Israel-Palestine escalation live: Gaza under bombardment after Hamas attack

[narad]

There's a couple guys in here I disagree with but they're consistent and own their positions. You can't act offended when people accuse you of being what you spent thousands of characters telling people you are.

FFS Randy. No sympathies from me if you're going to willfully stick your head in the sand for the sake of an internet argument.

Mel Gibson, famous antisemite who still gets a lot of work. Meanwhile Susan Sarandon criticises Israel and her agency drops her.

Relevance?

People are literally asking Israel to give equal rights to Palestinians and they're saying no. That is what this conflict is about. Any Jewish person on the planet regardless of historical connection to that part of the world has right to return to Israel, but Palestinian refugees who still have the keys to their houses they were forced out of aren't allowed to return. This is a civil rights movement, and Israel doesn't care about non-Jewish rights.

But again, if your solution is Palestinians should give up and leave, that is an endorsement of genocide and a "might makes right" argument.

It's not endorsing killing Palestinians to observe that life in Palestine is not going to be good for Palestinians anytime soon. These are not the same thing. You would fail a test where you answered that one implies the other. Full stop. I mean, what do you think "endorse" means? If you were to stop trying to vilify my point, be sensationalist, or otherwise abuse the english language and said something like, "if you're saying that Palestinians would be better off if they left, and they did, then the more oppressive government has won through the use of unjust tactics", which is something I'm completely aware of, then I'd agree. But they were going to win anyway. It doesn't make it "right" - it just makes it what it is.

It's the same with "might makes right". You quote it like it is a mantra. Like some army should march into some foreign land chanting "might makes right" as some sort of manifest destiny. It's not a justification, it's an observation. If there was some larger government who stepped in and destroyed some swath of Israel in retaliation, and push them until they negotiated some freedom for Palestinians, maybe you'd celebrate. It doesn't make any of these actions "right", but the whole world is going to just accept it and move on. This is the essence of might makes right.

And because of the snide remark about me, Bloody Sunday happened at a peaceful civil rights protest, and that sparked the Troubles. If you think that's a false equivalence then you are being very ignorant.

That's not a snide remark -- you're absolutely crazy for thinking the situation can be wrapped up as literally "exactly the same" as Irish independence, and frankly it warrants being called out on it again and again. Every push for independence has its own factors that make over-generalized comparisons useless in that the circumstances, scale, economic factors, cultural factors, the time, the technology, the conflict itself, and outcomes are all different. So you choose to ignore almost everything about what makes conflict what it is, and where does this simplified way of thinking get you? Endorsing the mass murder of Israeli civilians as freedom fighting. And I guess a violent uprising is something you can get behind because it sort of worked (or was at least adopted) in Ireland? But now we're not talking about Ireland, we're talking about a different place, where the entirely different factors mean that that tactic caused an immediate retaliation that cost thousands of people their lives. So again, not a particularly useful comparison to make. "there were a people that were oppressed" / yes, and end of similarities.

 

[TheBlackBard]

Quick question, not that I'm humoring this bullshit, but what exactly IS the economic status of the area? Like are Palestinian people in the area generally well off enough to just move? Because I hear the same thing about people wanting to leave the US, being told to just move, and anyone with an ounce of awareness can tell you what the economy is like for the average person. Just wondering if it's as easy as packing up a suitcase with your dead children's photos and just taking off?

 

[narad]

Quick question, not that I'm humoring this bullshit, but what exactly IS the economic status of the area? Like are Palestinian people in the area generally well off enough to just move? Because I hear the same thing about people wanting to leave the US, being told to just move, and anyone with an ounce of awareness can tell you what the economy is like for the average person. Just wondering if it's as easy as packing up a suitcase with your dead children's photos and just taking off?

I have no idea. I am just thinking if there is a humanitarian crisis with global attention, there may be newfound support to help those who want to move. It is not just a financial choice, but visas are also relevant. You would think that entering neighboring countries as refugees would be somewhat feasible, but it also seems like Palestinians are being used as pawn by some of these arab nations to derail efforts to establish US-Israel relations with any of them (vs. an opposing Iran/China/Russia alliance) and accepting refugees or anything else that releases pressure in the Israel-Palestine conflict is working against that.

