Post New

Interesting. It appears Israel is capable of killing 1 or 2 terrorists without any collateral damage when they set their minds to it.

Interesting. It appears Israel is capable of killing 1 or 2 terrorists without any collateral damage when they set their minds to it.

Yes - when they're out in the open in Iran, rather than sheltered in fortified tunnels 60 feet or more underground.

Yes - when they're out in the open in Iran, rather than sheltered in fortified tunnels 60 feet or more underground.

And not hiding among a million people.

You just have to shake your head sometimes.

"Yes - when they're out in the open in Iran"

Theoretically, if you kill those leaders the movement will die out.
So maybe start there instead of the civilians.

Speaking of collateral damage, the Lancet, on analysis, gives a CONSERVATIVE estimate of 186,000 deaths in Gaza, rather than the "official" estimate. They take into account the people buried in collapsed buildings, dead buried without going through a hospital, etc.

The number of the burned, limb losses, multiple limb losses, and other maimed is much higher. There are now injured people in Gaza dying with otherwise survivable wounds because of malnutrition.

Stop the genocide.

Theoretically, if you kill those leaders the movement will die out.
So maybe start there instead of the civilians.

If the leaders are sheltering in tunnels underneath the civilian population, you don't get to choose to kill the leaders "instead of" the civilians. Under such circumstances, any action to kill the leaders will unavoidably end up killing civilians.

If the leaders of Hamas leave their tunnels and hang out in an apartment or single-family home with a lone bodyguard or two, then Israel would have the ability to kill them without as much collateral damage. Somehow, I don't think Yahya Sinwar will be making that mistake any time soon.

Stop the genocide.

What actions do you think should be taken to stop the genocide? Sinwar surrendering himself and his forces? Or Israel withdrawing without securing the release of the hostages or bringing those responsible for 10/7 to justice? Some combination of both?

Israel should have respected the UN resolution partitioning Palestine for starters. Or they could stop usurping the West Bank, displacing Palestinians from their homes. They could recognize Palestine as a state and give them sovereignty over Gaza at least, including the natural gas fields off the coast valued at 1/2 $trillion. But Zionism does not allow for sharing the land.

Ah, but you'll say that Israel is in existential crisis! Hamas is going to eliminate Israel from the river to the sea. Ironically, that is exactly what the Zionist faction in Israel is attempting to do to Palestinians. Members of the Knesset openly refer to Palestinians as vermin and their planes to occupy the entire Levant.
Israel is destroying Gaza as a functioning society. 75% of the buildings destroyed, power and water severely restricted, infrastructure gone. Food delivery strangled to the point of famine. It is clear that the Zionists want the Palestinians to leave Gaza, but there is nowhere for them to go.

Jews around the world and even in Israel are shocked at events and protest the genocide, even the Hasidim.
Israel knows that what has happened is indefensible, hence the targeting of journalists. Eventually, the ugly truth will be exposed and Netanyahu will have even more to answer for.

Israel should have respected the UN resolution partitioning Palestine for starters. Or they could stop usurping the West Bank, displacing Palestinians from their homes. They could recognize Palestine as a state and give them sovereignty over Gaza at least, including the natural gas fields off the coast valued at 1/2 $trillion. But Zionism does not allow for sharing the land.

Not really an answer, though. Israel doesn't have a time machine, and withdrawing from the West Bank doesn't address how the current fighting in Gaza should end. I could similarly say that Egypt and Jordan should have respected the UN resolution partitioning Palestine, for starters - or that they should have created and recognized Palestine as a state and given them sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza when they had control of those lands between 1948 and 1967. But just like your comments, that doesn't provide an answer on how the current, active fighting in Gaza should actually be wrapped up.

Should it end with Israel withdrawing troops and allowing Hamas to remain in power and hold the hostages? Should it end with Hamas surrendering their forces and leadership and facing justice for their actions on 10/7? Some combination of both?

"that doesn't provide an answer on how the current, active fighting in Gaza should actually be wrapped up"

so i'm hearing 200k dead civilians is ok, and maybe all of them since any change in course is controversial and\or against BeBe's need to stay in power and out of prison.

i guess you cannot use genocide as part of global branding unless you actually survive it.

What actions do you think should be taken to stop the genocide? Sinwar surrendering himself and his forces? Or Israel withdrawing without securing the release of the hostages or bringing those responsible for 10/7 to justice? Some combination of both?

It's too late. But, since you asked...

Israel could have pulled back out of their illegally occupied territories decades ago. Instead, they have "settlers". Approved (illegally) by the government, and also "outposts" (which the Israeli government says are illegal, but they don't do anything about it most of the time). Then at least the Israeli government could say they are taking the high road, and are being given no choice. As it stands, even before the attack last year, "settlers" routinely displaced Palestinian residents, and the Israeli authorities turned a blind eye (or even facilitated it). I don't remember the name of the person, but I saw a clip of an official (IIRC) who all but admitted that the plan was to take a little bit and a little bit until it was all Israel.

The one politician in Israel who really wanted peace -and to share the land- was Rabin. So an Israeli killed him.

