[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did Israel fund Hamas as an internal bulwark against the PLA, or did they not?
Yes.
That wasn't the context and you know it. The context was non-violent protest.
It is the context.

From the Israeli perspective, can you consider measures that may reduce security when an opponent in the game has openly committed to using violence to bring about your destruction? How far away from your mind would that be, realistically, when you consider the demands of nonviolent protestors?

As long as Hamas persists in its approach, the Israeli people will clamor for security and be far less willing to concede.
 
No, I don't. Hamas has led Gaza into disaster for no clear gain.
You don't understand because it appears you don't have the capability to follow reasoning from one sentence to another.
 
You don't understand because it appears you don't have the capability to follow reasoning from one sentence to another.
No, I just expect the Palestinians to be able to recognize that the Hamas approach isn't working and isn't likely to. All people are capable of bad evaluation, but I suspect this will correct in time. Hopefully.

@Lexicus previously referred to the people's war strategy. There are examples of its success. The pattern is that a conventionally superior force, usually Western in origin, arrives across a vast geographic distance and loses its political will after some time, concluding it isn't worth it.

These factors aren't all applicable here. There is no vast geographic distance. There is a genuine stake here for Israel, in that Hamas has openly stated commitment to its violent destruction. Doesn't lend itself to apathy. Critically, too, a fair % the world can see that Israel has a genuine concern for the immediate safety of its people, creating more sympathy for Israel than typical given the lopsided power disparity.

I mean it's pretty obvious that there are some pretty big holes in Hamas' political calculations. Israel may withdraw from Gaza, eventually - but larger goals like ending the occupation, equal citizenship, are unlikely to be conceded while there is a legitimate concern Hamas is determined to harm them en masse.
You made the claim that nonviolent struggle is more effective. I have yet to see you back up that assertion
I mean until it's actually practiced I can only really speculate while pointing out what can be concretely observed hasn't exactly produced any positive result whatsoever

In general, though
 
I, on the other hand, cannot immediately recognize an acronym. I mean if you'd have simply said boycott sanctions and divestment I'd have immediately understood

Then you're just lying when you say there is no Palestinian nonviolent resistance. It might be instructive to look at how the BDS movement is treated in Zionist discourse.


The Nazi efforts to strangle Jewish companies in order to isolate and dehumanize German Jews was a nascent phase of the Holocaust. Hence the boycott campaign against Israel is just another dangerous recurrence of history in a new form.
 
No, I just expect the Palestinians to be able to recognize that the Hamas approach isn't working and isn't likely to. All people are capable of bad evaluation, but I suspect this will correct in time. Hopefully.

@Lexicus previously referred to the people's war strategy. There are examples of its success. The pattern is that a conventionally superior force, usually Western in origin, arrives across a vast geographic distance and loses its political will after some time, concluding it isn't worth it.

These factors aren't all applicable here. There is no vast geographic distance. There is a genuine stake here for Israel, in that Hamas has openly stated commitment to its violent destruction. Doesn't lend itself to apathy. Critically, too, a fair % the world can see that Israel has a genuine concern for the immediate safety of its people, creating more sympathy for Israel than typical given the lopsided power disparity.

I mean it's pretty obvious that there are some pretty big holes in Hamas' political calculations. Israel may withdraw from Gaza, eventually - but larger goals like ending the occupation, equal citizenship, are unlikely to be conceded while there is a legitimate concern Hamas is determined to harm them en masse.

I mean until it's actually practiced I can only really speculate while pointing out what can be concretely observed hasn't exactly produced any positive result whatsoever

In general, though

Most disruptive (i.e. effective) non-violent means of pressure are not available or applicable here as the economies are very separate, Palestinians are literally walled into their territory and settlements, and Israel wouldn't wouldn't give a crap if they did a hunger strike. They can't march, they can't work strike, they can't cause civil disruption.

What are their options?
 
I mean until it's actually practiced I can only really speculate while pointing out what can be concretely observed hasn't exactly produced any positive result whatsoever

In general, though
In general, yes, but in this case we have a very clear example of nonviolent resistance in this specific context, which moots the point of any generalisation.
 
From the Israeli perspective, can you consider measures that may reduce security when an opponent in the game has openly committed to using violence to bring about your destruction? How far away from your mind would that be, realistically, when you consider the demands of nonviolent protestors?
So, having agreed that Israel has funded Hamas, what do you think about multiple Israeli officials having committed themselves to the destruction of Gaza, and what should Hamas' response be to that?
 

