WAR! What is it good for?

[Citizen Kane.]

.

 

[FosseFilberto]

I sympathise with this point and have said many times that I don't see settlements or their expansion as conducive at all to bringing peace.

But every single point you or I raise will always be a chicken and egg question, as the 'other side' will always have a counter claim to make that hinges on exactly the same point.

International law should be applied equally. Therefore, Hamas should immediately and unconditionally recognise Israel's right to exist and remove the multiple clauses from its Charter that contradict this. It should also immediately release the hostages it holds in breach of international law.

The point I keep raising is that international law and its application in the real world of a democracy first and foremost requires the majority of that democracy's public to want the application of international law.

Speeches and drafts drawn up in New York, Geneva or the Hague count for **** if ultimately they make the Israeli public feel unsafe.

This is such basic political philosophy I'm genuinely staggered how few people seem to take it into account.

The equation in short:

The Israeli public won't want the application of international law if it makes them feel less safe.

This is so, so simple.

The trick is how to break the cycle of people like Netanyahu getting into office over and over again.

The key to that, in a democracy with one of the most open and fair voting systems in the world with very, very few 'wasted votes' (some might argue that this very openness is part of the problem), is the general public: How do we get them to believe in peace again?

Once the Israeli public believes in peace again, you'll see more Rabins and Peres, and fewer Netanyahus and Ben Gvirs.

And in this question, Israelis will only vote for the next Rabin or Peres if they feel safe in the knowledge that whatever concessions are made, they won't wake up one morning to news that their brother and his wife have been beheaded and their children abducted from their beds.

You are determined and fixated on Israel making the first move. But that isn't how a democracy works. A democracy is fundamentally selfish. People vote for what they think best serves their interests.

Perhaps Hamas needs to make the first move? Perhaps by releasing the 229 hostages unconditionally and immediately recognising Israel as a sovereign state along the 1967 borders, Hamas itself will go a long way to turning the opinion on the streets of Tel Aviv?

The obvious problem there is that the West don't recognize Hamas as a legitimate government - which in some ways is understandable ... but also convenient... but there is nothing to stop Israel or the West attempting to broker such a deal with Fatah in regard to The West Bank or East Jerusalem... but the reality is that Israel is still looking to expand it's hold in both ...

 

[PINKIE]

The point I keep raising is that international law and its application in the real world of a democracy first and foremost requires the majority of that democracy's public to want the application of international law.

Speeches and drafts drawn up in New York, Geneva or the Hague count for **** if ultimately they make the Israeli public feel unsafe.

This is such basic political philosophy I'm genuinely staggered how few people seem to take it into account.

The equation in short:

The Israeli public won't want the application of international law if it makes them feel less safe.

This is so, so simple.

International law isn't really a lucky dip pick and choose affair though. They are (supposed to be) binding agreements that maintain order throughout the world. They aren't being adhered to in Israel and you could argue that's why we're seeing some of the consequences of five decades of flouting those laws.

I understand you come to this from a pragmatists viewpoint, and I agree that the Israeli public voting out people like Netanyahu and instilling more of the likes of Peres and Rabin figures is the desirable outcome, and that in order to do that, they need to feel that they don't need to vote for warmongers who promise 'security' but create conflict.

Hamas should recognise the 1967 borders, that would go some way to a compromise on their part. But the greater part of compromise needed here IS from Israel, simply because they have so much more clout, land, military capability, control of borders, air space, waters, good and services etc and on it goes.

Israel have more to give up, because they have taken more than they were entitled to. And that is something that the Israeli public and politicians are going to have to reconcile.

 

[Welshie]

International law isn't really a lucky dip pick and choose affair though. They are (supposed to be) binding agreements that maintain order throughout the world. They aren't being adhered to in Israel and you could argue that's why we're seeing some of the consequences of five decades of flouting those laws.

I understand you come to this from a pragmatists viewpoint, and I agree that the Israeli public voting out people like Netanyahu and instilling more of the likes of Peres and Rabin figures is the desirable outcome, and that in order to do that, they need to feel that they don't need to vote for warmongers who promise 'security' but create conflict.

Hamas should recognise the 1967 borders, that would go some way to a compromise on their part. But the greater part of compromise needed here IS from Israel, simply because they have so much more clout, land, military capability, control of borders, air space, waters, good and services etc and on it goes.

Israel have more to give up, because they have taken more than they were entitled to. And that is something that the Israeli public and politicians are going to have to reconcile.