That's probably why the Palestinians voted-in Hamas 20 years ago, though admittedly they haven't been allowed to vote since (Hamas predictably went authoritarian on them).

At this point, it's probably irretrievable. "Settlers" know they can get away with murder (literally), the Palestinians (some of them) are fighting back, Hamas isn't going anywhere. Just admit you're going to wipe them out, and then do it. It would be more merciful than what's going on now. Yeah, a bleak view. But I think realistic. The Israelis are going to take it all anyway. Any Palestinian resistance will be squashed. Just get it over with, rather than pretend.

The correct answer (that will never happen) is to pull back to the legal borders of Israel, and take the lesson that both the US and USSR had to learn at different times: you can't kill an idea with bombs. We learned that in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and the USSR in Afghanistan. In those cases, we left/lost and the killing stopped. I get that Israel is still in the middle of it, even if they pull back. But they still can't destroy Hamas, just as we couldn't destroy the VC or the Taliban.

Bibi will never "answer" for anything. He has majority support in Israel But your post is spot-on.

Even before the attack last year, ambulances had trouble getting through checkpoints. Evidently, a lot of women were giving birth at checkpoints because they couldn't get through to the hospital. Predictably, mortality was higher than typical for both mother and infants.

Today, it's far worse.

For completeness, I have no dog in this fight. I don't care about either side. I think they're both wrong. I care about the innocent civilians. Those who were abducted and killed last year by Hamas, and those that have died since at the hands of the Israelis. Perhaps because I also am an innocent civilian, and wouldn't want to be killed while I'm just minding my own business trying to live my life.

so i'm hearing 200k dead civilians is ok, and maybe all of them since any change in course is controversial and\or against BeBe's need to stay in power and out of prison.

No one's saying it's okay. It's horrible that Hamas has committed war crimes by embedding military personnel and equipment in a civilian area, to the point of continually launching military activity from within civilian populations. Hopefully they will be called to account for that.

But because they have committed those war crimes, it is impossible for Israel to conduct responsive military operations against them without there being heavy civilian casualties. Thus, calling for an end to the fighting requires hard choices - does the fighting end with Hamas surrendering and releasing their captives, or does the fighting end with Israel withdrawing and Hamas remaining both in power and in control of the hostages? Or some combination of both?

The correct answer (that will never happen) is to pull back to the legal borders of Israel, and take the lesson that both the US and USSR had to learn at different times: you can't kill an idea with bombs.

You can't kill an idea with bombs. But you can all-but-destroy a terrorist organization by killing its members and leadership, if you really try. Just look at al Qaeda. The "brand" of al Qaeda is still out there, of course - but the actual organization that committed the 9/11 attacks has been eliminated.

It is very hard for countries to squash domestic insurgencies/rebellions in faraway theaters. The insurgents are fighting for their lives, and the foreign countries always have the option of leaving - and because they have the option of leaving, they face an asymmetrical set of consequences for ending the fighting. So the foreign powers eventually give up, if the insurgency/rebels fight enough. Which is why the US and USSR took the "lessons" that they did.

But that does not apply to local insurgencies or rebellions. There's no retreating across an ocean (or being a Kazakhstan away). It's right there. In those circumstances, history is replete with examples of insurgencies/rebellions being ultimately crushed by force of arms by a conventional power. The rebels don't always win. The idea of destroying or pushing out the conventional power might still linger - no doubt there are aboriginal populations around the world that think about having self-determination - but the organizations and armed forces that might act on those ideas are utterly gone.

Perhaps because I also am an innocent civilian, and wouldn't want to be killed while I'm just minding my own business trying to live my life. - 1pg

---------------

As were the civilians in London, Dresden, and Hiroshima.

...does the fighting end with Hamas surrendering and releasing their captives, or does the fighting end with Israel withdrawing and Hamas remaining both in power and in control of the hostages? Or some combination of both?

Hamas will not surrender. Just as the VC didn't surrender. Just as the Taliban didn't surrender. Not going to happen.

Israel has seriously degraded Hamas, but they will continue as long as the idea lives.

I suppose Israel could pivot and wipe out Iran. Iran is the source for funding and training for Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah. That would cause other problems, but it would starve all those groups of funding and training, making further operations very difficult. And if they do it right, some Iranians might actually thank them. The theocracy is NOT popular, but the people can't really do much about it. Of course, doing it "right" is pretty tricky. We certainly botched it in Iraq.

It's right there.

Yes. I acknowledged that. But it's still very similar. You have a group with a grievance. And, like the VC, they are embedded in the civilian population. You can't stomp them out without also eliminating most/all of the civilian population. So you either have to do that, or you have to stop unilaterally and go home. In Israel's case, if they removed many of the grievances (e.g. resumed their original, legal borders), that might actually be more effective. As it is, they're giving the Palestinians reasons to hate them.

Al Qaeda has been taken over by ISIS, mostly. Though I note that a SEAL team killed less than a dozen people in one night, and that pretty much ended that organization. All the bombing in Afghanistan paled in comparison to that one raid in Pakistan. But, as I said, they didn't just go away/die. They joined the group du jour (i.e. ISIS).

Hamas will not surrender. Just as the VC didn't surrender. Just as the Taliban didn't surrender. Not going to happen.

