Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

On the other hand, I bet Hamas' recruiting pitch becomes a lot more difficult when Palestinians aren't living in an apartheid state.

 

Yeah, but no proposal is ever going to instantly create a Palestenian state with no restrictions at all. They absolutely have ruined any chance at that. 

 

Somebody is going to have to enforce a ban on weapons being shipped in. At a minimum. 

 

My fantasy for the last 20 years has been for the US to volunteer for that job. The idea being that (in my fantasy) Israel trusts the US to stop shipments of rockets. And the Palestenians trust the US not to embargo produce, or macaroni and cheese. 

[PokerPacker]

13 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Tell him to dismember the threat and buzz off.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Sisko]

As someone mentioned earlier, it's becoming clear that the two-state solution is probably a fantasy and has probably been dead for some time. After all, Israel is in de-facto control of all of the territory of both sides of the 1967 map. However, I can see one possible solution that could work for both sides, Israel could agree to go back to something based on the 1967 borders and political situation, i.e. two mostly autonomous Palestinian states in the West Bank, and Gaza with state security provided by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Israel has developed good relationships with those two countries after peace agreements were signed and generally trusts them. Both of these countries have shown themselves able to suppress extremists via the use of police state tactics. Jerusalem would remain split. The Palestinians would get their autonomous state, just without any control over any of the security apparatus. As it did after the peace agreements, the U.S. would bribe,...'er provide financial aid to the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Palestinians to build the economies, and grease the palms of the leadership to harden the arrangement. 

 

But Israel would never do such a thing, right? Not without our threatening to stop shielding them from international law at the U.N. and steep cuts to their funding. The U.S. has enabled the Israelis for decades and bears much responsibility for Israel's behavior, especially the "facts on the ground" settlement policy. So, we're the only entity with the power to force Israel's hand. This is obviously a non-starter until evangelical voters fall off enough in numbers to be less politically potent and the rest of the electorate moves away from carte blanche approval of Israeli policy. The younger generation sees things very differently and Israel's heavy hand in the response to this incident isn't helping them with younger US voters, among others. So, something like this is probably a generation away, but with political changes in this country, a viable solution is possible.

 

In the end, it would be an agreement that everyone would mostly hate, but comparatively speaking, would be mostly fair and over time, could work. Yes, I realize my solution includes Palestinians living in a police state. It sucks, but most of the Arab countries aren't much different and it beats the hell out of living in under apartheid 2.0 and a constant state of war with the Israelis. I also understand that it involves the Israelis giving up a bunch of land with settlements and an area they claim a religious right to. However, the West Bank isn't theirs under international law, it beats the hell out of living in a constant state of war with various Palestinian elements, and in an apartheid state which would eventually open them up to numerous risks. For the US, it would help remove Iranian influence from the situation and would likely improve relations with the Muslim world who, rightfully, see our thumb currently on the wrong side of the scale rather than anything close to a neutral party in negotiations.

 

44 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Tell him to dismember the threat and buzz off.

That went dark.

Edited October 28, 2023 by The Sisko

[Jumbo]

All the historical/religious/political arguments made here notwithstanding, Israel has very dirty hands in this conflict and the fact that even dirtier hands exist in their opposition, and the opposition sees it the other way around doesn't redeem the nature of the violent mutual  retribution.

 

And we have some of the dirtiest hands extant throughout our brief existence as a sovereign nation.

 

It often boils down to nothing really more complex than "it's either me or you in the thunderdome" and everything else said is more  putting lipstick on a pig than some useful assessment of how to accurately and meaningfully parcel out  helpings of right and wrong to the combatants.

 

It's just who we still are as a species though I do believe our desire to change, among those who have it, is guiding us as a species to become "better" and less prone to violence as an easy and often too comfortable ("justifiable") a religious/political option in international tensions.