 

[StevenC]

That's not a snide remark -- you're absolutely crazy for thinking the situation can be wrapped up as literally "exactly the same" as Irish independence, and frankly it warrants being called out on it again and again. Every push for independence has its own factors that make over-generalized comparisons useless in that the circumstances, scale, economic factors, cultural factors, the time, the technology, the conflict itself, and outcomes are all different. So you choose to ignore almost everything about what makes conflict what it is, and where does this simplified way of thinking get you? Endorsing the mass murder of Israeli civilians as freedom fighting. And I guess a violent uprising is something you can get behind because it sort of worked (or was at least adopted) in Ireland? But now we're not talking about Ireland, we're talking about a different place, where the entirely different factors mean that that tactic caused an immediate retaliation that cost thousands of people their lives. So again, not a particularly useful comparison to make. "there were a people that were oppressed" / yes, and end of similarities.

Yeah, again. Just totally not understanding the context of either situation at all and seeming like you have no interest in doing so.

I feel like on page 45 I shouldn't have to reiterate a condemnation of terrorism, but Hamas are bad. I feel like after 11 years you should know me better than to think I have any positive thoughts towards the IRA. But I don't because they are all horrible people with disgusting views. But here we are.

All of these oppressive regimes and colonialist projects have a lot of things in common. The circumstances, scale, economy, cultural comparisons, time, technology, conflict, and outcomes are all dictated by the invading, oppressing, colonialists power. English people implemented oppressive circumstances, crushed the economy, dehumanised the people, decided when it ended, held technological superiority, bent the rules of engagement around their tactics and against the opponent, and ultimately were the ones to end the regime. I'm not talking specifically about Ireland here. I'm talking about Rwanda, Kenya, the Malay Peninsula, Egypt, Cyprus, India and Pakistan, Iraq, Grenada, Sudan etc etc etc. Oh and Palestine.

What happened in all of these places was the people exhausted all the nonviolent options until they had only violent options. And when they started employing violence on the scale of their oppressors they were called savages and dehumanised to make their slaughter more palatable to western audiences. And in all of these scenarios the people who held the power were western voters. As soon as the violence became unpalatable to those whose votes could change things, the violence stopped.

And that is the goal in Israel. The violence stops when Joe Biden says so. The violence stops when americans have had enough of Israel's apartheid. The secret fourth option is BDS movements to change attitudes. It worked on South Africa's apartheid and it will work on Israel's.

 

[narad]

Yeah, again. Just totally not understanding the context of either situation at all and seeming like you have no interest in doing so.

I feel like on page 45 I shouldn't have to reiterate a condemnation of terrorism, but Hamas are bad. I feel like after 11 years you should know me better than to think I have any positive thoughts towards the IRA. But I don't because they are all horrible people with disgusting views. But here we are.

All of these oppressive regimes and colonialist projects have a lot of things in common. The circumstances, scale, economy, cultural comparisons, time, technology, conflict, and outcomes are all dictated by the invading, oppressing, colonialists power. English people implemented oppressive circumstances, crushed the economy, dehumanised the people, decided when it ended, held technological superiority, bent the rules of engagement around their tactics and against the opponent, and ultimately were the ones to end the regime. I'm not talking specifically about Ireland here. I'm talking about Rwanda, Kenya, the Malay Peninsula, Egypt, Cyprus, India and Pakistan, Iraq, Grenada, Sudan etc etc etc. Oh and Palestine.

What happened in all of these places was the people exhausted all the nonviolent options until they had only violent options. And when they started employing violence on the scale of their oppressors they were called savages and dehumanised to make their slaughter more palatable to western audiences. And in all of these scenarios the people who held the power were western voters. As soon as the violence became unpalatable to those whose votes could change things, the violence stopped.