'He doesn't see anybody': Critics accuse Netanyahu of putting political survival ahead of Israelis' security​

Pressure is building on Israeli prime minister, but options for replacing him are limited

One of the most common opinions offered up by Israeli protesters out in large numbers over the past week demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that he will prolong Israel's stated war against Hamas in Gaza as long as it takes — and no matter the cost — to ensure his own political survival.

To them, it's self-evident.

"Within a minute of the war [being] over, Netanyahu will be voted out," said Dorit Nagari, a 56-year-old biotech worker protesting outside the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

"So he's losing his power. You know? The war is over. He's losing his power."

Many Israelis taking part in what they called a "week of disruption" blame Netanyahu for security failings that allowed Hamas militants to invade Israeli border communities near Gaza in an unprecedented attack on Oct. 7, killing 1,200 people and kidnapping about 250 others, and for what they call his botched handling of a war now in its ninth month.

They are angry over Netanyahu's failure to agree to a ceasefire deal as outlined by U.S. President Joe Biden in early June that would return Israeli hostages in stages and aim to establish a path towards regional stability and reconstruction of a post-war Gaza.

Despite mounting pressure on Netanyahu from the families of Israeli hostages still held in Gaza, public criticism from the military establishment, an ill-tempered rebuke offending Israel's closest ally and cracks within his extreme-right coalition government, the man known as Israel's great survivor seems to be holding on. For now.

Parliament is a month away from summer recess​

"From Netanyahu's perspective, what he needs to do is just hang on till the end of July," said political analyst Gayil Talshir of Hebrew University.

That's when the Knesset — Israel's parliament — will recess for three months.

"Netanyahu, you know, he's a genius in reading the political map and reshaping the discourse accordingly," Talshir said.

But while the clock is ticking, pressure is building on Netanyahu.

Netanyahu chastizes political partners for 'petty politics'​

On Wednesday, the Israeli prime minister was forced to withdraw legislation he had promised his ultra-Orthodox coalition partners that would have given the government power to appoint hundreds of municipal rabbis after some members of his own Likud party refused to back it, unhappy with increased demands from the religious right.

Another of Netanyahu's pledges — legislation to extend the exemption from military service that ultra-Orthodox men studying the Torah have historically enjoyed — may prove to be even more difficult to achieve.

On Friday, the prime minister chastized his political partners, saying it wasn't the time for "petty politics or for legislation that endangers the coalition."

"Therefore, I demand that all coalition partners get a hold of themselves and rise to the importance of the hour," Netanyahu said in a statement released by the Israeli Government Press Office.

The fractures within Israel's ruling coalition are providing some Israelis with hope for the future.

"There's hope among those who want to see Netanyahu removed and the coalition disintegrating that the Haredi [ultra-Orthodox] politicians will say, 'We're not getting out of this coalition [what we want.],'" said Ofer Shelah, a senior researcher with the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a think-tank based in Tel Aviv.

"I think the chances of that are, I won't say they are slim, but they're under 50 per cent."

'Throwing sand in the eyes of the public'​

In an extraordinary video message delivered in English, Netanyahu also chose last week to accuse the Biden administration of withholding weapons from Israel in a time of need.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has confirmed a pause in the delivery of 2,000-pound bombs over concerns about their use in densely populated areas in Gaza, but the administration insisted other deliveries have not been affected.

But Netanyahu repeated his comments during a cabinet meeting on Sunday saying there had been a "dramatic drop" in weapons deliveries from the U.S.

His apparent decision to pick a fight — and drill down on it — with Israel's closest ally, has created consternation in Washington and among Israeli political pundits.

"You know, Biden was the best leader of the free world Israel could ever have expected," said Talshir. "So to say now to Biden, 'What about our weapons?' What are you doing?"

Netanyahu is also seen as increasingly isolated from Israel's military establishment.

On Wednesday, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari gave an interview to an Israeli news channel saying it was impossible to destroy Hamas, Netanyahu's stated war aim.

"The business of destroying Hamas, making Hamas disappear — it's simply throwing sand in the eyes of the public," Hagari told Israel's Channel 13 TV. He also implied that if there wasn't a post-war strategy in place, Hamas would simply return.

It's an echo of Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant's comments in a televised speech last month. Gallant left this weekend for meetings in Washington, presumably part of an effort to smooth ruffled feathers in the wake of Netanyahu's criticism.

Add it all up, and it does seem to paint a picture of a country paralyzed by the individual machinations and aspirations of one political leader.

"If you want to get the hostages back home, and you want to have regional stabilization, you have to take [the Biden deal]," said Talshir.

