Israel / Palestine

+1 very well put.

double post.

(1) Israel is entitled to be a state and to defend itself, and it isn't a misreading of history to feel that Jews as a people have been historically persecuted and therefore are at risk; (2) the way it has done so has, at least some of the time, been unacceptably brutal; but (3) they are correct to feel threatened as there are those out there who don't accept their right to a state and wish them harm.

I'm happy to condemn Israel for the things it has done wrong, but I don't think that means (as many on this thread appear to) that this is unequivocally a case of "Israel bad and that's all that matters"

FWIW, I agree here.

@hugo7
Furthering above because I wanted to clarify.
The formation of the IDF is very nuanced.
The creation of Israel was immediately met with a mass invasion, and the "drive them to the sea"
Creating an armed force to protect your people is not just understandable, but essential.

To their credit, the merger of the most extreme factions in the Mandate Insurgency period was not immediate:

Following Israel's Declaration of Independence, Prime Minister and Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion issued an order for the formation of the Israel Defense Forces on 26 May 1948. Although Ben-Gurion had no legal authority to issue such an order, the order was made legal by the cabinet on 31 May. The same order called for the disbandment of all other Jewish armed forces.[9] The two other Jewish underground organizations, Irgun and Lehi, agreed to join the IDF if they would be able to form independent units and agreed not to make independent arms purchases. This was the background for the Altalena Affair, a confrontation surrounding weapons purchased by the Irgun resulting in a standoff between Irgun members and the newly created IDF. The affair came to an end when Altalena, the ship carrying the arms, was shelled by the IDF. Following the affair, all independent Irgun and Lehi units were either disbanded or merged into the IDF

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair).

The modern "Spirit of the IDF" is inherently challenged due to the nature of the conflict.
However, at base, it is hard to argue with.

I want to ask a question which will make me seem wet behind the ears and might also, unfortunately, offend some. Maybe not.

Anyway, happy to be green and educated. Not so happy to cause offence, but here we go.

The narrative* is that Israel is defending its right to exist (under threat of the opposite by Palestine/Hamas), but as far as I can see - from looking at territorial maps over time - it is the existence of Palestine, in no other form than ghettos, that is really under threat.

It seems back to front. And I don’t understand why?

*Unless it is exactly that; a narrative.

and this is where much of the criticism of Israel comes from - it has gone further than asserting its right to exist; it has expanded into the occupied territories and marginalised / brutalised Gaza.

that Palestine isn't given full statehood with recognised borders means that the conflict is a state (Israel) versus non state actors (commonly described as terrorists), further blurring the "narrative".

Well there we disagree, Israeli soldiers in body armour and armoured vehicles shoot people that throw stones at them. Shoot unarmed people with cameras. These are in areas that Israel have invaded.

Using armed and armoured soldiers and vehicles to protect bulldozers demolishing people's homes...in areas the people have every right to be.

Not sure Wikipedia is a great source of unbiased information on this topic.

Why not use Ben real name and the fact he is Polish? Or how many generations of Polish born family does it take to be from Poland.

the conflict is a state (Israel) versus non state actors (commonly described as terrorists)

Even the Geneva convention only gives limited protection to Franc Tireurs. The Hague convention all but made them criminals. If you wear a nice uniform from a recognised nation, you get protection under International Law no matter how bestial the state it belongs to. If you don't, you get nothing and the fact that your oppressor has done everything to stop you from having that luxury doesn't matter. It's the international version of Jim Crow.

Israeli soldiers in body armour and armoured vehicles shoot people that throw stones at them. Shoot unarmed people with cameras. These are in areas that Israel have invaded.

Yes these horrendous acts by some IDF soldiers happened. Some have been charged by the military courts, disciplined, imprisoned etc.

The point is that whatever has happened in the past, the initial Hammas attack on Saturday left Israel no choice but to resort to the current strikes on Gaza

Now this may sound tin foil hatty, in the go look it up and draw your own conclusions.

What the the then UK did in the early 20th century in backing/helping/agreement to the Arabs of that area of the middle east to over throw the ottoman empire occupying that area.

How were the ottoman empire leaders elected/arrived at, while how much of a democracy was the UK at the time. How much had democracy changed in both areas in the last 100 years.

At a similar time look how the borders on the European continent have changed in the last 200 years.

The problem is that allot of what is written has a bias, and I have not read enough to form an unbiased opinion.

Having studied for a few years in Siena, I learnt a lot about the medieval history in that local area that the local Sianese are still not happy/hold a grudge. Then add the within the medieval walls of Siena, that is 600-1000 years ago!

but.... It seems back to front. And I don’t understand why?