Israel has seriously degraded Hamas, but they will continue as long as the idea lives.

Sure, but it's hardly certain the idea will live. History is littered with rebellions, separatist movements, independence efforts, and insurgencies. Some succeed, some do not. You can destroy a rebellion/insurgency by killing enough of its leaders and members. That almost never happens if the party seeking to destroy the rebellion/insurgency is from far away - but it happens all the time if all the parties to the conflict are all together in the same place.

The "idea" behind Hamas is that Israel has to be destroyed and the Jews all killed or expelled from Muslim lands. Unless you think that Hamas will succeed in that effort, then either there will be fighting forever or the idea will die. Hopefully the latter.

So you either have to do that, or you have to stop unilaterally and go home.

That's why it's not similar - at all. In all of the conflicts you mention, the US and USSR had the option to stop and go home. They could leave the region. Geography was a critical element in those conflicts and how they ended.

Israel can't stop and go home. They're right there. The furthest point in Gaza is no further than 7.5 miles away from Israel.

As were the civilians in London, Dresden, and Hiroshima.

And My Lai (Lt Calley just died this week).

Very true. In those days we didn't have smart weapons. "Precision bombing" meant you hit the correct region of the city, not the correct building (like we do today).

And, yes, we would have continued until extermination had they not surrendered. That was total war unlike anything we'd ever seen before (or since). If Israel is committed to total war, just be honest about it. Get it over with. Don't pretend you care about civilians. They didn't care before last October, and they certainly don't care now.

From comments I've seen from Israeli citizens, the majority is OK with this. And I get it. I was in favor of Afghanistan at the time. At some point I had to ask myself "do we kill them all, or do we withdraw". Israel has to make that choice, too. If it's "kill them all", that is horrific. But I do get it. Not saying I approve, but it is a rational choice. What they're doing now is the torture of apartheid.

To take an ad-absurdum example, if Canada was engaging in terrorist activities in the US, at some point I would be thinking "enough" and approve of blasting them into oblivion. It's not my nature, but if it's them or us I would chose us. (I also would have objected to decades of taking Canadian lands for the USofA long before it came to air strikes.)

"It's horrible that Hamas has committed war crimes by embedding military personnel and equipment in a civilian area, to the point of continually launching military activity from within civilian populations. Hopefully they will be called to account for that."

so again, no change. let's try this...
It's horrible that Israel has committed war crimes against civilians to justify any and all. Hopefully they will be called to account for that.

just as bad is team biden's absolute slavishness to these acts. unless there is a change, Israel will drag all its stupidly loyal partners into greater NATIONALISTIC conflicts, which the u.s. will happily fund due to unrelenting global propaganda machine that few can match.

interesting to note that one of the rare things that the u.s. (biden,trump), Israel, and major arab states all agree : genocide of a minor non-economic muslim people is acceptable. look how tough we are.

At some point I had to ask myself "do we kill them all, or do we withdraw". Israel has to make that choice, too.

Again, that's not the choice Israel has. They don't have the option to "withdraw." Their alternatives are, "do we try to stop the people attacking us, or do we just let them keep attacking us forever." Phrased that way (which is a massive oversimplification of course), the choice is much more difficult.

One common critique of that view is to argue that if the Palestinians were given a state, they would stop attacking Israel. Many Israelis used to believe that, which is why the two-state solution used to have some traction among the Israeli electorate. Now the two-state solution has almost no support in Israel, because they believe that giving the Palestinians a state would not stop the attacks - it would just mean the attackers would use fighter jets and tanks instead of rockets and rifles.

But because Israelis and Palestinians share the same place, Israel cannot "withdraw." Hence, the ongoing conflict.

It's horrible that Israel has committed war crimes against civilians to justify any and all. Hopefully they will be called to account for that.

If Israel has committed war crimes against civilians, I hope they are called to account for them. But the mere existence of even large numbers of civilian deaths is not itself a war crime. Embedding belligerent forces within a civilian population is.

interesting to note that one of the rare things that the u.s. (biden,trump), Israel, and major arab states all agree : genocide of a minor non-economic muslim people is acceptable. look how tough we are.

No, they don't agree on that. Israel and the US would not agree that a genocide is taking place. The major arab states would not agree that it is okay.

If Israel is committed to total war, just be honest about it. Get it over with. Don't pretend you care about civilians. - 1pg

---------------

Those are not mutually exclusive. I agree that Israel needs to get it over with.

But I must point out that the Biden admin could have been far more supportive of that objective than they were, but they had a pro-Hamas constituency to appease. How's that working out?

albaby1

A ceasefire would be a good start and good faith negotiations. But I don't think that fits with the Zionist plans for expansion. I am pretty sure that the current "war" is not so much about returning hostages as expelling Palestinians.

You may see it differently, but deaths since 2005 have been 97% Palestinian.

A ceasefire would be a good start and good faith negotiations.

There have been a few temporary ceasefires, but that doesn't stop the fighting. You can't get to a permanent ceasefire until you have a resolution that the ceasefire will cement. What do you think that resolution should be?