"You have to replace Netanyahu. You cannot wait for months and months and months. But the political ability to do that is very, very limited."

A delicate balance with coalition partners​

That's mainly because some of Netanyahu's other coalition partners — nationalist religious leaders on the extreme right, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — are pushing for the reoccupation and resettlement of Gaza and refusing to support a ceasefire with Hamas.

"They've threatened him that if he goes [for a ceasefire deal], they will bring down the coalition," said Shelah, the INSS researcher, who is also a former member of the Israeli Knesset and a veteran of Israel's Lebanon war in the 1980s.

"I've been talking about this as a complete conflict of interest for quite a while now," he said.

"It's obvious to everybody that Netanyahu is not leading this war according to a policy aimed at a clear goal for Israel, but according to his political needs."

Palestinians who have endured vast amounts of death and destruction in Gaza since the war began will find little surprise there. More than 37,500 Palestinians have now been killed in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, and more than 80,000 have been injured.

Nor will families of Israeli hostages who have been campaigning for a ceasefire agreement for months find anything other than anger in it. Of an estimated 120 hostages believed to be still in Gaza, 43 have been confirmed dead, according to Reuters.

"I want [the hostages] back. I want to know that my country, they do whatever she can to bring them back," said Ayala Metzger ,whose father-in-law Yoram was taken hostage. Israel Defence Forces said earlier this month that he died in captivity.

"We know that he's dead. But we don't know how yet," she said in an interview from her home in Ashkelon, which is less than 20 kilometres from the Gaza Strip.

Her mother-in-law was one of 105 hostages released last fall during a truce that also saw 240 Palestinians released from Israeli jails.

Metzger says Netanyahu has treated families pushing for a truce as enemies.

"They can't manage a kindergarten," she said. "Sorry. They can't manage a kindergarten."

Demanding more courage from Israel's political opposition​

Gayil Talshir, the political analyst, says Netanyahu views the families as obstacles to his efforts to remain in power.

She says more courage is needed from Israel's political opposition, including National Unity leader Benny Gantz, who walked away from the government's emergency cabinet in protest over Netanyahu's refusal to engage on a plan for what will come after the war in Gaza.

That includes a refusal to discuss any involvement by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, which enjoys limited control of some parts of the Occupied Territories in the West Bank.

"Netanyahu, you know, his big mission is to wipe out any mention of a Palestinian entity. Basically, this is what has become his way of getting the right wing around him," said Talshir.

"So why should Gantz and people that are much more centre left and moderate, why should they accept this framing?"

During his resignation from the war cabinet, Gantz also accused Netanyahu of putting his own "political survival" ahead of Israel's security interests.

It's the prevailing sentiment of the protesters who flooded Israeli streets over the past week. Demonstrators want to know why they should accept anything less than new elections.

Some of the many T-shirts sported in the crowd read, "We're all kidnapped."

"He doesn't see anybody," said Ruth Barak, a protester speaking about Netanyahu outside the Knesset in Jerusalem.

"He doesn't care about anybody. It's 'Me, me, and me. I'm going to stay in power no matter what.'"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/netanyahu-israel-war-gaza-1.7243994
 
Gandhi's methods are not available to Palestinians in their territories. They cannot boycott, strike, or be ungovernable to Israel in a significant way.

It would also be a mischaracterization of the Indian independence movement to state that Gandhi's nonviolent tactics were the sole, or even the principal reason that independence was achieved. Gandhi's nonviolent movement was counterpointed with broad-reaching violence, agitation, and uprisings. Bombings, work actions, assassinations, and sabotage were occurring throughout the first half of the 20th century all over the subcontinent. As in so much of popular history where the mainline popular historiographic takeaway is the success of nonviolent protest (e.g. MLK), it is not (and indeed is to my knowledge never) nonviolence on its own that wins, but rather the threat of violent action turning into a unified popular movement that finally turns the ear of power towards the nonviolent movement who are suddenly taken seriously as a viable, legitimate way forward after years or even decades of alternatively ignoring and violently suppressing the nonviolent activists.

And of course we have ample evidence for this elsewhere too. This same dynamic played out in the worker's movement in the US in the first quarter of the twentieth century, in the suffragette movement in the US and Great Britain, in the abolition movement throughout the 19th century, in the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s, and the Gay liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.

Finally, I would take issue with a characterization of the events of the last 9 months as being an unambiguous disaster for Hamas. Hamas's membership and popular support in Gaza has risen, while Israel's erstwhile unassailable international popular support has taken a blow that would have seemed unthinkable even a year ago. Simultaneously, Israel's military has been shown to be significantly less invincible as was previously assumed.
 
