Jump to content

Iron Swords vs. Al-Aqsa Deluge - Israel/Palestinians (again)


BansheeOne

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Will that work in gaza? Well considering how often they have been fighting, despite losing every war since 1948, almost certainly not. But then I dont think they have had the scale of this visitation before. Common sense sometimes breaks out after all.

Unfortunately it misses the biggest factors of all - culture.

Sure the Nazis were genocidal but they had class. They were hard working people who rewarded intelligence. Go find something similar in any Arab state. Closest thing is UAE whose leadership was smart enough to import talents and not throw every petro dollar on hookers, which isn't really a high benchmark.

Had the Palestinians lived 200 years ago, or had Israel not existed, they'd get such a dose of FAFO we'd only read about them in the history books. Their proximity to Israel spares them the Darwin award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, I think thats utter bollocks. In fact, its uncomfortably close to the stories about the White Helmets in Syria being secret Jihadists. I see no real evidence of it in either case.

I accept its perfectly true of some UN workers, but not nearly all. I can accept the majority are anti semitic pricks however.

I was also skeptical but one of the top bodies researching this topic and leading the ongoing investigation into UNRWA's conduct, including the expose that led to most of UNRWA's funding being slashed, now presents data that in 2011 8,000 UNRWA staff went on strike against the removal of a Hamas militant from his post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Think the wholesale destruction of the German cities didnt have a marked effect on making it so easy to eradicate Fascism in postwar German? Demonstrably it did. The western allies even did a nice poster piece quoting the fuhrer they put up in 1945 saying 'Give me 10 years, and you will not recognise Germany'. One of the few occasions he was proven right.

The Soviets could just as easily have claimed that shooting and hanging all those Nazis did more to pacify the German people than British and American bombs.

However, you wouldn't want to advocate for that approach, I'm sure.

56 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Will that work in gaza? Well considering how often they have been fighting, despite losing every war since 1948, almost certainly not. But then I dont think they have had the scale of this visitation before. Common sense sometimes breaks out after all.

Common sense being that the Palestinians should just submit to Israeli rule? Why not apply that same logic in the Ukraine thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ink said:

Common sense being that the Palestinians should just submit to Israeli rule? Why not apply that same logic in the Ukraine thread?

Israel hasn't ruled Gaza for almost two decades. With the amount of international aid they got they should have some 'Dubai-lite' there, instead they were shooting rockets and Oct 7 was a cherry on top. Like some death cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ink said:

The Soviets could just as easily have claimed that shooting and hanging all those Nazis did more to pacify the German people than British and American bombs.

However, you wouldn't want to advocate for that approach, I'm sure.

Common sense being that the Palestinians should just submit to Israeli rule? Why not apply that same logic in the Ukraine thread?

Well, we did it to some extent, we may have done it as well. There was a little known unit of the SAS postwar that was setup to go and search down people whom had killed British SF or SOE members. One documentary claimed that when they were not feeling fussy, they would take them out in the forest and 'lose them'.

Do I advocate that? No. OTOH, looking at the broad approach, yes, occasionally breaking the law when it was thought necessary, denazifying, forgiving low level thugs, reindustrialization, looking at West Germanyit seems to have worked. Im still convinced that the Strategic bombing to a very large extent convinced the Germans of the folly of total war. considering most of Germany was unscathed in WW1, and the wholly different attitude following WW2, I think the nature of the war (yes, and im sure it wasnt Strategic bombing alone) played a role in the significant attitude adjustment.

Here is a personal perspective. Post WW2, my late father played on London bombsites. In later light he remained a staunch pro European, and to some extent, anti war. So at least with his generation here, strategic bombing did have an impact.

Of course I accept, you can lead some people to water, but you cant make them drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for submitting to Israeli rule, the difference from Ukraine is that Russia has not won yet. Palestine has lost what must be 80 percent of its territory, in mulitple wars. Several wars of liberation ostensibly fought partly on their behalf have failed.  You would think a certain logic would imprint itself, but no, not yet.

The Ukrainians fight honorably for the most part, Hamas for most part fights dishonorably as often as it can as a matter of policy. So no, sorry, not accepting the comparison here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Israel hasn't ruled Gaza for almost two decades. With the amount of international aid they got they should have some 'Dubai-lite' there, instead they were shooting rockets and Oct 7 was a cherry on top. Like some death cult.

I meant "submit to Israeli rule" like the Germans submitting to Allied rule, rather than that they are ruled by the Israelis currently.