And that is the goal in Israel. The violence stops when Joe Biden says so. The violence stops when americans have had enough of Israel's apartheid. The secret fourth option is BDS movements to change attitudes. It worked on South Africa's apartheid and it will work on Israel's.

While I don't agree with these tactics of violence and I don't believe they will be effective (and have immediately brought retaliation on the scale of thousands of Palestinian lives), I'll at least give props for a well-reasoned reply. I'll probably come back and address it in the future.

Though I don't see the point of these essentially ad-hominum attacks about not understanding X or Y. I understand it. I don't agree with it. I have been presented with new-to-me information exactly twice in this entire thread and neither is particularly consequential. FYI, my entire understanding of this conflict for the past 20 years has been solely through Noam Chomsky, to give you some idea of my introduction to the topic and my default "leanings". This however changed drastically as Hamas pursued increasingly violent means towards their political goals, and after the Oct 7th attacks, I don't see any way forward that benefits the Palestinian people anytime in the near future. Which is a shame really because I think the technology in communications was just coming up to a sufficient enough head to allow the Palestinian plight to more effectively reach a larger and younger audience, and present them in a largely sympathetic light, via social media / viral posts, etc.. While that's probably still the case now that younger demographics are aware of the issue, attention that comes to older people (and the stronger voting demographic) because of brutal violence aimed at Israeli citizens is I think a much bigger net loss in terms of the public opinion in the places that could possibly effect relevant policy.

So this idea of swaying the voters -- I don't know what sentiment towards Palestinians are like among the Israeli populace at the moment, but I know the videos of Palestinians celebrating the Hamas attacks was not well received! As for Americans having enough of Israel's apartheid, if it's not connected to a tax hike you're not going to see any condemnation to trigger policy change IMO. We can't even get important domestic issues to occupy important roles on the ticket in this political climate. That's not even considering the outlook for change in the region if Trump is elected, which is looking increasingly likely. So as the adage goes, "It's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off for 'em".

 

[Randy]

BDS movement

There's a term I haven't heard in a while.

I brought that up on here a few years ago, because it was portrayed as anti-Semitic and NYS passed legislation to kill any contracts with companies that participated in BDS. And that was before they had a major terrorist event to rally against as an excuse. I think it'll be very hard to get traction in the current climate.

EDIT: Found it. This is four years old

Banning Investment in Institutions or Companies that Boycott Israel​

Executive Order No. 157 directs State entities to divest all public funds supporting the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. The first-in-the-nation action will ensure that no State agency or authority engages in or promotes any investment activity that would further the harmful and discriminatory Palestinian-backed Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in New York State.

Executive Order 157

ogs.ny.gov

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/EO_157_new.pdf

 

[soliloquy]

just as a side line:
if you (not singling anyone out here. 'you' is general) are to believe that due to the Palestine crisis, neighboring countries are more likely to accept refugees....

please keep in mind that a 3 year old child named Aylan Kurdi, his body was washed up on shore in 2015. That was NOT the start of the humanitarian crisis happening ALL around Mediterranean sea. Since then, numerous Europeans countries have turned their backs on people showing up on their shores, seeking refuge on the grounds of 'come through the proper channels of filing refugee asylum...or get fucked'

these are people coming from ALL over Africa; All over Middle East; Pakistan; Bangladesh; India; Burma/Myanmar; China etc etc etc...Not all are dealing with wars. Some are climate change refugees.

I believe it was last year? maybe the year before? EU asked Greece and one other country what their status is on this growing crisis, and their response was something along the lines of 'what crisis? we have an ongoing refugee process...we haven't seen anyone come through that' all the while not helping process people going through that red tape. They wont even give them temporary shelter and time to go through the red tape.

there are multiple makeshift islands made up of shipwrecks, small boats, and what not, where people are floating around, trying to find a shore they can call home. Turkey has taken a lot of people, and I think so has Spain and Tunisia. Other countries are refusing to acknowledge the existence of people having their boats capsizing and drowning. If memory serves me correct, this summer, a boat that had a capacity of 50 to 60 people capsized with over 300 people on board. I think only 2 people were found still alive form that wreck.

so no, this is not something that will make neighboring countries more empathetic and help those in need. Palestine is just one of many regions that is going through disasters right now and people are not doing enough.

and no, dont give me that bs that 'its not their responsibility'

 

[StevenC]

While I don't agree with these tactics of violence and I don't believe they will be effective (and have immediately brought retaliation on the scale of thousands of Palestinian lives), I'll at least give props for a well-reasoned reply. I'll probably come back and address it in the future.