Last edited:
Then you're just lying when you say there is no Palestinian nonviolent resistance. It might be instructive to look at how the BDS movement is treated in Zionist discourse.


Most disruptive (i.e. effective) non-violent means of pressure are not available or applicable here as the economies are very separate, Palestinians are literally walled into their territory and settlements, and Israel wouldn't wouldn't give a crap if they did a hunger strike. They can't march, they can't work strike, they can't cause civil disruption.

What are their options?

In general, yes, but in this case we have a very clear example of nonviolent resistance in this specific context, which moots the point of any generalisation.
See reply to Gorbels.

There's no lie. Lexicus, what you're supposing is that there have been non-violent attempts... while Hamas is committed to violence. Huh? What? Really? Do you sincerely not see how the violence undermines them?

I mean, if you'd like me to restate to until nonviolence is practiced exclusively, I can - the point remains.

Hamas renders it ineffective by destroying the possibility of formation of any trust. If an organization has promised, credibly, to be violently committed to your complete destruction, how would you trust that any concession would not be exploited?

Not everything is about the money. It's about the morality, here. If Hamas ceased violence, the world would react entirely differently if an attempted march across the Gaza border was met with violence. You probably would have actual state sponsored sanctions. The violence IS what legitimizes Israel's harsh measures in the eyes of the world, and this perception hasn't meaningfully changed at any point.
 
Not everything is about the money. It's about the morality, here. If Hamas ceased violence, the world would react entirely differently if an attempted march across the Gaza border was met with violence. You probably would have actual state sponsored sanctions. The violence IS what legitimizes Israel's harsh measures in the eyes of the world, and this perception hasn't meaningfully changed at any point.

They tried that in 2018 and 19. Protestors peacefully attempted to walk to the fence every Friday for 18 months, demanding the right to return to the homes that were stolen from them. 223 people died and as many as 13000 were injured. We have reports of IDF snipers intentionally aiming at the limbs of children present at the demonstration. The West largely maintained the "Israel has a right to defend itself" line of argument and nothing changed.
 
See reply to Gorbels.

There's no lie. Lexicus, what you're supposing is that there have been non-violent attempts... while Hamas is committed to violence. Huh? What? Really? Do you sincerely not see how the violence undermines them?

I mean, if you'd like me to restate to until nonviolence is practiced exclusively, I can - the point remains.

Hamas renders it ineffective by destroying the possibility of formation of any trust. If an organization has promised, credibly, to be violently committed to your complete destruction, how would you trust that any concession would not be exploited?

Not everything is about the money. It's about the morality, here. If Hamas ceased violence, the world would react entirely differently if an attempted march across the Gaza border was met with violence. You probably would have actual state sponsored sanctions. The violence IS what legitimizes Israel's harsh measures in the eyes of the world, and this perception hasn't meaningfully changed at any point.

Ok.

So why in your opinion is it on the palestinians to non-violently influence the israelis and not on the israelis to non-violently influence the palestinians?
 
They tried that in 2018 and 19. Protestors peacefully attempted to walk to the fence every Friday for 18 months, demanding the right to return to the homes that were stolen from them. 223 people died and as many as 13000 were injured. We have reports of IDF snipers intentionally aiming at the limbs of children present at the demonstration. The West largely maintained the "Israel has a right to defend itself" line of argument and nothing changed.
2 years is wholly insufficient to build any kind of trust, either with Israel or public opinion worldwide. Sure enough, Hamas did not remain committed to this path, either.

There are several reasons why
Founded on commitment to violence
History of violent attacks
References to the protocol of the elders of zion in the charter
Clearly stated goal of annihilating the entire state of Israel
A history of pretty sordid anti Semitism running the entire gamut of the spectrum, really!

You'll likely be sitting in 3 decades wondering why the world hasn't turned on Israel. It has something to do with these almost incredibly immoral fools.
So why in your opinion is it on the palestinians to non-violently influence the israelis and not on the israelis to non-violently influence the palestinians?
It is the best option. 40 years of armed struggle hasn't moved the needle. Sorry, but the majority myself included, do actually believe in a right of a people to defend itself from wanton violence when coupled with promises of complete destruction. This shows no sign of meaningfully changing.
 
Sorry, but the majority myself included, do actually believe in a right of a people to defend itself from wanton violence when coupled with promises of complete destruction.

No you don't, you don't believe the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from the theft of their country. None of the people saying this believe that Palestine has the right to exist or defend itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom