War, what is it good for?

[orathaic]

So I don't see why you would default to assuming Gazans will live there after the IDF pulls out (when many no longer have homes, or the resources to rebuild those homes).

This is a reasonable default assumption. It is wildly implausible that hundreds of thousands of Gazans will be permanently displaced or killed.

Thousands have already been killed, and over a million have been displaced within Gaza, but how is it wildly implausible?

How many Palestinians have been permanently displaced and curre toy live in Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt?

Wikipedia estimates 2.18 million registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan alone (and this is likely an under-estimate, given that it is only the registered refgees, and many Palestinians have become naturalized citizens of Jordan.

So given that we know this has happened before, what makes it "highly implausible"?

I didn't make an extraordinary claim, the facts are thousands dead already, millions i ternalmy displaced.

The history shows Israel as an expansionist colonial power. And that history includes the current government trying to weaken the independence of the Israeli judicial system (because it opposed some illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank). So the current government is doing whatever it can to support illegal settlements, not just historically this has happened; the actual people in power today running this military operation.

So you have actually made the stronger claim.

I didn't say anything about how likely it is. I said it was possible (given the preponderance of evidence) but not if I think it is a 50% chance or a 90% chance... Just the much weaker claim that it is possible. A weak claim can be supported by weak evidence.

Your claim is compeltely unsupported.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

So I don't see why you would default to assuming Gazans will live there after the IDF pulls out (when many no longer have homes, or the resources to rebuild those homes).

This is a reasonable default assumption. It is wildly implausible that hundreds of thousands of Gazans will be permanently displaced or killed.

Thousands have already been killed, and over a million have been displaced within Gaza, but how is it wildly implausible?

How many Palestinians have been permanently displaced and curre toy live in Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt?

Wikipedia estimates 2.18 million registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan alone (and this is likely an under-estimate, given that it is only the registered refgees, and many Palestinians have become naturalized citizens of Jordan.

So given that we know this has happened before, what makes it "highly implausible"?

I didn't make an extraordinary claim, the facts are thousands dead already, millions i ternalmy displaced.

The history shows Israel as an expansionist colonial power. And that history includes the current government trying to weaken the independence of the Israeli judicial system (because it opposed some illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank). So the current government is doing whatever it can to support illegal settlements, not just historically this has happened; the actual people in power today running this military operation.

So you have actually made the stronger claim.

I didn't say anything about how likely it is. I said it was possible (given the preponderance of evidence) but not if I think it is a 50% chance or a 90% chance... Just the much weaker claim that it is possible. A weak claim can be supported by weak evidence.

Your claim is compeltely unsupported.

There are 71 million internally displaced people on earth. They aren't all victims of an ethnic cleansing. Turns out other types of violence displaces people too.

Thousands of Palestinians have been killed in an urban conflict while being ruled by an extremist military group that aims to maximize civilian casualties on its own side. Israel has committed war crimes and shown a willingness to prioritize its soldiers' lives over Palestinian civilians' lives, but at the same time it is plainly not trying to kill or displace as many Palestinians as possible (even though it would be trivially easy to do so). Some right-wing Israelis have terrible intentions, but many many many other Israelis don't share those views and they have a functioning democracy that will curb extreme views. Israeli society and politics would be ripped apart if Israel began killing hundreds of thousands of Gazans and that's what it would take because displacement isn't an option, no neighbouring country will accept new Palestinian refugees under any circumstance. Thousands of dead civilians is a disgraceful tragedy, but not an ethnic cleansing - Israel is at fault for many probably-unnecessary Palestinian civilian deaths, but Hamas may be responsible for even more on its own side.

