Hamas attacks southern Israel

[conon394]

In the year 2000, the “peace process” was alive and well. The Israeli left had just won a landslide victory running on a promise to completely end the occupation. Negotiators at Camp David were reported to be discussing shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. There were no Israeli soldiers in any Palestinian city or town. They had all been pulled out over the course of the previous three years. Palestinian incomes and education rates were both on the rise. There was no security barrier separating the populations. It was against this backdrop that the wave of suicide bombings began that ended up killing over 700 Israeli civilians. The Palestinian explanation for this massive upsurge in violence – a Jew they really didn’t like visited the Temple Mount.

Arafat was fool. There was never any better deal than the one Clinton managed Sharm al-Sheik (and over the next months) after camp david failed. The US was secure and doing well it was in prime position to bolster the Palestinians with aid and cajole say the gulf states to do sos as well.

[Siblesz]

In the year 2000, the “peace process” was alive and well. The Israeli left had just won a landslide victory running on a promise to completely end the occupation. Negotiators at Camp David were reported to be discussing shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. There were no Israeli soldiers in any Palestinian city or town. They had all been pulled out over the course of the previous three years. Palestinian incomes and education rates were both on the rise. There was no security barrier separating the populations. It was against this backdrop that the wave of suicide bombings began that ended up killing over 700 Israeli civilians. The Palestinian explanation for this massive upsurge in violence – a Jew they really didn’t like visited the Temple Mount.

You can argue both ways... that the failure of the Camp David summit was on the side of the Palestinians, that it was on the side of Israel... at the end of the day, people will choose whatever narrative that they want to hear. The Israelis will say this, the Palestinians that....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Unfortunately the man that you're talking about (Ariel Sharon) is the man who is actually responsible for aggravating all of the tensions and completely destroying any chance for peace.

Quoting,
"On 28 September 2000, Sharon and an escort of over 1,000 Israeli police officers visited the Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and Qibli Mosque, the holiest place in the world to Jews and the third holiest site in Islam. Sharon declared that the complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control. Palestinian commentators accused Sharon of purposely inflaming emotions with the event to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

Don't forget Egypt plays a role in that as well. Also don't forget the the Hamas attack too a lot of money and effort and so also building its tunnel network. . Money Hamas seemingly has That money could have been spent on the people of Gaza.

I agree that Egypt should have done much more to solve the problem... but they are also getting their money from Washington so what to do...

Maybe they should stop attacking, then.

It's easy to say when you're not the prison inmate.

Yes, a prison riot, where they murder and kidnap babies, women, children, and the elderly (including holocaust survivors). This is not an attempt to end an occupation, this is an attempt to commit genocide.

Again, don't bring emotions into the argument. Both sides are killing civilians and have been doing so for decades. Both sides have blood on their hands. What I am arguing is which side has the most power. If Palestine had more power and money than Israel then I would side for the Israelis because they are the ones being suppressed. But in this case it is the opposite.

[conon394]

that the failure of the Camp David summit was on the side of the Palestinians

You can argue about the camp david failure but Clinton did not give up and the it was Arafat who rebuffed the his efforts after.

[sumskilz]

You can argue both ways... that the failure of the Camp David summit was on the side of the Palestinians, that it was on the side of Israel... at the end of the day, people will choose whatever narrative that they want to hear. The Israelis will say this, the Palestinians that....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

My point was that none of the conditions you claimed are responsible for the recent Hamas attack against Israeli civilians existed when the bus bombing campaign began.

Unfortunately the man that you're talking about (Ariel Sharon) is the man who is actually responsible for aggravating all of the tensions and completely destroying any chance for peace.

If Ariel Sharon visiting the Temple Mount was enough to completely unravel the peace process, then it was unlikely to ever succeed anyway. You attributing responsibility to him implies that the Palestinians have no agency.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Again, don't bring emotions into the argument.

Easy to say when it's not your friends and people you know being slaughtered.

Both sides are killing civilians and have been doing so for decades. Both sides have blood on their hands. What I am arguing is which side has the most power. If Palestine had more power and money than Israel then I would side for the Israelis because they are the ones being suppressed. But in this case it is the opposite.

Who has the power doesn't matter for deciding who's in the right. If a dog keep biting a bear until the bear eventually bites back, the blame isn't squarely on the bear simply because it has more power.
As for both sides killing civilians, yes, but there's a difference between civilians being killed as collateral damage, and going into a village, house to house, door to door, and shooting everyone. Going to a music festival for peace and killing hundreds. Firing thousands of rockets at civilian targets without a military target in sight. For them civilians aren't collateral, they're the target.

[mishkin]

Hamas conducted an invasion and an attempted genocide.

nor the most fanatic and optimistic member of Hamas thought for a minute that they would get with the actions of last week to expel or exterminate the Jews from the territory.