But the international law against acts of Terrorism was also broken and Hamas completely owned up to it.

The same groups who are condemning the acts of Israel in the Middle East did not do so with Hamas and one or two even "celebrated" the actions of Hamas

If the international law does not apply to Hamas it rightly so could be argued it doesn't apply to Israel.

The Terrorism act, also, distinguishes between circumstances. It specifically labels it as acts during "Peace time" to intimidate or harm civilians. Israel did officially declare war, has a war time government.

Hamas could argue, and likely will, that they have ALWAYS been at war with Israel, even though they have signed agreements with the Israeli government many times.

So, could argue the attack was a strategic move in war time.

My main point here is all of the above, including your reply to CK, is irrelevant as lawyers could argue this in court for generations.

On the ground, the situation is clear. One of these has a large, powerful and active military. The other is a collection of competing groups, arguing between themselves AND the enemy.

They are responsible for a population of 2m they cannot support without direct aid from Israel or Egypt.

Hamas are holding a 2 and a 4 while Israel currently have pocket aces.

You're asking them to fold due to International Law. It's for the ****ing birds. There is no circumstance in which the Palestinians do no fold and hand over further power to Israel.

From a strategic point of view, the Hamas attack was a calamity, they'll talk about it in history books when the heat dies down.

 

[Welshie]

I also think, from a strategic point of view, the biggest mistake Hamas made was underestimating Netanyahu.

He's on TV, while families protest outside demanding the return of their children, that Hamas are the priority first. He's signing Israeli death warrants.

The man is died in the wool, he's exceeded any possible expectations they could have had.

 

[brb]

I also think, from a strategic point of view, the biggest mistake Hamas made was underestimating Netanyahu.

He's on TV, while families protest outside demanding the return of their children, that Hamas are the priority first. He's signing Israeli death warrants.

The man is died in the wool, he's exceeded any possible expectations they could have had.

...and I claimed all along he didn't care about the hostages. When he declared to obliterate Hamas that can only have one possible outcome for those in captivity. I see even the so called media military experts are saying the same as well now lol.

 

[aberdude]

I also think, from a strategic point of view, the biggest mistake Hamas made was underestimating Netanyahu.

He's on TV, while families protest outside demanding the return of their children, that Hamas are the priority first. He's signing Israeli death warrants.

The man is died in the wool, he's exceeded any possible expectations they could have had.

a puppet for the cult no more no less

 

[PINKIE]

But the international law against acts of Terrorism was also broken and Hamas completely owned up to it.

The same groups who are condemning the acts of Israel in the Middle East did not do so with Hamas and one or two even "celebrated" the actions of Hamas

If the international law does not apply to Hamas it rightly so could be argued it doesn't apply to Israel.

The Terrorism act, also, distinguishes between circumstances. It specifically labels it as acts during "Peace time" to intimidate or harm civilians. Israel did officially declare war, has a war time government.

Hamas could argue, and likely will, that they have ALWAYS been at war with Israel, even though they have signed agreements with the Israeli government many times.

So, could argue the attack was a strategic move in war time.

My main point here is all of the above, including your reply to CK, is irrelevant as lawyers could argue this in court for generations.

On the ground, the situation is clear. One of these has a large, powerful and active military. The other is a collection of competing groups, arguing between themselves AND the enemy.

They are responsible for a population of 2m they cannot support without direct aid from Israel or Egypt.

Hamas are holding a 2 and a 4 while Israel currently have pocket aces.

You're asking them to fold due to International Law. It's for the ****ing birds. There is no circumstance in which the Palestinians do no fold and hand over further power to Israel.

From a strategic point of view, the Hamas attack was a calamity, they'll talk about it in history books when the heat dies down.

International law has and is continuing to be broken. Hamas attack was an act of terrorism and what Israel are doing in retaliation is also terrorism.

Hamas attack has provoked a horrible retribution, but it may still turn out that the outcome is international pressure on Israel to finally seek a peaceful solution. Because as Trebs has mentioned, the status quo prior to 7/10 was also unacceptable

The issue right now though is to stop the killing of innocent civilians

 

[Welshie]

International law has and is continuing to be broken. Hamas attack was an act of terrorism and what Israel are doing in retaliation is also terrorism.

Hamas attack has provoked a horrible retribution, but it may still turn out that the outcome is international pressure on Israel to finally seek a peaceful solution. Because as Trebs has mentioned, the status quo prior to 7/10 was also unacceptable

The issue right now though is to stop the killing of innocent civilians

The status quo has been blown to pieces and will never return.

However it's in Israels favour.

I see no renewed pressure for Israel to find a lasting peace. It's just the same bodies saying the same old ****.

Again, pie in the sky stuff tbh

 

[PINKIE]

The status quo has been blown to pieces and will never return.

However it's in Israels favour.

I see no renewed pressure for Israel to find a lasting peace. It's just the same bodies saying the same old ****.

Again, pie in the sky stuff tbh

Then we'll just have the same cycle of violence that's been happening for the last 50 years.

If Hamas is destroyed, another group will evolve to replace it.

I think peace is achievable, so I'm not as pessimistic as you. But it will take a sea change of the people in charge to make it happen

Which could be an outcome after this horrible period is over.

 

[Citizen Kane.]

I also think, from a strategic point of view, the biggest mistake Hamas made was underestimating Netanyahu.

He's on TV, while families protest outside demanding the return of their children, that Hamas are the priority first. He's signing Israeli death warrants.

The man is died in the wool, he's exceeded any possible expectations they could have had.

They didn't underestimate Netanyahu. They've crossed swords with him so many times in the past. Practically his only strong manifesto was always built on security and defence. Hopefully that has now been torn to shreds and the Israeli public sees that he can't even deliver that.

But Netanyahu has responded exactly as anyone would have predicted him to respond.

Hamas miscalculated three things, all of which are intertwined:

1) The 'success' (I shudder to use that word) of their incursion. They certainly never anticipated capturing over 200 people and the presence within that group of multiple foreign nationals totally threw them.

2) Their regional 'call to arms' wasn't met with a strong response by Hizbollah and the militias in Syria.

3) The unilateral and surprisingly strong response from Western governments, especially the USA's immediate linkage of anyone answering #2 with the start of World War III.

 

[Citizen Kane.]

Hamas should recognise the 1967 borders, that would go some way to a compromise on their part. But the greater part of compromise needed here IS from Israel, simply because they have so much more clout, land, military capability, control of borders, air space, waters, good and services etc and on it goes.

Israel have more to give up, because they have taken more than they were entitled to. And that is something that the Israeli public and politicians are going to have to reconcile.

I think these paragraphs expose the impossible paradox of approaching this issue from anything other than a viewpoint that is as pragmatic as possible.

I totally agree with Welshie on this point as I really think he has the measure of the situation and very clearly divides between theory and practice in his arguments.

So in a world of theory, Israel should make the first move, do the honourable thing and compromise.

Why? Because they "have so much more clout, land, military capability, control of borders, air space, waters, good and services etc."

Agreed.

But in a world of practice, all of the above means that Israel also has a hell of a lot more to lose by making that first move to compromise.

And voters just do not vote on theoretical pipedreams. They vote on what they think is practically the best thing to do. There is absolutely no escaping this, no matter how high a moral horse we climb.

I'll give you a salient and very emotive example of this point: the issue of Palestinian Right to Return.

This issue was central to Camp David collapsing. Why?

Because whereas in theory, it is absolutely the right thing to do to allow the return of all descendants of Palestinians who were evicted or displaced from their ancestral lands in 1948 or 1967, in practice hell will freeze over before the majority of Israelis think it's a workably good idea to open the doors of sovereign Israeli territory (i.e. Israel proper not the West Bank) to circa 4 million people. It just isn't happening.

So the issue can be brought to the table at every peace summit and it can even be made a binding agenda point. And everyone around the table will agree that in theory it is a good idea, but when push comes to shove, it will never ever be signed by an Israeli PM who still wants to be in office the next day.

Arguing who is right and wrong is futile, circular and debilitating.

Arguing what the right thing or wrong thing to do is a totally different matter and may actually be helpful.

 

[Welshie]

Then we'll just have the same cycle of violence that's been happening for the last 50 years.

If Hamas is destroyed, another group will evolve to replace it.

I think peace is achievable, so I'm not as pessimistic as you. But it will take a sea change of the people in charge to make it happen

Which could be an outcome after this horrible period is over.

Probably.

The future doesn't look bright, I cannot envision a situation that Gaza is genuinely included in peace talks. I mean, why? Israel have flattened it, it's essentially now a giant refugee camp, then any time peace is discussed it's scuppered because Palestinian officials genuinely want some form of connection between the West Bank and Gaza. Idiocy.