There was what I would call an ethnic cleansing in 1948. No one was who an adult in that conflict is alive today. The direct refugees from this conflict are now greatly outnumbered by their children and grandchildren. In any other conflict, these children and grandchildren would have been granted citizenship in their new country of residence - but, because they're a useful tool to put pressure on Israel, they will be left stateless indefinitely. While 1948 was an ethnic cleansing, I do not think that Israel refusing "right-to-return" for the children and grandchildren of these Palestinians in 2023 is. It's the same reason why I am fine saying that Canada committed a genocide against Indigenous Peoples, but why I don't agree that it's a continuing genocide for settler and immigrant Canadians to refuse to give 100% of the land back

"Expansionist colonial power" is a bizarre way to look at Israel. Its borders have only ever grown in response to attacks on it that, had it lost, would have meant the death or displacement of most Israelis. They occupied Gaza and left voluntarily in 2006 lol. Like what are you talking about here? I hate the settler movement too by the way, so do many Israelis - in this instance, I agree what Israel's government has allowed to happen is indefensible.

And at a certain point you just have to apply common sense. The conflict is already dying down with the civilian death toll on the Palestinian side around 20,000 - extremely tragic, but not an ethnic cleansing. The displaced Palestinians remain in the Gaza strip and will not be leaving because no one will take them. Israel will not be rounding them up and killing them, not least because Israel would risk it's own existence if decided to become Nazi Germany. Israel is poised to change governments and the next shuffle/election will almost certainly remove the current PM and marginalize the grossest forms of right-wing nationalism.

[orathaic]

I hate the settler movement too by the way, so do many Israelis - in this instance, I agree what Israel's government has allowed to happen is indefensible.

This much we agree on.

I don't think I have made statements about what most Israelis think or claimed they are responsible for the actions of their government. I hope I have been clear in that.

[CaptainFritz28]

I hate the settler movement too by the way, so do many Israelis - in this instance, I agree what Israel's government has allowed to happen is indefensible.

This much we agree on.

I don't think I have made statements about what most Israelis think or claimed they are responsible for the actions of their government. I hope I have been clear in that.

It takes the consent of the people, in a democracy, to do such a thing as ethnic cleansing. Therefore, if you argue that ethnic cleansing is a likely outcome, you argue that the majority of Israelis support it. As for the whole "its just a possibility, not a likelihood," defense, that is you shifting ground. You previously argued that ethnic cleansing IS happening and WILL happen. Not that it is a possibility. If you wish to return to just possibilities, then yes, ethnic cleansing is possible. It's also possible that squirrels begin a worldwide uprising which dogs have warned us about for years, and take command of the Earth. Likely? No. Possible? Sure.

[orathaic]

I hate the settler movement too by the way, so do many Israelis - in this instance, I agree what Israel's government has allowed to happen is indefensible.

This much we agree on.

I don't think I have made statements about what most Israelis think or claimed they are responsible for the actions of their government. I hope I have been clear in that.

It takes the consent of the people, in a democracy, to do such a thing as ethnic cleansing. Therefore, if you argue that ethnic cleansing is a likely outcome, you argue that the majority of Israelis support it. As for the whole "its just a possibility, not a likelihood," defense, that is you shifting ground. You previously argued that ethnic cleansing IS happening and WILL happen. Not that it is a possibility. If you wish to return to just possibilities, then yes, ethnic cleansing is possible. It's also possible that squirrels begin a worldwide uprising which dogs have warned us about for years, and take command of the Earth. Likely? No. Possible? Sure.

The IDF is saying move from your home or you may be killed.

That is 'cleabsing' the areas in question of an ethnic population.

The question of whether they will be allowed to return after their homes have been destroyed doesn't change ethe facts as they stand on the ground.

[Octavious]

Frankly, ora, that's bloody ridiculous. Informing civilians that the area they are in will soon be a conflict zone is not ethnic cleansing. That is an effort at trying to mitigate civilian casualties. Definitions are important, and your definition of ethnic cleansing robs the term of any meaning. This is extremely dangerous.

If you want to see ethnic cleansing look at Nagorno-Karabakh. Over 100,000 ethnic Armenians lived there a few years ago. Now virtually none. And the world, generally speaking, didn't give a shit. Armenians and nobody giving a shit is a recurring theme in history.

[orathaic]

Great example of ethnic cleansing.

The question is whether the current Israeli government intends to allow settlers take over large deaths of Gaza after the bombardment ends. Whether, like in East Jerusalem, people are being removed from their homes to be replaced based on ethnicity.