On the other hand, it seems that many do consider the eradication of the Palestinian people (genocide in self defense) desirable and viable.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think the brain dead moral equivalence propaganda that predictably targets the US and its allies is a big reason why Hamas did what they did. Nobody remembers the ~3,000 American civilians killed on 9/11. Everyone remembers US drone strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East since then, and blames 9/11 on US involvement in the region. Al Quaeda and affiliates wisely calculated that they would be able to provoke the US into a grave miscalculation that both exposed its weaknesses and elicited political, ethnic and religious sympathies with their cause, by striking a blow Washington could not ignore. It took them 20 years, but it almost worked, in many ways better than the terrorists could have anticipated.

On Oct. 14, Axios, citing two diplomatic sources, reported that Iran had sent a backchannel communication through the United Nations to Israel saying that it does not seek escalation in the current Israel-Hamas war, but would be forced to intervene if Israel moves forward with its expected ground invasion of the Gaza Strip. In an interview with Al Jazeera the following day, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian publicly warned Israel against invading Gaza, with Iranian state media quoting him as saying that ''Iran cannot remain a spectator'' if Israeli troops go into the strip and that the United States would also face ''significant damages'' in the wake of such an incursion.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/artic...anded-conflict

I think we’ll see the same strategy at work in the current situation with Hamas. Tehran’s comments all but prove their fingerprints are all over this from the beginning. The Israelis haven’t even begun a ground operation in earnest yet, and people are already leveraging a ready-made false balance between Israel and Hamas. Nothing could have turned the world against a rising Israel so quickly as a few thousand dead Palestinians martyred for a convenient narrative, one readily amplified by people who already hated Israel and the Western order it represents in the region. I believe this is what gave Iran the confidence to threaten direct intervention against both the US and Israel. Even if Hamas executed the operation on their own initiative, Iran undoubtedly provided material and logistical support, and its hard to see how they don’t come out the winner here, no matter what happens now.

The only reason the US sent carriers into the region, apart from routine operations in at least one case, is as a contingency to rescue American hostages. It’s unlikely we will directly aid Israel on the ground. We’ve done this sort of door to door counterterrorism before, and have no interest in doing it again. Tehran knows we will be unlikely to engage their forces directly, even if they attack Israel head on. It will be a Suez moment and a signal to the Islamic world that the final intifada to wipe out the Je- I mean the Zionists is at hand. We could very well be looking at Iran’s Ukraine invasion. Will the Israelis use tactical nukes if overrun by Arab and Persian armies? I think that’s the next question we need to ask if the Iranian military makes good on their threat, which is as certain as the impending ground invasion of Gaza, unless Tehran intentionally makes empty gestures.

[StarDreamer]

I think the brain dead moral equivalence propaganda that predictably targets the US and its allies is a big reason why Hamas did what they did. Nobody remembers the ~3,000 American civilians killed on 9/11. Everyone remembers US drone strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East since then, and blames 9/11 on US involvement in the region. Al Queda and affiliates wisely calculated that they would be able to provoke the US into a grave miscalculation that both exposed its weaknesses and elicited political, ethnic and religious sympathies with their cause, by striking a blow Washington could not ignore. It took them 20 years, but it almost worked, in many ways better than the terrorists could have anticipated.


I think we’ll see the same strategy at work in the current situation with Hamas. Tehran’s comments all but prove their fingerprints are all over this from the beginning. The Israelis haven’t even begun a ground operation in earnest yet, and people are already leveraging a ready-made false balance between Israel and Hamas. Nothing could have turned the world against a rising Israel so quickly as a few thousand dead Palestinians martyred for a convenient narrative, one readily amplified by people who already hated Israel and the Western order it represents in the region. I believe this is what gave Iran the confidence to threaten direct intervention against both the US and Israel. Even if Hamas executed the operation on their own initiative, Iran undoubtedly provided material and logistical support, and its hard to see how they don’t come out the winner here, no matter what happens now.

The only reason the US sent carriers into the region, apart from routine operations in at least one case, is as a contingency to rescue American hostages. It’s unlikely we will directly aid Israel on the ground. We’ve done this sort of door to door counterterrorism before, and have no interest in doing it again. Tehran knows we will be unlikely to engage their forces directly, even if they attack Israel head on. It will be a Suez moment and a signal to the Islamic world that the final intifada to wipe out the Je- I mean the Zionists is at hand. We could very well be looking at Iran’s Ukraine invasion. Will the Israelis use tactical nukes if overrun by Arab and Persian armies? I think that’s the next question we need to ask if the Iranian military makes good on their threat, which is as certain as the impending ground invasion of Gaza, unless Tehran intentionally makes empty gestures.