 

So onward christian/muslim/jewish soldiers. 👍👹😁

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, but no proposal is ever going to instantly create a Palestenian state with no restrictions at all. They absolutely have ruined any chance at that. 

 

Somebody is going to have to enforce a ban on weapons being shipped in. At a minimum. 

 

My fantasy for the last 20 years has been for the US to volunteer for that job. The idea being that (in my fantasy) Israel trusts the US to stop shipments of rockets. And the Palestenians trust the US not to embargo produce, or macaroni and cheese. 

 

It is odd for me to see the idea that the Palestinians have ruined the chance of instantly creating a Palestinian state as I don't think that has ever been proposed by anybody with any creditability to pull it off.

 

There's never been any suggestion that Israel would agree to such a thing and there's never been any sort of proposal out of the US or any European nation to do such a thing.  We've/they've always talked about the creation of a Palestinian state happening after a multi-year peace process.

 

The idea of ruining your chances at something that is/was essentially an impossibility is at best an odd use of language and at worse suggest a very slanted (towards Israel) of looking at the situation.  That's like telling your kids that they've now ruined their chance at doing something you were never going to let them do anyway.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, The Sisko said:

But Israel would never do such a thing, right? Not without our threatening to stop shielding them from international law at the U.N. and steep cuts to their funding. The U.S. has enabled the Israelis for decades and bears much responsibility for Israel's behavior, especially the "facts on the ground" settlement policy. So, we're the only entity with the power to force Israel's hand. This is obviously a non-starter until evangelical voters fall off enough in numbers to be less politically potent and the rest of the electorate moves away from carte blanche approval of Israeli policy. The younger generation sees things very differently and Israel's heavy hand in the response to this incident isn't helping them with younger US voters, among others. So, something like this is probably a generation away, but with political changes in this country, a viable solution is possible.

 

Not sure if they'd even do that then.  They do have nuclear weapons.  They might be willing to chance it.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The most laughable ideas I have seen presented here are that the United States acts as mediator and enforcer of peace. It is hard to imagine a country with less credibility in the Middle East than America. Well, except Israel.

Edited October 29, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84

[RansomthePasserby]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The most laughable ideas I have seen presented here are that the United States acts as mediator and enforcer of peace. It is hard to imagine a country with less credibility in the Middle East than America. Well, except Israel.

Credibility notwithstanding, the US is probably the only country right now who could effectively do the enforcing part.

 

Edit: So unfortunately there is little chance of an outside power stepping in to police any of this. 

Edited October 29, 2023 by RansomthePasserby

[CousinsCowgirl84]

China could do it, but US won’t like that.

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

China could do it, but US won’t like that.

 

China couldn't do it.  They don't have the ability to project power that way.  You'd need an actual navy and air force to move large amounts of supplies and men.  Which China can't do.

[RansomthePasserby]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

China couldn't do it.  They don't have the ability to project power that way.  You'd need an actual navy and air force to move large amounts of supplies and men.  Which China can't do.

Yeah China has a large military, but it’s built for a defensive war. They don’t have the logistics backbone of the US military to, like you said, project significant power outside of their region. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I was assuming you were talking about an agreement all sides agreed to that would be verified by a third party pressing keeping force similar to Kosovo which is done by the un. I don’t think peacekeeping by force is gonna work…

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I was assuming you were talking about an agreement all sides agreed to that would be verified by a third party pressing keeping force similar to Kosovo which is done by the un. I don’t think peacekeeping by force is gonna work…

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/30/nato-deploys-more-forces-to-kosovo-after-30-peacekeepers-injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force

 

NATO currently has about 3800 peace keepers in Kosovo and recently added more. 

 

Those people need food, equipment, medical supplies, vehicles, etc.  At its peak it was about 14,000 people. 

 

Even if you go with the current number of about 4,000 China doesn't currently have the ability to move that many people their equipment and supplies and keep them supplied that far away.