But I don't think that fits with the Zionist plans for expansion. I am pretty sure that the current "war" is not so much about returning hostages as expelling Palestinians.

Most "Zionists" don't want or care about expansion. The two-state solution was very popular among Israelis back in the day, back when Israelis thought that there was a possibility that a second state would bring acceptance of the Israeli state.

The current war is about returning hostages and effectively destroying Hamas as a functioning organization. Israel knows that it cannot "expel" Palestinians, even if it wanted to. They cannot possibly believe that the instant conflict could or would result in the depopulation of Gaza, because the Palestinians cannot leave.

I am pretty sure that the current "war" is not so much about returning hostages as expelling Palestinians. - Flightdoc

-----------

Actually it is neither.

Like I said, I get it. Given present Israeli attitudes that I've seen (various interviews with "people on the street"), they want all the land and don't really care what happens to the Palestinians. Similar to Europeans (later the USA) and the indigenous peoples (later "native Americans"). The history is done. The natives are not getting Manhattan back (or pretty much anything else).

So it is with Israel. They will never give back the land. They don't care about the Palestinians. They appear to be cool with extermination. I think attitudes have hardened in Israel, even before October 2024. Like the native Americans, the Palestinians are getting nothing. Or, at best, reservations.

The only way they will kill the idea of Hamas is to kill pretty much all the Palestinians. Like the VC before them, they are firmly embedded in the civilian population. It is true that not all insurgencies succeed, or survive. Native Americans. Native Hawaiians. Both spring to mind. OTOH, there is the Moro Liberation Front. There is the NPA (Philippines). There is FARC. There is Hamas (the one we're talking about). There's another one in Asia that for the life of me I can't remember the name...been fighting for decades. All these are intertwined with civilian populations, all these persevere, and none of them are going away. And the governments can't "go home" because it is in their home (unlike Israel/Hamas, which is "just" adjacent to their home).

Maybe Israel could starve them of military support by taking out Iran. Lots of problems with that, but I think that's the only way to choke Hamas. Bombing Gaza isn't doing it, and I don't think it will succeed. Even if they get the leaders, someone else will take over. Either a new leader, or a new group that the survivors of Hamas can join.

Like I said, I get it. Given present Israeli attitudes that I've seen (various interviews with "people on the street"), they want all the land and don't really care what happens to the Palestinians. Similar to Europeans (later the USA) and the indigenous peoples (later "native Americans"). The history is done. The natives are not getting Manhattan back (or pretty much anything else).

I think that's generally wrong. Most Israelis don't "want all the land." Public opinion varies by the specific wording of the question, but typically a majority is against the settlements in the West Bank, and an even bigger majority is against settlements in Gaza:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-opini...

Most Israelis don't care about the land. They don't want to annex it, they're perfectly happy with the borders of Israel being where they are. Or were - the "revert to the Green Line" plans were popular, back in the day.

What's happened instead is that Israelis have soured on the idea that there can be a deal where the Palestinians get a full and sovereign country in exchange for a guarantee of Israel's security. Because they believe that if there's a sovereign nation of Palestine, it will be governed by Hamas. So the attacks would continue, but now they will be even more brutal because Hamas will have access to vastly more resources.

Even if they get the leaders, someone else will take over. Either a new leader, or a new group that the survivors of Hamas can join.

As I've said many, many times, there are no good outcomes. But a new leader, or a new group, will have less experience, fewer connections, and more "growing pains" than the fully mature Hamas. So while it's still a bad outcome, destroying Hamas for a new group to arise is still better than letting a mostly-intact Hamas survive the 10/7 attacks.

But I must point out that the Biden admin could have been far more supportive of that objective than they were, but they had a pro-Hamas constituency to appease. How's that working out?

Am I pro-Hamas because I loathe civilian casualties??

There is a very tiny slice of the population that is "pro-Hamas". That constituency is so small that it is negligible. I believe the administration was very supportive (and still is) of destroying Hamas. They are not supportive of the wholesale slaughter of civilians. As albaby and I are discussing, there is little choice given the history of atrocities and illegal acts (by both sides at different points in the past 70+ years). Bibi has made it clear that he doesn't give a rip. He's only holding back (a little) because of international concerns about civilians. But he doesn't care.

The two-state solution was potentially viable. But the PM that negotiated it was killed by a fellow Israeli, which pretty much put a halt to that plan. Then Israelis take Palestinian homes and land, don't let Palestinians build or farm on their own land, and some element of Palestinians blow up pizza parlors and fire off a few rockets or mortars...and (as of last October) kill and kidnap Israeli civilians. As I said, both are wrong. But that is the history, and it can't be changed. Looking at the European/American example, the realistic outcome is the annihilation of the Palestinians. In which case, don't pretend. Just do it. This death by a thousand cuts is cruel. Apartheid (which we had before last October) isn't workable. Either be the "bigger man" and disengage (and accept that you will be attacked occasionally**), or finish what you started.



**I'm still pondering Israel turning its firepower against Iranian military and governmental assets. Iran is funding much of this. Perhaps it would be wiser to kill their theocratic leaders and let the Iranians vote for the secular government they appear to desire, than to continue to bomb schools and hospitals in Gaza.