Regarding Moral equivalence I found Sam Harris quite clear on the issue:

[mishkin]

I think that some comments are not understood without taking into account the point of view of "Israel as a bastion of the Western world against the Muslim rabble".

[nhytgbvfeco2]

nor the most fanatic and optimistic member of Hamas thought for a minute that they would get with the actions of last week to expel or exterminate the Jews from the territory.


On the other hand, it seems that many do consider the eradication of the Palestinian people (genocide in self defense) desirable and viable.

Bull. They brought enough supplies and food to stay in Israeli territory for a month, and their own maps show they meant to reach even further. In one Kibbutz the number of dead and kidnapped is over a quarter of the population. The reason they didn't succeed is that the brave locals resisted with their own private arms.

[Søren]

You can argue both ways... that the failure of the Camp David summit was on the side of the Palestinians, that it was on the side of Israel... at the end of the day, people will choose whatever narrative that they want to hear. The Israelis will say this, the Palestinians that....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Unfortunately the man that you're talking about (Ariel Sharon) is the man who is actually responsible for aggravating all of the tensions and completely destroying any chance for peace.

Quoting,
"On 28 September 2000, Sharon and an escort of over 1,000 Israeli police officers visited the Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and Qibli Mosque, the holiest place in the world to Jews and the third holiest site in Islam. Sharon declared that the complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control. Palestinian commentators accused Sharon of purposely inflaming emotions with the event to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

This is not really true. Sharon's visit was unhelpful, and served as a useful spark for Palestinian resistance, but it is pretty overwhelmingly clear that the Second Intifada would have started anyway after the failure at Camp David. This is the view of most analysts, and has been supported by Palestinian voices as well.

E.g. the Communications Minister for the Palestinian Authority at the time:

"Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US."

Several other Palestinian figures (including Arafat's widow) have gone on record to claim that it had been planned well before Sharon's visit too.

Again, don't bring emotions into the argument. Both sides are killing civilians and have been doing so for decades. Both sides have blood on their hands. What I am arguing is which side has the most power. If Palestine had more power and money than Israel then I would side for the Israelis because they are the ones being suppressed. But in this case it is the opposite.

Israel does have more power, but it has its limits. Its military superiority has allowed it to remain fairly passive in response to the continuous rocket attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, something most countries would treat as an immediate act of war if received from their neighbours. If the recent incursion has indisputably shown anything, it's surely that Israeli power is not always sufficient to defend its population in this kind of defensive stance. It is not so powerful that it can just shrug off threats from Hamas (or Hezbollah), especially with the large backing from external adversaries like Iran.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Another aspect I haven’t seen discussed in terms of the timing of the attacks in Israel is the Russian abandonment of Armenia in the wake of Azerbaijan’s war. The latter poses a direct threat to Iran, and, coupled with the expanding ties between Israel and the Arab world, threatened to make Iran geopolitically irrelevant and cut them off from their proxies in the region like Hamas and Hezbollah.

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-azerbai.../32450502.html

The Hamas attacks also doom the prospect of relative peace in the Middle East, which a younger generation of leaders like MBS saw as an opportunity to reset the economic and political landscape, and establish trade corridor through India that would bypass both Iran and Turkey through Israel. Fat chance of that moving forward now:

https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/is-t...ad-on-arrival/

While useful idiots in the west regurgitate decades-old narratives about western boogeymen ruining everything, the real culprit has been increasingly open with their ambitions to do just that all along.

[conon394]

The Hamas attacks also doom the prospect of relative peace in the Middle East, which a younger generation of leaders like MBS saw as an opportunity to reset the economic and political landscape, and establish trade corridor through India that would bypass both Iran and Turkey through Israel. Fat chance of that moving forward now:

Ahh yes MBS ressoting stability good thing he up to eyeballs in the Sudan civil war.

[Ludicus]

The attacks of Hamas could basically constitute a kind of a prison riot against the guards by a people who have been reduced to extreme poverty and have been cut off from the rest of the world for...

In some aspects.
---
Israel turns down Zelensky request to make solidarity visit

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who visited European countries last week, wanted to make a solidarity visit to Israel alongside U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, but was turned down by Israel.

No comments.

Biden: 'There must be a path to a Palestinian state' - CNBC

...the usual empty commitment to a two-state solution?

Leaders to meet as EU struggles to put on united front.

There have been criticism of the European Commission president Von der Leyen’s forthright statements on Israel. She repeatedly defended the country’s right to defend itself in the fact of a terrorist attack but it was days before she also called on Israel to respect international law in its defence.
Such an omission caused anger in some countries, while others complained in phone calls to Michel’s team about overreach and the commission’s failure to consult it on such an important foreign policy topic as Israel.