Anyway, one of my friends from university worked in Gaza as an aid worker some years ago. If you think a fraction of that aid went to people on the ground (or even anywhere near Gaza itself), I have a popular phrase about a bridge to sell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you replaced 'palestinian's' with 'palestinian nationalism' I would be in full agreement,

If bombing Germany in WW2 did anything, it was to make germans possibly the most peaceful nation in Europe. If that is also the  result with Gaza, then the bombing, bad though it is, will be judged worth it by future generations.

The problem of course comes, if it doestn succeed in removing Hamas, and the Palestinians remain pie in the sky nationalists, just like they always have been. At that point, I think deportation to the West bank, and bulldozing the Gaza strip will have to be considered. At least that will be a lesson worth teaching.

 

Military action did not make Germans peaceful, it was the realisation of their own guilt, that made the difference and most importantly it was economic prosperity and being accepted back into the group of civilized nations. If you would have kept Germans in poverty, randomly invaded Germany and bombed a city every few months, you can be certain that there would have quickly been a new death cult rising from the rubble, that would offer nothing more than revenge against the oppressors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for submitting to Israeli rule, the difference from Ukraine is that Russia has not won yet. Palestine has lost what must be 80 percent of its territory, in mulitple wars. Several wars of liberation ostensibly fought partly on their behalf have failed.  You would think a certain logic would imprint itself, but no, not yet.

The Ukrainians fight honorably for the most part, Hamas for most part fights dishonorably as often as it can as a matter of policy. So no, sorry, not accepting the comparison here.

Don't look at me, it's your comparison. Mass violence = submission = peace. It worked in Germany, you said. I just followed through and mentioned Ukraine... But I didn't realise the honour of the defenders was the key ingredient. I guess you must think the Germans also fought honourably for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ink said:

I meant "submit to Israeli rule" like the Germans submitting to Allied rule, rather than that they are ruled by the Israelis currently.

Anyway, one of my friends from university worked in Gaza as an aid worker some years ago. If you think a fraction of that aid went to people on the ground (or even anywhere near Gaza itself), I have a popular phrase about a bridge to sell you.

There wouldn't have been an Israeli occupation and later military presence of foreign forces in Gaza (they retreated from there in 2005, even forcibly removed the Israelis that lived there), though there was an allied one in West Germany. Gaza was basically self-ruling. Were there practical limitations of sovereignty? Absolutely, almost entirely of their own making. They weren't shooting rockets to get a better deal, they were doing it to kill the Juice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

There wouldn't have been an Israeli occupation and later military presence of foreign forces in Gaza (they retreated from there in 2005, even forcibly removed the Israelis that lived there), though there was an allied one in West Germany. Gaza was basically self-ruling. Were there practical limitations of sovereignty? Absolutely, almost entirely of their own making. They weren't shooting rockets to get a better deal, they were doing it to kill the Juice.

1) I think Stuart was referring to a future Israeli rule of Gaza that would pacify them like the Allies pacified Germany. That's what I was responding to.

2) If shooting rockets at people because you don't like them = you deserve to get stomped, then the Russians in Ukraine have a point, don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You come into the heading of 'just wars' and 'unjust war's. We can argue forever about what iraq or kosovo, but I dont think the German people today would suggest they were fighting a 'just war' for reasonable aims. They certainly thought that at the time, yes,. But now? No. I also dont think the former Soviet peoples for the most part, or the British or the Americans (which some notable exceptions) would dispute the right side won.

So you have a lost war, plus wholesale destruction through strategic bombing, plus the myth of why the war was fought was faulty, plus the guilt of 6 million jews....

By comparison, Ukraine, which was promised 4 times that its territory would be respected by Russia, has done nothing to deserve being invaded, and is defending its own land.

You can conflate those two positions all you like, but I find it fairly ridiculous comparision, that you were the one that  made actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ink said:

1) I think Stuart was referring to a future Israeli rule of Gaza that would pacify them like the Allies pacified Germany. That's what I was responding to.

2) If shooting rockets at people because you don't like them = you deserve to get stomped, then the Russians in Ukraine have a point, don't they?

No, you are misreading what I said. I said the SILVER LINING might be that Gaza, heavily bombed, MIGHT change direction, like the Germans changed direction. I also said I doubted it, but there was the potential for hope common sense might break out.