They are currently being removed by threat of violence. With thousands killed who would not or could not flee.

If you can't decry this clear injustice for what it is, then I don't see much point in talking to you.

[Octavious]

In what universe is that the question? How on earth are you managing to frame the Gaza conflict as an Israeli plot to claim additional real estate? What this is about from Israel's perspective, what this is very obviously about, is Israel's ability to live without the very real and perpetual threat of mass murder.

And in what universe has anyone here not been sympathetic to the awful situation the people of Gaza find themselves in? How dare you sit on your high horse and pretend to have the monopoly on humanity. Until you reestablish a vague grip on reality you are quite right that it is pointless talking to you.

[orathaic]

In what universe is that the question? How on earth are you managing to frame the Gaza conflict as an Israeli plot to claim additional real estate? What this is about from Israel's perspective, what this is very obviously about, is Israel's ability to live without the very real and perpetual threat of mass murder.

And in what universe has anyone here not been sympathetic to the awful situation the people of Gaza find themselves in? How dare you sit on your high horse and pretend to have the monopoly on humanity. Until you reestablish a vague grip on reality you are quite right that it is pointless talking to you.

And it is this fear of mass murder which many on the right of Israeli politics use to justify removing every Palestinian from Gaza.

Again, the reason Hamas gained power was the failure of Israeli politicians to live up to their promises in the 90's peace agreement. Blaming the victim is never going to help, but it is a long tí é since Israel has been a victim, they created this monster.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Orathaic, when you say things like "removing every Palestinian from Gaza" it actually matters whether or not it's true.

It's statements like these that less us know you're having a conversation that's totally divorced from the facts. You've made up your mind about who the bad guy is and it's made you indifferent to that facts of the matter.

I wonder if you will update your views three months from now when the conflict is basically over and the situation is more-or-less as it was before *Hamas* started this conflict.

[CaptainFritz28]

Blaming the victim is never going to help, but it is a long time since Israel has been a victim, they created this monster.

Except for, you know, the fact that Hamas is funded by Iran, which is uncontrollable by Israel, and the fact that every other middle eastern nation religiously hates Israel, and previously signed an agreement never to negotiate with Israel (which, thankfully, was broken in recent years by a few of them thanks to some diplomatic work by the previous American presidency, but many still hold to it).

I don't deny that Israel has had a small part in what Hamas is now, but that doesn't deny the fact that they tried for and agreed to peace terms that were generous to Palestinian wants, which were rejected by Hamas.

Look, when a nation is unprovokedly attacked by another government, no matter what, they are the victim. Israel has not done EVERYTHING they could have to mitigate the situation or achieve peace; indeed, there are many ways in which they have failed. But they have also tried for peace.

You seem to forget that Israel is dealing with terrorists who want all Jews dead on a religious level. Maybe they didn't do everything they could to stop Hamas, but It is still Hamas' fault that they attacked, and Iran's fault that Hamas had the funds to do so.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

"the reason Hamas gained power was the failure of Israeli politicians to live up to their promises in the 90's peace agreement" - the evidence in this thread suggests it's more complicated than that. The Palestinian side walked away from the Clinton peace talks after getting almost everything they wanted. There's deep felt religious animosity on both sides. Most Palestinians want a one-state solution for their side.

"Blaming the victim is never going to help, but it is a long tí é since Israel has been a victim, they created this monster" You keep blaming Israel after it suffered an attacked that explicitly targeted civilians - an attack that was tailor made to provoke a military response (no country with the means to defend itself after such an attack would just turn the other cheek). Is there any limit to what Israel deserves in your view? If Iran nuked Israel tonight would that be Israel's fault as well? Do Palestinians and Hamas have no agency at all in your worldview? Why isn't it the case that part of what Israel does comes in response to how Palestinians and their governments act?

At this point, would you be satisfied with anything other than Israel just accepting terror attacks against itself?

[Jamiet99uk]

The Palestinian side walked away from the Clinton peace talks after getting almost everything they wanted.

Wrong. No. This statement is false.