After Iraq and Afghanistan, it's about time this club of leaders who rule the world learned something useful about the past. So, after all, it's not that complicated: look for the solution that we know is fair- a two states solution; and apply the same law to everyone- friends and enemies.

My selection- four books to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1 -The idea that Israel settled in a somewhat desolate, impoverished territory, historically directionless, is discussed and dismantled in the book that challenges the official narrative based on Zionism. "Ten Myths about Israel" by the Jewish historian and dissident Zionist Ilan Pappé (Professor at the University of Exeter) was first published on the 50th anniversary of Israel. It is contested by the Israeli regime.


Pappé was here, a few months ago - English Version - University of Coimbra
Latest interview, a few days ago. My Israeli Friends: This is Why I Support Palestinians

2- The book "Hundred Years' War on Palestine" is written by the American-Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi, a profound expert on the Israeli-Palestinian reality and an opponent of Hamas extremism. Here, we not only have a narrative of facts ordered chronologically but also a compelling account of the drama that has unfolded, claiming millions of civilian victims over decades. In 1899, Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi, mayor of Jerusalem, alarmed by the Zionist call to create a Jewish national home in Palestine, wrote a letter aimed at Theodore Herzl: the country had an indigenous people who would not easily accept their own displacement.

3- In 2021, the American-Jewish writer Nathan Thrall published a report in the New York Review of Books titled "A Day in the Life of Abed Salama." It paints a lucid portrait of a reality that has trivialized suffering, making it almost invisible until this moment when terror returns with an unprecedented dose of violence. Thrall humanizes it, making us unbearably complicit. Book summary,

The Deadly Red Tape of Israel's Occupation in Palestine

4- The autobiographical novel "A Tale of Love and Darkness" by Amos Oz is the voice of a child trying to navigate a universe where Palestinians and Zionist Jews come together and divide, even before the Second World War. It's a classic exploration of the dilemma of feeling part of two cultures. A Tale of Love and Darkness

[conon394]

...the usual empty commitment to a two-state solution?

BS Clinton used up all his political capital to get one and Arafat walked away - no US president is seriously going to waste time now on Fatah. The party they lost to Hamas in Gaza and would lose in the west Bank Now if it held and election because is disorganized as all crap... and Hamas is not exactly in favor of a two state solution.


-----------

After Iraq and Afghanistan, it's about time this club of leaders who rule the world learned something useful about the past. So, after all, it's not that complicated: look for the solution that we know is fair- a two states solution; and apply the same law to everyone- friends and enemies.

What does that even mean??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Afganistan. Err last I checked the US and the west spendt ton of blood and treasure to try and build a modern democracy but the locals just wanted either the Taliban religious zealot state or a corrupt narco warlords.

[PointOfViewGun]

BS Clinton used up all his political capital to get one and Arafat walked away - no US president is seriously going to waste time now on Fatah. THe party they lost to HAmas in GAza and would lose in the west BAnk NOw if it held and election because is disorganized as all crap... and Hamas is not exactly in favor of a two state solution.

What did Arafat walk away from exactly?

[mishkin]

Bull. They brought enough supplies and food to stay in Israeli territory for a month, and their own maps show they meant to reach even further. In one Kibbutz the number of dead and kidnapped is over a quarter of the population. The reason they didn't succeed is that the brave locals resisted with their own private arms.

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time imagining the Hamas militiamen carrying supplies for thirty days and I don't see why they would. What were their orders, kill all the Jews possible but don't dare touch their pantries?

They did all the damage possible. They did not at all expect to wipe out all the Jews in a lightning attack, and saying that the Jewish population of Israel was (or is) in danger of being exterminated is nothing more than an excuse for the genocide of the other side (the population of Gaza).

[Nebaki]

If you meant to ask if I've been called up for reserves, I have, but as I'm currently abroad they told me it's alright and that they have enough people at the moment. I was supposed to return, but my flight was cancelled.

You know, the more you try, the more you sink into the swamp?

[Lord Thesaurian]

...the usual empty commitment to a two-state solution?

After Iraq and Afghanistan, it's about time this club of leaders who rule the world learned something useful about the past. So, after all, it's not that complicated: look for the solution that we know is fair- a two states solution; and apply the same law to everyone- friends and enemies.

Shaming western leaders for failing to support something most Palestinians don’t either based on imposed notions of fairness perfectly encapsulates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of western leftist opposition to Israel. The only honest question to ask in the context of what the vast majority of Palestinians do want, is whether Israel has the right to exist, and what it means to say it doesn’t. Because that is the representative position, regardless of anything western leaders decide.

[Nebaki]

We understand everything, but what does it mean to hit the hospital? Someone probably took shelter there because it was safe. Literally a terror state.