Now you can conflate that all you like with Ukraine, but it doesnt fit. Its entirely different circumstances. Unless you go right back to 1948, and as far as im concerned, there was wrong doing on both sides there. So why only concentrate on what the nascent Israel did wrong? It takes two side to make a war, and the palestinians have always been willing, even if they have always been unable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You come into the heading of 'just wars' and 'unjust war's. We can argue forever about what iraq or kosovo, but I dont think the German people today would suggest they were fighting a 'just war' for reasonable aims. They certainly thought that at the time, yes,. But now? No. I also dont think the former Soviet peoples for the most part, or the British or the Americans (which some notable exceptions) would dispute the right side won.

So you have a lost war, plus wholesale destruction through strategic bombing, plus the myth of why the war was fought was faulty, plus the guilt of 6 million jews....

By comparison, Ukraine, which was promised 4 times that its territory would be respected by Russia, has done nothing to deserve being invaded, and is defending its own land.

You can conflate those two positions all you like, but I find it fairly ridiculous comparision, that you were the one that  made actually.

It's a ridiculous comparison for Ukraine but not for Gaza. Ok, got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, you are misreading what I said. I said the SILVER LINING might be that Gaza, heavily bombed, MIGHT change direction, like the Germans changed direction. I also said I doubted it, but there was the potential for hope common sense might break out.

I'm not misreading. I'm saying that swapping in any waring side into the statement:

"The SILVER LINING might be that xxxx, heavily bombed, MIGHT change direction, like the Germans changed direction."

Makes it, as you said, ridiculous. In fact, I think it's also ridiculous the way you originally wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ink said:

It's a ridiculous comparison for Ukraine but not for Gaza. Ok, got it.

Good, im glad we are in agreement. :D

Besides, looked at another way, Ukraine actually is a country. Russia has agreed that in the past. Gaza is not a country. It is at best a disputed territory, that was on its way to being a nation before it got sidetracked.

I should take your case to the UN, they would lap this up. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ink said:

It's a ridiculous comparison for Ukraine but not for Gaza. Ok, got it.

Ukraine has been an independent state for more than 20 years, with several assurances that this independence is going to be respected as well as their borders, when the shit hit the fan and one of those assuring parties effectively backtracked on that and went to war. 

OTOH there has never been any legally recognized Palestinian state. Gaza became a de facto one and when they got their practical sovereignty over the judenrein territory... we all know what happened.

Ukraine has never been shooting rockets at Russia prior to 2022, let alone 2014. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ink said:

The Soviets could just as easily have claimed that shooting and hanging all those Nazis did more to pacify the German people than British and American bombs.

However, you wouldn't want to advocate for that approach, I'm sure.

I can advocate for that approach. Not for the USSR doing more lifting than the western nations, but they did contribute to that.

31 minutes ago, ink said:

Common sense being that the Palestinians should just submit to Israeli rule? Why not apply that same logic in the Ukraine thread?

It is being applied. Ukraine will not allow Russia to establish its rule over Ukraine. Israel will not allow Islamic terrorists run amok inside Israel and shoot rockets into it.

20 minutes ago, ink said:

Anyway, one of my friends from university worked in Gaza as an aid worker some years ago. If you think a fraction of that aid went to people on the ground (or even anywhere near Gaza itself), I have a popular phrase about a bridge to sell you.

Sure it didn't go to people on the ground. It went to the people underground. 

 

15 minutes ago, ink said:

2) If shooting rockets at people because you don't like them = you deserve to get stomped, then the Russians in Ukraine have a point, don't they?

They do have a point, and they are being stomped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ink said:

It's a ridiculous comparison for Ukraine but not for Gaza. Ok, got it.

Ayup. Another fine example of the rules that govern the so called "rules-based international order".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Good, im glad we are in agreement. :D

Besides, looked at another way, Ukraine actually is a country. Russia has agreed that in the past. Gaza is not a country. It is at best a disputed territory, that was on its way to being a nation before it got sidetracked.

I should take your case to the UN, they would lap this up. :)

 

 

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Ukraine has been an independent state for more than 20 years, with several assurances that this independence is going to be respected as well as their borders, when the shit hit the fan and one of those assuring parties effectively backtracked on that and went to war. 

OTOH there has never been any legally recognized Palestinian state. Gaza became a de facto one and when they got their practical sovereignty over the judenrein territory... we all know what happened.

Ukraine has never been shooting rockets at Russia prior to 2022, let alone 2014. 