As were the civilians in London, Dresden, and Hiroshima.

Different "total war" scenario. Hiroshima is a good example of "total war".

SNIP Total war is a type of warfare that includes any and all (including civilian-associated) resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilises all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs.

The term has been defined as "A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded."[1]

In the mid-19th century, scholars identified total war as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, the differentiation between combatants and non-combatants diminishes due to the capacity of opposing sides to consider nearly every human, including non-combatants, as resources that are used in the war effort.[2] SNIP

Hiroshima is a good example of "total war".

And even then, the military leaders spent some time considering targets, looking for ones that had factories which would be acceptable targets in any war setting, along with enough people to make a statement but not too many people. Tokyo, for example, was quickly ruled out as too big.

--Peter

I think this is some better polling:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/20/sett...

Certainly, not every Israeli agrees with settlements. But the largest demographic in this poll does. They view the settlements as favorable. The more conservative, the greater the favorability.

And then there's the resettlement of Gaza...it's basically a dead-heat (51% oppose, 49% favor or are unsure).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/almost-4-in-10-israe....

Between those two, it looks like making it all Israel is a coin-toss of public opinion. And since 10/7, I'm sure attitudes have hardened. Mine probably would have if I was an Israeli citizen/resident. This is reflected in the PM they elected a few years ago.

As I've said many, many times, there are no good outcomes.

We agree on this. I doubt the reservation solution would work (as it did here, though not really to the benefit of the native Americans...but they aren't blowing up pizza parlors). It will likely be the British solution to the Tasmanian problem (hint: I don't think there are any native Tasmanians left). But I disagree that there will be growing pains of any significance. When you have funding (Iran), it makes it a lot easier to replace. Al Qaeda was mostly Osama bin Laden. When the SEALs killed him, they truly cut off the head. The various underlings migrated to other extremist groups. With Hamas, you have Iran doing the funding. Kill the leader, and Iran will see to it another takes his place. As long as the idea is there, and the funding is there, you can't kill it.

I'm still pondering Israel turning its firepower against Iranian military and governmental assets. Iran is funding much of this. Perhaps it would be wiser to kill their theocratic leaders and let the Iranians vote for the secular government they appear to desire - 1pg

-------------

I agree with you. Until yesterday the Iranians did not suffer any consequences for their financial and material support for Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah and the attacks they inflicted. And I think the general Iranian population would rejoice at the end of the theocracy.

Also true. Tokyo already had been leveled by firebomb raids (which in total killed more than both nuclear devices we later dropped). Without looking it up, as I recall the target in Hiroshima was the Japanese 7th Army HQ. A legit military target. But make no mistake, we weren't really concerned about civilian casualties. Plus, killing the Emperor would have (possibly) backfired on us, and he was in Tokyo.

At that point, we were more concerned about US casualties which would have resulted from an invasion of the Japanese home islands (conservative estimates are about 1M dead and wounded US personnel). We also likely saved millions of Japanese lives in the process, but that wasn't really part of the calculus. Looking back, it was just a happy side-effect (I've seen estimates of up to 10M Japanese dead and wounded if we had invaded).

Certainly, not every Israeli agrees with settlements. But the largest demographic in this poll does. They view the settlements as favorable.

No, they think the settlements in the West Bank improve security - a different question than whether they "agree" with settlements. And a majority of Israelis are against settling Gaza.

As long as the idea is there, and the funding is there, you can't kill it.

Perhaps - but you can weaken the implementation of it. You can't stop Iran from supporting them, I agree. But switching out a battle-hardened and experience veteran for an inexperienced one is something.

But again, this is the "no good outcome" conundrum that Israelis face. The "idea" of Hamas is that all the Jews in the region need to be killed or expelled. If you can't kill that idea, then you just have to resign yourself to fighting it forever - and take steps to try to minimize the damage the idea causes. One approach to that is to try to degrade whatever organization has currently taken up the mantle of trying to kill or expel the Jews, even if that's a Sisyphean task.

No, they think the settlements in the West Bank improve security - a different question than whether they "agree" with settlements.

A distinction without a difference. They want improved security, and they think settlements give them that. QED.

One approach to that is to try to degrade whatever organization has currently taken up the mantle of trying to kill or expel the Jews, even if that's a Sisyphean task.

Another approach is to pull-back to the legal borders, stop killing civilians, and accept that for a generation or so there will be occasional attacks. You can't just expect to flip a switch and change attitudes. You need a generation of Palestinians being raised alongside Jews, working with Jews, building lives alongside Jews. And Jews that attack the Palestinians need to receive equal justice to the Palestinians that attack Jews (which does NOT happen; Jews have more or less free reign to do as they like). Those Palestinians would have too much to lose to have conflict with them. But that takes patience, and two or three decades to work. It is the more difficult decision (to make and implement). It also may be the better decision. You can always send in the Mossad to eliminate individuals once they aren't feeling they need to hide in tunnels. They weren't shy about that in the past (both former Nazis, and the occasional extremist group leader).

