middle East, with their objective of a greater homeland.

Remember Likud’s objective of the greater homeland as the Israel 1977 Charter? It emphasised on their land “between the sea and Jordan, there will only be Israeli sovereignty”.

Rings a bell?

Not all Judeans are supremacists, rather many are not. But the Qanuyqa, Banir and Qurayza are. They typecast Jews in levels of racial supremacy. They called the Samaritans who are Judean Jews believing Jesus, as Pagans. They regard themselves as the highest race among Jews. In Volkisch ideology, The Ashkenazis are the highest. The same Ashkenazis that worked on the Haavara Agreement with the Aryan Nazis.