 

How many Chinese do you think speak Arabic?  Or Palestinians that speak Chinese?  You going have a peace keeping mission where the peace keepers can't talk to the local populace?

 

There's essentially not a peace keeping situation in the world that we don't end up involved with because essentially nobody else has the ability to move the people and equipment that is normally needed or has the expertise.  

 

Even if you look at UN peackeeping in Africa, where we generally contribute very few men and it is mostly soldiers from African countries, they use a lot of our equipment and our military infrastructure.

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/06/fact-sheet-us-support-peacekeeping-africa

 

The only way China could do it is by using our military infrastructure.  They could supply much of actual man power but not even all of it.  Much less do it by themsleves.

Edited October 29, 2023 by PeterMP

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just pointing out that DoD has numerous tools in their box to do just that and more.  Because it is useful when you're invading a place.  Not really fair to act like this is some extreme act.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/30/nato-deploys-more-forces-to-kosovo-after-30-peacekeepers-injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force

 

NATO currently has about 3800 peace keepers in Kosovo and recently added more. 

 

Those people need food, equipment, medical supplies, vehicles, etc.  At its peak it was about 14,000 people. 

 

Even if you go with the current number of about 4,000 China doesn't currently have the ability to move that many people their equipment and supplies and keep them supplied that far away.

 

How many Chinese do you think speak Arabic?  Or Palestinians that speak Chinese?  You going have a peace keeping mission where the peace keepers can't talk to the local populace?

 

There's essentially not a peace keeping situation in the world that we don't end up involved with because essentially nobody else has the ability to move the people and equipment that is normally needed or has the expertise.  

 

Even if you look at UN peackeeping in Africa, where we generally contribute very few men and it is mostly soldiers from African countries, they use a lot of our equipment and our military infrastructure.

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/06/fact-sheet-us-support-peacekeeping-africa

 

The only way China could do it is by using our military infrastructure.  They could supply much of actual man power but not even all of it.  Much less do it by themsleves.

How many Americans speak Arabic? I would put money on more Chinese speaking Arabic that America’s, solely cause there are a lot more Chinese.

 

 

other than that, this isn’t a bridge I wanna die on. Maybe china can’t do it. But America definitely can’t for certain.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Did he actually say that Israel expects Russia to protect Jews?  

[RansomthePasserby]

5 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Even if you look at UN peackeeping in Africa, where we generally contribute very few men and it is mostly soldiers from African countries, they use a lot of our equipment and our military infrastructure.

 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/06/fact-sheet-us-support-peacekeeping-africa

 

The only way China could do it is by using our military infrastructure.  They could supply much of actual man power but not even all of it.  Much less do it by themsleves.

The Chinese have performed limited peacekeeping operations in Africa, although they didn’t do a good job keeping the peace when crap hit the fan. See the link below.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report

 

Which I think is a major case in point on why the effectiveness of peacekeeping from an outside force is questionable at best. Israel can mobilize 500,000 troops, they’re not going to be deterred by a few thousand Chinese peace keepers. On the other side Hamas is a terrorist organization, a few thousand peacekeepers are going to be too thin to stop an unconventional attack. Hamas will just kill civilians where the peacekeepers aren’t stationed. 

[Destino]

23 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

It is odd for me to see the idea that the Palestinians have ruined the chance of instantly creating a Palestinian state as I don't think that has ever been proposed by anybody with any creditability to pull it off.

 

There's never been any suggestion that Israel would agree to such a thing and there's never been any sort of proposal out of the US or any European nation to do such a thing.  We've/they've always talked about the creation of a Palestinian state happening after a multi-year peace process.

 

The idea of ruining your chances at something that is/was essentially an impossibility is at best an odd use of language and at worse suggest a very slanted (towards Israel) of looking at the situation.  That's like telling your kids that they've now ruined their chance at doing something you were never going to let them do anyway.

wasn’t a two state solution where this entire disaster began? Forget the 1967 borders, I mean at the very beginning. Israel was tiny and Palestine controlled everything that mattered. Instead of accepting Israel existing they tried to throw the Jews out entirely. And I’m being charitable by arguing the intent was for them to leave. 
 