However, that's not the course Bibi is on. He's going to wipe them out, or try to. As I said, I get it. IMO, Bibi is taking the supremacist approach (ironically). Whether he's a racist, or a conservative (they seem to care less about the Palestinians per the polls I saw), or both. From the river to the sea, no Palestinians on Bibi's watch. And he was democratically elected. Many Jews (especially the conservatives) see that land as a gift from Yahweh, and so of course the Palestinians need to be removed by whatever means necessary.

What about turning it on Iran? That would cut the funding legs out from under several anti-Israel groups. Still not convinced it's a good idea, but pondering whether it might be. If they could avoid civilian casualties, and eliminate mostly the ruling clerics, that might just do it. I've seen numerous stories about Iran, and mostly the theocracy is hated there. Rid them of that, and they would likely vote secular.

A distinction without a difference. They want improved security, and they think settlements give them that. QED

Not at all. For example, I believe that requiring everyone to show their "papers" in order to travel around my area would improve security, but I vehemently oppose doing that. Believing a policy would have an effect - even a desired effect - does not mean that people would support that policy, because they might not be willing to accept all the other potential effects.

Even people who oppose settlements as unjust or unfair or violating international law might still respond that they improve Israel's security.

Another approach is to pull-back to the legal borders, stop killing civilians, and accept that for a generation or so there will be occasional attacks. You can't just expect to flip a switch and change attitudes. You need a generation of Palestinians being raised alongside Jews, working with Jews, building lives alongside Jews.

The expectation is that if a Palestinian state were created, it would be taken over by Hamas - just as Gaza was. That's the other lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan - you can try to install a government that's acceptable to the foreign powers that establish it, but it won't last for much longer than those foreign powers prop it up.

What does a Hamas-controlled school system teach the next generation of Palestinians about Israel and Jews? And why expect that attacks on Israel would be "occasional"? You end up in exactly the same place that Israel is today, except Hamas will be better armed and supplied and will have control of both the West Bank and Gaza.

Back in the day, there was some hope that Fatah's vision of a secular Palestinian government might take hold in a new Palestinian state, even if a democratic or pluralistic one seemed far fetched. With the fall of Iraq (and the elimination of the regional check it provided against Iran) and the rise of Hamas, that's no longer an especially likely outcome.

What about turning it on Iran?

It would result in all-out regional war - a horrible outcome for everyone, including Israel. No one wants the current "proxy war" to erupt into an actual conflict, which would involve Lebanon and Syria sending battalions into northern Israel, backed by the Iranian air force (such as it is) and their more potent missile capabilities.

Assassinating the ruling clerics isn't necessarily going to have the hoped-for effect: while it might throw the country into chaos and civil war, it's far more likely to have the opposite effect of allowing the ruling regime to tighten their grip on the country as they "rally 'round the flag" (much as the 10/7 attacks ended up helping an otherwise flailing Netanyahu gain firmer footing).

Hamas was voted-in. The last election the Palestinians were allowed. There's no certainty that this would happen again. Most of the Palestinians living today have no memory of ever having voted, because of Hamas.

If Hamas won again, it would be bad for the reasons you state. Then Israel would have a decision to make. As it is, there really is no decision that I can see. They are on a path for the elimination of the Palestinian problem. I don't see a middle ground. Take a chance on peace, or finish what you started and displace them all (killing most of them). As you said, and I agreed, there isn't really a good solution given all the history that is behind this.

It would result in all-out regional war - a horrible outcome for everyone, including Israel.

Iran pretty much couldn't touch Israel. Their air force is no match, and their navy wouldn't last very long if it steamed into the Med. And their army is several countries away. Probably just some missiles. Lebanon and Syria are closer proximity, but also weaker than Iran. If they could invade, why haven't they already? Hezbollah is entrenched in Lebanon. I suspect it's because they know they'd get wiped out.

Still pondering the scenario. Yes, I do agree there would be repercussions. Just not sure how they would fall out. As long as the clerics rule in Iran, they will be anti-Israel (and anti-USA), regardless of what the people actually want. And Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis will continue receiving funding and equipment.

Hamas was voted-in. The last election the Palestinians were allowed. There's no certainty that this would happen again. Most of the Palestinians living today have no memory of ever having voted, because of Hamas.

And after they were voted in, they purged Fatah from Gaza through violence and murder.

But let's be realistic - if a Palestinian state were to emerge from the wreckage of the current conflict, how could Hamas possibly lose an election? They would be the Founding Fathers of that country - the ones who correctly tossed aside Fatah's strategy of trying to gain a state through peaceful negotiations. They would be the ones who forged a Palestinian state through blood and fighting and sacrifice. They'd win in a landslide!

And if they didn't, there's always the Taliban option of just taking over once the multinational force leaves....

I don't see a middle ground. Take a chance on peace, or finish what you started and displace them all (killing most of them).

Or do neither. Just continue the current unhappy medium. You never have peace, because Hamas (and others) will keep trying to kill you; but you're not going to kill all the Palestinian people to prevent that. You try to find a middle ground, and just do that indefinitely.

If the two "final" outcomes are the destruction of the Jewish people in the area, or the destruction of the Palestinian people in the area, the least-bad outcome is the non-final one - where the indefinite status quo just goes on interminably....

...where the indefinite status quo just goes on interminably....