A giant highway or a tunnel, costing ****ing multitudes of billions of dollars which Palestine certainly does not nor will ever have. They would be asking for donations or Israel to pay for it.

I'm getting ****ing Pakistan-Bangladesh vibes from it. If it was some form of peace in our times situation I cannot ever envision those two areas remaining a single nation anyway. It's just not going to ****ing happen.

If you want talks, you need to go into them knowing what you're holding in your hands. What is the international community expecting here? "Israel just do it because come on bro" the world isn't like that.

Me and you agree on it pretty much tbh, we just have complete disagreements on HOW we get there.

Like you have said before Pinkie, we all essentially agree on one point and that's the most important one of all. We are all very upset with the images, they make us all very passionate, we want it to end. But we have different visions on how that happens.

 

[PINKIE]

I think these paragraphs expose the impossible paradox of approaching this issue from anything other than a viewpoint that is as pragmatic as possible.

I totally agree with Welshie on this point as I really think he has the measure of the situation and very clearly divides between theory and practice in his arguments.

So in a world of theory, Israel should make the first move, do the honourable thing and compromise.

Why? Because they "have so much more clout, land, military capability, control of borders, air space, waters, good and services etc."

Agreed.

But in a world of practice, all of the above means that Israel also has a hell of a lot more to lose by making that first move to compromise.

And voters just do not vote on theoretical pipedreams. They vote on what they think is practically the right thing to do. There is absolutely no escaping this, no matter how high a moral horse we climb.

I'll give you a salient and very emotive example of this point: the issue of Palestinian Right to Return.

This issue was central to Camp David collapsing. Why?

Because whereas in theory, it is absolutely the right thing to do to allow all descendants of Palestinians who were evicted or displaced from their ancestral lands in 1948 or 1967, in practice hell will freeze over before the majority of Israelis think it's a workably good idea to open the doors of sovereign Israeli territory (i.e. Israel proper not the West Bank) to circa 4 million people. It just isn't happening.

So the issue can be brought to the table at every peace summit and it can even be made a binding agenda point. And everyone around the table will agree that in theory it is a good idea, but when push comes to shove, it will never ever be signed by an Israeli PM who still wants to be in office the next day.

Arguing who is right and wrong is futile, circular and debilitating.

Arguing what the right thing or wrong thing to do is a totally different matter and may actually be helpful.

It's very definitely going to be a work in progress

And yes pragmatism has to be the catalyst that engineers the first moves

But, the world must not lose sight of the fact that for a truly equitable solution, Palestinian rights need to be reinstated and (in time) that will necessitate the right of return, as well of return of land in a two state solution.

I'm acutely aware that we are a long way from that right now. But that should be the ambition, and for Palestinians nothing else ultimately will end this conflict.

 

[brb]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Welshie]

Gunfire outside that big hospital that many reporters have been reporting from. That British volunteer doctor was also based there; appears Israel are rolling into Gaza and getting really into the main points.

 

[PINKIE]

Gunfire outside that big hospital that many reporters have been reporting from. That British volunteer doctor was also based there; appears Israel are rolling into Gaza and getting really into the main points.

 

[Welshie]

Yep, how do they move those sick people? They can't.

They have been officially advised by the Israeli armed forces that it's now within the limits of an active war zone.

Those doctors might have to seriously debate leaving people and taking what they can.

 

[Citizen Kane.]

It's very definitely going to be a work in progress

And yes pragmatism has to be the catalyst that engineers the first moves

But, the world must not lose sight of the fact that for a truly equitable solution, Palestinian rights need to be reinstated and (in time) that will necessitate the right of return, as well of return of land in a two state solution.

I'm acutely aware that we are a long way from that right now. But that should be the ambition, and for Palestinians nothing else ultimately will end this conflict.

This is never, ever happening. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Israel simply will not allow it's population to almost double overnight with the influx of 4 million Palestinians.

And there is no use invoking the passage of time. The more time goes past, the larger the Palestinian diaspora becomes. Give it 10 years and that number will top 5 million. Back when the Right to Return was first introduced, it was 50,000.

I admire your optimism and idealism, but you need to live in the real world.

 

[PINKIE]

Yep, how do they move those sick people? They can't.

They have been officially advised by the Israeli armed forces that it's now within the limits of an active war zone.

Those doctors might have to seriously debate leaving people and taking what they can.

It's ****ed up

death sentence to stay, a death sentence to be moved

and to where ?