Ah, I see. Thanks guys. So it's formal UN-recognised statehood that matters. Not any moral considerations. I shall remember that.

Anyway, I'm assuming you both then think it would be totally ok for Serbia to invade Kosovo, force the people there into submission through bombing and gunning down dissenters without trial (like the Allies did in Germany) and that this would solve that issue satisfactorily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ink said:

Anyway, I'm assuming you both then think it would be totally ok for Serbia to invade Kosovo, force the people there into submission through bombing and gunning down dissenters without trial (like the Allies did in Germany) and that this would solve that issue satisfactorily.

Of course not, that would be against the rules of the "rules-based international order".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

Ayup. Another fine example of the rules that govern the so called "rules-based international order".

I actually think it's better than that. It's a false logic or hypocrisy that runs right to the heart of the Western/European "holier than thou international order". Bombing people, murdering them without trial, invading places... That's all fine and dandy. Just don't do it if you aren't in the loosely defined* category labelled "us".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ink said:

I actually think it's better than that. It's a false logic or hypocrisy that runs right to the heart of the Western/European "holier than thou international order". Bombing people, murdering them without trial, invading places... That's all fine and dandy. Just don't do it if you aren't in the loosely defined* category labelled "us".

Exactly. One could compare the cases of Puigdemont in Germany and Mordechai Vanunu in Italy, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ink said:

Common sense being that the Palestinians should just submit to Israeli rule? Why not apply that same logic in the Ukraine thread?

Common sense being that sending raiding parties to kill random people is a bad method for establishing productive relations. Common sense being that it's unproductive to mope about losses in the past due to bad decisions and bad advice, and rather do something about the future. Common sense being that they could have moderate wealth within the next generation or two if they stopped ripping water pipes out of the ground to build rockets, and generally being a tool for Iranian aspirations of regional dominance.

 

The worst fallacy among Palestinians and their simps is that completely idiotic zero-sum thinking that you can make progress only at the expense of your neighbor. I'm not saying, love Israel and start trading with them even if that objectively might be the best way to get ahead. Heck, I'd bet any sum that Israel would be perfectly fine to be left isolated by its immediate neighbors. Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel. Has Israel invaded either country ever since? No. The Palestinians could have had a very sweet deal with Israel before '48, still a pretty good deal after '48, a good one after '56, a better than average after '67, an acceptable one after '73, in the mid 90s, then after Israel left Gaza. On every opportunity they decided they'd be better off doubling down on the stupid. Consequently they dug a hole so deep the walls are threatening to collapse around them now in Gaza, and somehow they and the simping idiots around them on the world stage still think that it's all the fault of Israel.

 

I pity the Palestinian children. They did nothing to deserve all of this. But generations of bad leaders brought them where they are now, and one could see it not just in hindsight, but all the way back to the 1950s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Ah, I see. Thanks guys. So it's formal UN-recognised statehood that matters. Not any moral considerations. I shall remember that.

Anyway, I'm assuming you both then think it would be totally ok for Serbia to invade Kosovo, force the people there into submission through bombing and gunning down dissenters without trial (like the Allies did in Germany) and that this would solve that issue satisfactorily.

My post was largely about moral considerations. The Israelis leaving Gaza 20 years ago and basically letting the locals rule themselves was not something immoral. What the Gazans did with their de facto independence was. 

By 2014 Ukraine didn't have designs on Russian territory in 20+ years of independence. Russia inserted itself into Ukrainian internal troubles and MADE it their own. Then it backtracked on the pledge to respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. Had they succeeded with their blitzkrieg attempt, they'd have probably backtracked on the recognition of Ukrainian statehood in general and simply annexed the country, maybe minus the westernmost part.

Is the recognised statehood the ONLY thing that matters? No, but the RU-UKR matter was relatively comfortably SETTLED 20 years before, including legally, before Russia decided to... unsettle it. In case of Israel/Palis the matters of borders and statehood never were, the Palestinians acting like they do with what they were given, both in Gaza and earlier in the West Bank, may ensure that they never will.

Kosovo has been (whether de facto or de iure it depends which country you ask) independent for a quarter of a century now. Are they launching rockets and mortar shells at Serbia? Are they making cross-border raids, killing, raping and abducting Serbians? If they ever pull an Oct 7 on your country, I'd be fine even if you guys decide to make a desert and call it peace. And no, I don't believe that the matter was settled as it should have been in the first place, but it's not a thread to elaborate on it.

Edited by urbanoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...