That also is not good for anyone.

Still pondering Iran, but a different thought popped-up. Offer the Palestinian people a state of their own if they give the Israelis the heads of Hamas. Either location, or physically deliver the bodies. Hamas would have no power, the people get their state, and Hamas likely wouldn't win if they ran because it would be clear that the Israelis just wanted Hamas after 10/7. Just spit-balling. Haven't thought it through yet. (Though I don't think Bibi would do that, either. Just mulling over options.)

That also is not good for anyone.

Of course not. But it might be the least bad outcome. If there will perpetually be minorities in both the Jewish and Palestinian camps that will never settle for peaceful coexistence, and the majorities in their camps can't stop them from generating conflict, then either one camp destroys the other or they fight forever. The latter is terrible, but still less terrible than either camp being destroyed.

Offer the Palestinian people a state of their own if they give the Israelis the heads of Hamas. Either location, or physically deliver the bodies.

How do you do that? The "Palestinian people" isn't a person that can enter into an agreement. It's a collective action problem. Unless people have effectively organized themselves into a government or similar organization with institutions that can reach a binding conclusion on issues, then they'll be just like any other group of millions of people - who all have different opinions and perspectives. Plus, it's the heads of Hamas that are in charge of Gaza, not the Palestinian people - and the Hamas folks are the ones with all the guns.

Plus, Bibi doesn't have the authority to make that deal. The Knesset would have to approve - and they never would. The two-state solution is intensely unpopular in Israel right now. It would be political suicide for any party - right-wing or center-right (since the left is all but dead) - to support that kind of move. No Israeli leader wants the slaughter of a thousand innocent Jews to be what birthed a new Palestinian nation.

In those cases, we left/lost and the killing stopped.

Moot, since Israel has nowhere to go.

I get that Israel is still in the middle of it, even if they pull back. But they still can't destroy Hamas

Ultimately Hamas has to surrender, account for the hostages they took, sign a non-aggression pact.

The theocracy is NOT popular, but the people can't really do much about it.

It certainly wouldn't be easy but revolutions do occur successfully.

If there will perpetually be minorities in both the Jewish and Palestinian camps that will never settle for peaceful coexistence, and the majorities in their camps can't stop them from generating conflict, then either one camp destroys the other or they fight forever. The latter is terrible, but still less terrible than either camp being destroyed.

That's why I don't see a solution to the problem right now. Iran has to change and I don't see that as happening. If Iran doesn't change, Hamas will be in Gaza indefinitely. I know they just signed an agreement with Fatah, but I don't see anything changing. Unfortunately, it looks like Israel really needs to degrade Hamas, and that action creates more ill will in Gaza. The Israelis are in a tough position.

Given the difficulties of the situation, perhaps the best thing to do is attempt to disarm both sides. If they're going to fight for the next century, we can at least make sure they do it with sticks and stones and not tanks and artillery and rockets and nuclear weapons.

The best way to do that is probably to let them fire off all their ammo at each other and blockade any resupply into the area. And I'm not talking about just Israel and Gaza. I'm talking about the whole area. Everything between Turkey and Pakistan, and from Kazakhstan to Egypt. Yes, including the Saudis. No one gets any more arms. If someone starts manufacturing their own, deliver a missile to the factory.

Of course, that's just a fantasy, but a more serious approach would be to re-think who we supply arms to in the area. The tricky part is controlling who gets Russian arms. But there's a handy solution for that, too. Make sure Ukraine has enough arms to finish off Russia for a while. That leaves only Chinese arms. But I don't think they're all that big on selling their arms to others. They mainly keep them for themselves.

If no one in the region wants peace, it's up to the rest of the world to make sure their wars don't spill over into the rest of the world.

--Peter

If no one in the region wants peace, it's up to the rest of the world to make sure their wars don't spill over into the rest of the world.

The problem is that people on both sides do want peace. But they are overwhelmed by those who don't. Even if those who don't are a minority, which at various times, they have been.

I agree we don't want their war(s) spilling over to the rest of the world.

I don't see Hamas signing a pact and returning any surviving hostages. They may think that the status quo was unbearable any longer, and the new status quo is preferable to the old status quo. They are turning international opinion against the Israelis, and maybe they see that as "worth it". Plus they're holding up the treaty/compact that Israel was going to sign with other middle eastern nations. Just speculating.

The problem is that people on both sides do want peace. But they are overwhelmed by those who don't.

I'm quite sure there are a lot of people in the region who do want peace. But as you say, they aren't in power and don't seem to have a path to get into power. Of all the countries in the region, the one closest to having people in power who do want peace is probably the Saudis. The whole point of selling our arms to the Saudis was for them to help keep peace in the region. They aren't accomplishing that job. And then there's 9/11. So stop selling arms to them as well as everyone else in the region.

War with sticks and stones seems to me to be preferable to war with artillery and rockets and missiles. So let's stop sending artillery shells and rockets and missiles into the area.

That will take someone with balls to stand up to the military contractors who make tons of money off these arms sales. Fortunately, we may have the person for the job. And it ain't the old guy.

I don't see Hamas signing a pact and returning any surviving hostages.