Though I don't see the point of these essentially ad-hominum attacks about not understanding X or Y. I understand it. I don't agree with it. I have been presented with new-to-me information exactly twice in this entire thread and neither is particularly consequential. FYI, my entire understanding of this conflict for the past 20 years has been solely through Noam Chomsky, to give you some idea of my introduction to the topic and my default "leanings". This however changed drastically as Hamas pursued increasingly violent means towards their political goals, and after the Oct 7th attacks, I don't see any way forward that benefits the Palestinian people anytime in the near future. Which is a shame really because I think the technology in communications was just coming up to a sufficient enough head to allow the Palestinian plight to more effectively reach a larger and younger audience, and present them in a largely sympathetic light, via social media / viral posts, etc.. While that's probably still the case now that younger demographics are aware of the issue, attention that comes to older people (and the stronger voting demographic) because of brutal violence aimed at Israeli citizens is I think a much bigger net loss in terms of the public opinion in the places that could possibly effect relevant policy.

So this idea of swaying the voters -- I don't know what sentiment towards Palestinians are like among the Israeli populace at the moment, but I know the videos of Palestinians celebrating the Hamas attacks was not well received! As for Americans having enough of Israel's apartheid, if it's not connected to a tax hike you're not going to see any condemnation to trigger policy change IMO. We can't even get important domestic issues to occupy important roles on the ticket in this political climate. That's not even considering the outlook for change in the region if Trump is elected, which is looking increasingly likely. So as the adage goes, "It's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off for 'em".

Please articulate Chomsky's position and what you think of it.

And, if applicable, why your opinion has changed since October 7th when Israel killed hundreds of Palestinians this year in the West Bank before October.

 

[Drew]

Wow, clearly I missed a lot over the weekend.

My viewpoint has always been:
- Humans don't have a right to any specific piece of land
- Governments have a right to defend their citizens
- You don't fight injust systems through violence against innocents
- There is no original sin from which all blame derives -- both groups are guilty of plenty of suffering, and ascertaining the origin or ratio of this suffering is not important to resolving the situation now
- War is inherently injust / criminal / an atrocity

But, I think why you're getting called out for inconsistency and taking these views only when it's convenient, is that all of these are just as true from the perspective of Palestinians as they are from Israelis. The Palestinians have just as much of a right to defend themselves from a country that is currently bombing most of Gaza, bombing Gaza is not the way to fight an injust system, the Palestinians committed no original sin through which this war began, and the war they are now experiencing is injust, criminal, and an atrocity. Both sides are at fault, and the appropriate course of action is to stop the open conflict, with international peace keepers, if necessary.

And yet, you're vocally condemning one side of this conflict and not only are you oddly quiet in your condemnation of the other, you're pretty vocal in their defense.

 

[Randy]

The Palestinians have just as much of a right to defend themselves from a country that is currently bombing most of Gaza, bombing Gaza is not the way to fight an injust system, the Palestinians committed no original sin through which this war began, and the war they are now experiencing is injust, criminal, and an atrocity.

Not directed at anyone in here, just quoting this because this is kind of what's been making me pull my hair out in response to the discussion about this by and large.

Reminds me much a lot about the treatment of minorities in the US by law enforcement.

When the commentary about a black person beaten or shot by the police, you always hear the usual like "Why did he resist?", etc. Well, the fact is, if you're a minority you're familiar with the fact you're often brutalized even if you *don't* resist. Now when you see the police, the perception is that your life is at risk and it's a predator/prey dynamic that does *not* happen if you're a white person. If you're white, you might feel comfortable with "yes sir" "no sir" or even inviting if you're interacting with police, but if you're a minority, you may legitimately go into full "fight or flight" mode.

That's besides the fact that there's often no reason for that interaction in the first place.

The parallel for me is, when it comes to the discussion regarding Palestine v. Israel, it's always framed like "why do they resist?". Like it's just a political or process thing. This is a country who's been oppressing you, stealing land, killing or imprisoning your people for decades. Why would you welcome them as liberators? There's a level of distrust there that's well founded.

 

[StevenC]

Wow, clearly I missed a lot over the weekend.

But, I think why you're getting called out for inconsistency and taking these views only when it's convenient, is that all of these are just as true from the perspective of Palestinians as they are from Israelis. The Palestinians have just as much of a right to defend themselves from a country that is currently bombing most of Gaza, bombing Gaza is not the way to fight an injust system, the Palestinians committed no original sin through which this war began, and the war they are now experiencing is injust, criminal, and an atrocity. Both sides are at fault, and the appropriate course of action is to stop the open conflict, with international peace keepers, if necessary.

And yet, you're vocally condemning one side of this conflict and not only are you oddly quiet in your condemnation of the other, you're pretty vocal in their defense.

Actually, Israel only has the right to defend itself from other states. Palestinians have no such right, because they are not recognised as a state. Palestinians are Israeli citizens.

What Israel does have is a duty to protect its citizens, which it applies selectively to its Jewish citizens but not its Palestinian citizens.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, exactly, Randy. And I'm not even saying Hamas is in the right here. I don't think they are, and their attack on the 7th was, if maybe short of the beheading babies we were originally told, was still a deliberate assault on civilians and was morally reprehensible.

But, to narad's third point, you don't fight unjust systems through violence against innocents, and Israel responded by carpet-bombing something like 60% of the Gaza strip, which is hyperbole but only just. Accurate body counts are tough to come by with destruction of this scale, but the UN's estimation is around 11-13,000m with roughly half of that children. This sort of wanton violence against innocents in response to the - legitimately awful - action of a group of extremists is not going to end this conflict. Quite the reverse.

 

[Randy]

Yeah, exactly, Randy. And I'm not even saying Hamas is in the right here. I don't think they are, and their attack on the 7th was, if maybe short of the beheading babies we were originally told, was still a deliberate assault on civilians and was morally reprehensible

Well, right but I'd probably extend my analogy further.

You go to a lot of communities typically harassed by the police, and they're either openly hostile toward the police or there's "no snitching" culture. And yeah, I mean, violence toward police is wrong. Turning a blind eye to crime is wrong, etc. But you start to understand the mindset that got them there.

And I don't mean any of that as a defense of Hamas. It's just, you know, a lot of hand wringing over a pretty predictable situation which the supposed "good guys" have responded to with violence orders of magnitude greater. And when I say "violence" I mean knowingly killing innocent people.

And when people start saying the latter is justified and significantly better, it wreaks of racial bias.

 

[Drew]

Well, right but I'd probably extend my analogy further.

You go to a lot of communities typically harassed by the police, and they're either openly hostile toward the police or there's "no snitching" culture. And yeah, I mean, violence toward police is wrong. Turning a blind eye to crime is wrong, etc. But you start to understand the mindset that got them there.

And I don't mean any of that as a defense of Hamas. It's just, you know, a lot of hand wringing over a pretty predictable situation which the supposed "good guys" have responded to with violence orders of magnitude greater. And when I say "violence" I mean knowingly killing innocent people.

And when people start saying the latter is justified and significantly better, it wreaks of racial bias.

Yeah I mean there's a sliiiight power imbalance between the two sides here that's important to contextualize, and when race and power correlate like that... I definitely didn't intend to minimalize that and by going in a slightly different direction it kind of reads like I was - sorry about that.

I started to write a much longer post, but fuck it. The tl;dr version is this - in some ways, I almost agree with @narad's desire to take a dispassionate, realpolitik view of the conflict... but I think the counter to his "is continuing this fight likely to make Palestinians better off, no different, or worse off than they are today," is that "is open war in a civilian city likely to make Palestinians more enthusiastic, unchanged, or less enthusiastic about the prospect of peace with Israel," and the answer is pretty clearly no.

And you have to assume Netanyahu isn't stupid, and knows this perfectly well.

 

[Randy]

And you have to assume Netanyahu isn't stupid, and knows this perfectly well.

If any of this was calculated, I'd assume the end goal is permanent occupation.

 

[crushingpetal]

This is the dumbest post of the day (and you may freely tell me you agree), but I caught myself daydreaming what the future might have been like if, instead, Israel attempted a very selective assassination campaign of hamas leadership and also dropped metric tons of food and aid to Palestine.

 

[Louis Cypher]

Gaza Truce extended for 48 hrs - BBC

This is good news that the ceasefire has been extended, Hamas apparently wanted a 4 day extension but Israel refused and want to access the situation day by day. Hamas via Qatar have also said that not all hostages are being held by Hamas and they are working with the other minor groups to locate those people. Israel have also released 33 prisoners - 30 children and 3 women

On a slight side note, its always good to see coverage of this on UK TV & Radio where a parade of middle aged white men tell fellow muslim commentors that they know nothing or understand nothing about the situation in Gaza

 

[narad]

Please articulate Chomsky's position and what you think of it.

Hmm, I think this is a tall order for someone who's probably written 20 books on it. I'm sure I'm going to leave out some important aspect.

But in short, his position is one that views Israel as pushing a deliberate agenda of settler colonialism in Palestine, I think at times intentionally avoiding opportunities for peace in order to further secure more space prior to establishing new terms. That is mostly just factual, so I don't know what to say here. I think any reasonable person who is informed, up until maybe 2000, will find Israel the unwarranted aggressor in the conflict.

But I think the most key point that is characteristic Chomsky is not to see Israel in isolation, but as an offshoot of the west, primarily the US, and the US is basically the most prominent source of terror on the global stage. If you see Israel pushing for additional land, or any other sort of effort to solidify itself, it is somewhat the US radiating a policy of influence, to establish for themselves a front in the middle east. So all of Chomsky's criticism of the US foreign policy in latin america, the history of colonialism, the new subtler version of influence (like colonialism, but without the hassle), etc, all also fall on Israel. So I think the important part of talking about Chomsky is the emphasis on the US connection, the need for US support, both in terms of munitions and in terms of politics, to enact these policies. And I think maybe the also relevant point of Chomsky that its important to understanding the rise and fall of groups like Hamas, is his disdain for the idea of America being pro-democracy, since I think he believes in democracy, but that democracy spreading throughout the middle east would give rise to violent anti-american muslim nations elected in fair elections, and somewhat obligated, as representatives of its citizens, to enact policies that are anti-America/anti-Israel.

And I think what I have always liked about Chomsky when he talks about this issue, and what I try to bring into this discussion, is a discussion on -realistic- options. What separates a realistic option from an unrealistic one? To me, it is where ability meets self-interest. You can't be talking about what should happen after Oct 7th and say something like, well, Israel should lay down its arms, surrender land that was unfairly occupied, etc. Maybe that's what you want to happen, but Israel has options which better further their own self-interest, and they have the ability to do so. So Chomsky, in viewing everything as an extension of the US, would suggest that a solution has to start essentially with the US, and not so much an issue to sort out between Israel/Palestine itself (I don't know if he actually says this - I didn't read the books he wrote specifically about Palestine). If US sentiment about Palestine changes, and growing support makes the historic leeway US has taken with Israel (in terms of political and munition support, as well as defense, both political and militaristic) an unfavorable position going forward, maybe you get some people in power in the US that put pressure on Israel, and Israel reigns in its behavior. This all checks out -- you change the self-interest of the US, which has the ability to influence Israel, which changes what is optimal for Israel under its own self-interest, and you get change. I'm not interested in discussing "solutions" which do not pass this sort of sanity check.