Here are the facts:

The Palestinian leadership accepted the Clinton Parameters in principle, with some reservations, as the basis for further talks. The claim that Israel accepted the parameters, while the Palestinians rejected them, is a myth.

Those further talks took place - the Palestinians and Israelis attended the Taba Summit in 2001 immediately after the presentation of the Clinton Parameters. It is recorded that both sides engaged positively and that those talks, in fact, made good progress towards a potential solution.

What happened next was that Ehud Barak resigned as Israeli Prime Minister and triggered an election, putting further talks on hold. Barak lost that election to a bloodthirsty ultra hard-right Zionist war criminal named Ariel Sharon. He had no interest in peace with the Palestinians and refused to continue the talks.

In 2002, Yasser Arafat, still Palestinian leader at that time, publicly stated the Palestinians' acceptance of the Clinton plan. However the Israeli government were not interested.

Your claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from that process is false, you are mistaken, it is based on a myth.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The Palestinian side walked away from the Clinton peace talks after getting almost everything they wanted.

Wrong. No. This statement is false.

Here are the facts:

The Palestinian leadership accepted the Clinton Parameters in principle, with some reservations, as the basis for further talks. The claim that Israel accepted the parameters, while the Palestinians rejected them, is a myth.

Those further talks took place - the Palestinians and Israelis attended the Taba Summit in 2001 immediately after the presentation of the Clinton Parameters. It is recorded that both sides engaged positively and that those talks, in fact, made good progress towards a potential solution.

What happened next was that Ehud Barak resigned as Israeli Prime Minister and triggered an election, putting further talks on hold. Barak lost that election to a bloodthirsty ultra hard-right Zionist war criminal named Ariel Sharon. He had no interest in peace with the Palestinians and refused to continue the talks.

In 2002, Yasser Arafat, still Palestinian leader at that time, publicly stated the Palestinians' acceptance of the Clinton plan. However the Israeli government were not interested.

Your claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from that process is false, you are mistaken, it is based on a myth.

You're right that I was glib with how I characterized this process. I apologize for that. But it's equally silly to say it was 100% Israel's fault. And I guess that's my deeper point - it's way too simplistic to paint Israel as the only agent in this conflict and the sole impediment to peace. I don't know how you and Orathaic can have such a black-and-white view of the situation in general.

Take the 2000 peace process as an example and it's obvious that both sides put up barriers to peace:

The Israeli side allowed illegal settlement expansions during the peace process, they were demanding probably too much of the prime land in East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley, and they demanded an unlikely-to-be-accepted plan to demilitarize the West Bank.

The Palestinian side offered a vague and often non-committal acceptance of the Clinton Parameters, which hindered decisive progress. Their uncompromising demand for full sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including religiously significant sites, presented a significant barrier to negotiations. They were unwilling to compromise on "right to return" (which is never going to happen).

When the process broke down we got Intifada 2, a conflict in which neither Israel nor Palestine looks good (many atrocities against civilians on both sides).

[Jamiet99uk]

The Israeli side does not want peace. If Israel wanted peace they would scale back the ILLEGAL settlements.

Instead the current Israeli government delights in widespread murder.

[Jamiet99uk]

You want peace?

Get out of the West Bank where you have NO FUCKING PLACE.

Finished that?

Good, let's talk.

[Jamiet99uk]

The Palestinian side walked away from the Clinton peace talks after getting almost everything they wanted.

Wrong. No. This statement is false.

Here are the facts:

The Palestinian leadership accepted the Clinton Parameters in principle, with some reservations, as the basis for further talks. The claim that Israel accepted the parameters, while the Palestinians rejected them, is a myth.

Those further talks took place - the Palestinians and Israelis attended the Taba Summit in 2001 immediately after the presentation of the Clinton Parameters. It is recorded that both sides engaged positively and that those talks, in fact, made good progress towards a potential solution.

What happened next was that Ehud Barak resigned as Israeli Prime Minister and triggered an election, putting further talks on hold. Barak lost that election to a bloodthirsty ultra hard-right Zionist war criminal named Ariel Sharon. He had no interest in peace with the Palestinians and refused to continue the talks.

In 2002, Yasser Arafat, still Palestinian leader at that time, publicly stated the Palestinians' acceptance of the Clinton plan. However the Israeli government were not interested.

Your claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from that process is false, you are mistaken, it is based on a myth.

You're right that I was glib with how I characterized this process. I apologize for that. But it's equally silly to say it was 100% Israel's fault. And I guess that's my deeper point - it's way too simplistic to paint Israel as the only agent in this conflict and the sole impediment to peace. I don't know how you and Orathaic can have such a black-and-white view of the situation in general.

Take the 2000 peace process as an example and it's obvious that both sides put up barriers to peace:

The Israeli side allowed illegal settlement expansions during the peace process, they were demanding probably too much of the prime land in East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley, and they demanded an unlikely-to-be-accepted plan to demilitarize the West Bank.

The Palestinian side offered a vague and often non-committal acceptance of the Clinton Parameters, which hindered decisive progress. Their uncompromising demand for full sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including religiously significant sites, presented a significant barrier to negotiations. They were unwilling to compromise on "right to return" (which is never going to happen).

When the process broke down we got Intifada 2, a conflict in which neither Israel nor Palestine looks good (many atrocities against civilians on both sides).

Glad you realised your original statement was a complete falsehood.

Are you going to apologise for lying?

Or are you going to accept that you were misled?

[CaptainFritz28]

Apologies from Bert are warranted only after apologies for the multiple lies and anti-semitic statements made by Jamie ate given.

But neither side on this particular topic have given evidence. I would very much like to see some.

[CaptainFritz28]

The Israeli side does not want peace. If Israel wanted peace they would scale back the ILLEGAL settlements.

Instead the current Israeli government delights in widespread murder.

Perhaps you have not read through this forum. Bert, Oct, and myself have all agreed that the illegal settlements are wrong.
Our claim is simply that they are not justification for a terrorist attack. Is that too far to go?

[Jamiet99uk]

Wrong. No. This statement is false.

Here are the facts:

The Palestinian leadership accepted the Clinton Parameters in principle, with some reservations, as the basis for further talks. The claim that Israel accepted the parameters, while the Palestinians rejected them, is a myth.

Those further talks took place - the Palestinians and Israelis attended the Taba Summit in 2001 immediately after the presentation of the Clinton Parameters. It is recorded that both sides engaged positively and that those talks, in fact, made good progress towards a potential solution.

What happened next was that Ehud Barak resigned as Israeli Prime Minister and triggered an election, putting further talks on hold. Barak lost that election to a bloodthirsty ultra hard-right Zionist war criminal named Ariel Sharon. He had no interest in peace with the Palestinians and refused to continue the talks.

In 2002, Yasser Arafat, still Palestinian leader at that time, publicly stated the Palestinians' acceptance of the Clinton plan. However the Israeli government were not interested.

Your claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from that process is false, you are mistaken, it is based on a myth.

You're right that I was glib with how I characterized this process. I apologize for that. But it's equally silly to say it was 100% Israel's fault. And I guess that's my deeper point - it's way too simplistic to paint Israel as the only agent in this conflict and the sole impediment to peace. I don't know how you and Orathaic can have such a black-and-white view of the situation in general.

Take the 2000 peace process as an example and it's obvious that both sides put up barriers to peace:

The Israeli side allowed illegal settlement expansions during the peace process, they were demanding probably too much of the prime land in East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley, and they demanded an unlikely-to-be-accepted plan to demilitarize the West Bank.

The Palestinian side offered a vague and often non-committal acceptance of the Clinton Parameters, which hindered decisive progress. Their uncompromising demand for full sovereignty over East Jerusalem, including religiously significant sites, presented a significant barrier to negotiations. They were unwilling to compromise on "right to return" (which is never going to happen).

When the process broke down we got Intifada 2, a conflict in which neither Israel nor Palestine looks good (many atrocities against civilians on both sides).

Glad you realised your original statement was a complete falsehood.

Are you going to apologise for lying?

Or are you going to accept that you were misled?

I'm sorry for the above commment, it was unnecessary. I apologise, Bert. I got myself wound up.