A two state solutions has always been on the only way out of this. The only real alternative is no Palestinian state at all. Force Jordan to take the West Bank and Egypt to take Gaza.  Neither would agree to this though, because they’d have to conduct their own bloody crackdown in those regions to avoid ending up in a war with Israel when terrorists from those regions continued to attack Israel.

[PeterMP]

28 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

The Chinese have performed limited peacekeeping operations in Africa, although they didn’t do a good job keeping the peace when crap hit the fan. See the link below.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report

 

Which I think is a major case in point on why the effectiveness of peacekeeping from an outside force is questionable at best. Israel can mobilize 500,000 troops, they’re not going to be deterred by a few thousand Chinese peace keepers. On the other side Hamas is a terrorist organization, a few thousand peacekeepers are going to be too thin to stop an unconventional attack. Hamas will just kill civilians where the peacekeepers aren’t stationed. 

 

China does some peace keeping, but globally it is about 3,000 people and even then they heavily depend on other countries military infrastructure through the UN (so US transport).

 

And like you I suspect that 3,000 people isn't going to get it done in the Middle East.  Rather than have them spread across Africa embedded in other peace keeping missions, you'd need more than that supported for an extended period of time.

 

The only way any peace keeping mission there works if there is an agreement that a large number Palestinians are satisfied with (again, polls show the majority of Palestinians currently support a 2 state solution) which would hurt Hamas and decrease their capabilities. 

 

Somebody mentioned Jordan and Egypt above.  Their local, Muslim, and know the area/language.  Despite claims by some in this thread, they both would benefit from increased stability in the area which would presumably come with an agreement that made the majority of Palestinians happy, so they'd have an incentive to see it work.  Presumably any Israel/Palestinian peace agreement would be coupled with peace agreements with some the Gulf States, so you could see them contributing people.  With some support on the intelligence level, infrastructure, money, and supply level from the US, I suspect it could work.

[Larry]

But there's (at least) one thing about any two-state solution that nobody but the US can do.  

 

Get Israel to agree to it.  

 

Only way it ever happens, is if the US is willing to cut off all support to Israel, if they don't agree.  

 

If fact, we might have to threaten (and make it a credible threat) to send troops to fight on the Palestinian side.  

[PeterMP]

41 minutes ago, Destino said:

wasn’t a two state solution where this entire disaster began? Forget the 1967 borders, I mean at the very beginning. Israel was tiny and Palestine controlled everything that mattered. Instead of accepting Israel existing they tried to throw the Jews out entirely. And I’m being charitable by arguing the intent was for them to leave. 
 

A two state solutions has always been on the only way out of this. The only real alternative is no Palestinian state at all. Force Jordan to take the West Bank and Egypt to take Gaza.  Neither would agree to this though, because they’d have to conduct their own bloody crackdown in those regions to avoid ending up in a war with Israel when terrorists from those regions continued to attack Israel.

 

The UN drew the map to include as many Jews as possible in the Jewish state.  Despite being in the minority in the whole region (about 1/3 of the population) and owning even less of the land, the Jews got over 50% of the land into Israel.  The Jewish state was also more contigous in nature.  e.g. the city of Jaffa was heavily Arab and considered part of the Arab state was completely surrounded by the Jewish states.  The Jews were also given access to two important water ways.

 

So no, that wasn't the case.

 

Also things change in 80 years.  What the Palestinians wouldn't accept 80 years ago many of them appear willing to accept today.

 

You can't make Jordan or Egypt do anything.  They aren't wealthy countries and don't want to take on a large population of poor mostly uneducated and unskilled people.  Much less worry about sharing a (larger) border with Israel.

Edited October 30, 2023 by PeterMP