They're not mutually exclusive.

If you have a search and read through the origins of each of the wars you see a trend of attacks on Israel followed by a retaliation which includes some form of land grab.

Some you can reasonably say have some security/strategic based legitimacy like the Golan Heights*. Others are clearly opportunistic consolation of territory based on a colonial mindset.

*although idk if that still stands up in modern warfare, or why you have to annex it rather than some sort of UN backed DMZ

whatever has happened in the past

not sure that it is reasonable to whatever that away and start the clock on Saturday, but leaving that aside, what's the end game here for Israel - permanent occupation and administration of Gaza?

not sure that it is reasonable to whatever that away

Yes, seems unreasonable though taking anything into account prior to Saturday's atrocity is pointless in terms of a response now.

It is impossible to predict the endgame, the degree this escalates, other players entering the fray, which makes this moment an existential threat to both Israelis and Palestinians

I think my confusion comes from the fact that… Israel is not really under threat? It’s David and Goliath. It’s holding a midget at arm’s length and kicking them in the nuts as they land the odd punch to the thighs.

I’m not saying that condones or condemns either side’s actions; I just find it to be the opposite of what the “agreed” narrative is.

Unless I misunderstood your reply, in which case I’m sorry - it’s been a long, erm, year at work!

Firstly I find the use of term defence league is wrong for an army. The idea that a single Israeli army member has had reprimand for their actions is laughable when Israel has jailed children for throwing stones at armoured soldiers and armoured vehicles. But (as always) any army glosses over its actions see the disappeared information from Afghanistan by that the UK US had of its soldiers killing and torturing Afghanis. Let's not mention Northern Ireland.

Also Israel had lots of choices, but when you have the attitude of you kill one of ours and we will kill one of yours. Then Palestine and Palestinians have nothing to lose. Especially when Israel attacks boats bringing aid to Gaza claiming that it was the Palestinian Navy arresting people on the boats. Killing US citizens (hey he had an Arabic background! That was a wtf comment by Israeli news) filming the flotilla. Other film that was not seized showed a very different situation to the Israeli claims. The flotilla had no arms/weapons. Israel opened fire on unarmed people bring aid to the Gaza strip. That was 2008, nothing happened to the Israeli army people. The story was decided by Israel and it's media and the is no proof that the truth (video evidence).

So I believe Israel has a choice and the choice is violence.

Yes, that is the end game. What else can it be?

Especially when Israel attacks boats bringing aid to Gaza claiming that it was the Palestinian Navy arresting people on the boats. Killing US citizens (hey he had an Arabic background! That was a wtf comment by Israeli news) filming the flotilla. Other film that was not seized showed a very different situation to the Israeli claims. The flotilla had no arms/weapons. Israel opened fire on unarmed people bring aid to the Gaza strip. That was 2008

Yes. Not a good call. More info on this here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/30/israel-gaza-aid-ship

I don't see what else it could be, either.

The cost in lives will be an order of magnitude higher than where this stands today.

Is this the same incident https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/American-Teenager-Killed-On-The-Gaza-Flotilla-For-Holding-A-Camera.amp.html

There's an incredibly poignant piece in the FT by David Grossman, in which he excoriates Netanyahu.

It's paywalled but I'll post part of his conclusion here:

Are we capable of shaking off the well-worn formulas and understanding that what has occurred here is too immense and too terrible to be viewed through stale paradigms? Even Israel’s conduct and its crimes in the occupied territories for 56 years cannot justify or soften what has been laid bare: the depth of hatred towards Israel, the painful understanding that we Israelis will always have to live here in heightened alertness and constant preparedness for war.

^^^ That's the sad truth, I fear.

Now this may sound really bad but not meant that way.

USA used 9/11 as a reason to link the Saudi attackers to Iraq and invade. My fear in that USA will link Hamas/Russia to Iran so USA can go to war Iran and drag the UK in. Then many more lives...

The depth of hatred for putting a group of people in to another group of people without listening to the group of people who are being over ruled as to what they want.

Sounds a bit like Northern Ireland....look how many centuries that took to come to a truce...

Israel is not really under threat?

You need to unpack and expand that statement a bit more.

They've spent billions on a permanent missile defence system that regularly shoots down missiles fired into Israel. Yet they've just suffered a deviating attack.

I feel like you're also viewing this purely from the idea of Israel being under threat from the Palestinians, rather than being under threat from Iran.