Where I think Chomsky gets it wrong (mostly) is being too optimistic about liberal movements and sympathetic sentiment growing for Palestine in the US. Chomsky isn't a normal person, he doesn't live with normal people, and I frankly view him as extremely out of touch with everyday America. He is optimistic because he view changes he sees in Harvard square as indicative of more grass roots support across America. That was pretty sus at the time, and through the lens of a further 10-20 years from stating those positions, it has turned out to be wrong. I would say grossly wrong -- the pendulum has swung far back the opposite way. And that is even before Oct 7th!

Still, I thought maybe new technology which helps people connect could change things. Imagine Palestinians having zoom chats with Americans. I don't know why, maybe Omegle sorts of stuff. I think if social media has taught us anything, it is the power of movements and sharing -- sentiment can change drastically, quickly, whether that's cancelling some guy for tweeting something stupid, or, maybe, an awareness of what life in Palestine has been for a long time under Israeli oppression. But now US support for Palestine is abyssmal. So in essence, there is no longer a way forward for this solution in the short-medium term.

Another place where I disagree is that I think Chomsky probably thinks the Jews have no place in the area, that's not like as individuals visiting a Palestinian government. I don't agree with that. We're going to respect everyone's man in the sky special place bullshit equally.

And, if applicable, why your opinion has changed since October 7th when Israel killed hundreds of Palestinians this year in the West Bank before October.

Well my opinion doesn't change so much since Oct 7th, but more from roughly the rise of Hamas and the adoption of violence resistance. Violent resistance is a downright stupid strategy if your path to independence is through a Chomsky-an notion of stopping it at its source, in US support for Israel. A pacificst Palestine, violently oppressed by Israel -- that's something you can probably sell to American, if only you could get it on enough screens. So what has changed since Oct 7th? Muslims killing babies and citizens at a music festival... well, suffice to say that's not earning you any points in the US. In fact, three palestinian guys were just shot somewhere in/near Vermont the other night. Is there some other new solution to peace that this attack opens up I'm overlooking?

And I also don't want to vilify Israel too much, either. They make a lot of terrible choices in their overall position towards Palestine, but they're not some colonial machine whose sole purpose is to crush Palestine and whose leaders think only of slowly encroaching on land for 50+ years -- they are a government who has all the duties of managing a successful country in addition to these other issues which define this whole debate. They have the same duties to their citizens as any other country. I don't have enough time/space/organized thoughts to really get into it here, but they are in a tough position, because they are under constant attack, and really the only thing that is preventing far greater Israeli casualties is not a lack of intent, but an imbalance in technology. There are naturally going to be casualties there -- some warranted, some not -- but I don't think it's useful to keep a score sheet and pretend that parity here is the goal or that the numbers capture the whole story. The situations around intermittent outbreaks of Israeli/Palestinian violence are too varied and numerous to easily translate into some quantifiable measure of injustice. On the other hand, it's Hamas who says this violence on Oct 7th is for political means, meaning these civilian deaths have no context, only to send a message. But I think it accomplishes nothing in terms of further the paths to peace that I'm considering, losing them sympathy in the eyes of Americans and Israelis, who are the people whose opinions have to change in order for there to be better lives for Palestinians.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Since the exchange was brought up earlier:

Israel’s Insidious Narrative About Palestinian Prisoners

More than two-thirds of the Palestinians proposed for release by Israel under the ceasefire have not been convicted of any crimes. Most were arrested as children.

theintercept.com

 

[Drew]

If any of this was calculated, I'd assume the end goal is permanent occupation.

...and i think this is the part pro-Israeli people have had a hard time getting their heads around, when they see accusations of genocide being levied against Israel. I'm not saying I agree, but... I think one of the few possible answers to the "is this campaign going to make Palestine more like, the same, or less likely to want to engage in a peace process" that work out for the Israelis is you don't have to worry about Palestinians being turned against Israel by the war in Gaza and not being willing to accept a peaceful two-state solution, if there ARE no Palestinians left in Gaza. I think even that is short sighted because it ignores the fact Israel would also REALLY piss off all its Arab neighbors if it essentially depopulated Gaza... but it's not a possibility you can immediately write off, either.