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure there is any path left to an exchange of the hostages for anything at this point. The only way they're coming back is if Israel puts a sufficiently large army at risk into Gaza to clear it from north to south and find them. That's going to cost some significant Israeli war casualties. I don't think Netanyahu is willing to do that. Much easier to keep killing from afar.

--Peter

But because Israelis and Palestinians share the same place, Israel cannot "withdraw." Hence, the ongoing conflict.

That is the root of the problem. Israel should have been set up in Germany. I understand it's not the original Jewish homeland, but the Jews would have had a homeland and in a country that committed genocide against them. And Palestinians would have lived in peace in their own land that they have had since the Jews left ~2000 years ago.
But the Zionists wanted land that their ancestors occupied, even though there are multiple populations in the world who were displaced permanently. Like the Turks in Turkey or Turkmenistan, and any number of Native Americans.
Too late now I suppose. Just a pipe dream.

If no one in the region wants peace, it's up to the rest of the world to make sure their wars don't spill over into the rest of the world.

It was entirely appropriate for parallel discussions to be held on the Atheist Board.

If no one in the religion wants peace, it's up to the rest of the world to make sure their wars don't spill over into the rest of the world.

It's not bloody likely the Islamic sects will ever resolve their schisms. Schisms are deepening in Christian religions. That being the case, strife will continue "Under The Banners of Heaven."

Ain't religion grand?

Returning briefly to the original post in this thread:

It appears Israel is capable of killing 1 or 2 terrorists without any collateral damage when they set their minds to it.

...it turns out that Haniyeh was killed by an explosive that Israel planted in the guesthouse of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard compound two months ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/world/middleeas...

Which is an amazing failure on the part of the Guards' security, and quite an accomplishment for the Israeli forces to do that - but not something that's easily replicable to go after other targets.

In Germany "the Jews would have had a homeland and in a country that committed genocide against them."

A homeland in Europe historically offers no assurance of safety to Jews, so that's a non-starter.

Religion will prevent peace as long as religious zealots exist.

Quibble. They wanted the land that Yahweh promised them, per their "holy" books. This is a much a religious war as anything. If they Jews would have settled for another region (as you suggested), there would be no conflict.

This is a much a religious war as anything. If they Jews would have settled for another region (as you suggested), there would be no conflict.
***



Giggle

Last I knew, Xianity -and religion in general- was on the decline worldwide. Though, interestingly, Islam was growing (maybe just through population increases of already-Islamic countries).

Give it 50 years, and I wouldn't be surprised if Xianity is a small minority in a "nones"/atheist world. Though it will take longer to be rid of Islam since those countries are very insulated.

Quibble. They wanted the land that Yahweh promised them, per their "holy" books. This is a much a religious war as anything. If they Jews would have settled for another region (as you suggested), there would be no conflict.

Who was there first?

Who was there first?

Interesting question, but mostly irrelevant. Land has changed hands for many millenia. You and I are sitting on such land at this moment (hint: a few hundred years ago, there were no white people on the lands we currently occupy).

Sometime in the 20th century it became less fashionable to take over a land by force of arms. Even objectionable. The Palestinians were minding their own business, and radical Zionists were launching terrorist attacks to claim their "holy land that god promised us". After WWII, the Palestinians were told -in essence- to get lost, and the land was given to the Jews.

Who owned it 2000 years ago is irrelevant (though it was Rome, but the non-Muslim Palestinians (Islam wasn't invented yet) still lived there along with the Jews). Who was living on it for the past several hundred years was really the only relevant question. For over 400 years it was part of the Ottoman Empire, settled by what we would call today "the Palestinians". WWI resulted in the British moving in, but it was still Palestine. The Brits had to contend with terrorists like Menachem Begin (I've seen his mugshot when the British caught him). After WWII, the Jews were given the land. If I'm being cynical, I would say that racism played a part (i.e. no other nation wanted the Jews within their borders). Less cynical, both Jews and Xians recognized those lands as "the Promised Land for god's chosen people", and put them there. Either way, that was not exclusively a Jewish homeland for at least 1000 years (probably longer).

WWI resulted in the British moving in, but it was still Palestine. The Brits had to contend with terrorists like Menachem Begin (I've seen his mugshot when the British caught him). After WWII, the Jews were given the land.

That's a somewhat inaccurate description of the history of the area.

There's always been a Jewish population in what would become the Mandate area - while most of the Jews were driven out during the Babylonian and Roman exiles, some remained. Jews began emigrating back to the area again in the 1880's, with the earliest waves of Aliyah, with the consent and approval of the various Sultans of the Ottoman Empire - and the area was the main objective of nationalist Zionist movements since that time. Roughly 10% of the population in the region was Jewish by the end of WWI.

The Brits ended up promising the Jews during WWI that a portion of the eventual Mandate area would be given to them, in an effort to get global (read American) Jewry to support the Allied Powers. Hence, the Balfour Declaration. However, the Brits (and the French) also promised territory in the area to various Arab leaders - and had carved it up amongst themselves in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement - a set of contradictory promises that laid the groundwork for the century of conflict that followed.

The Ottoman Empire was carved up after its defeat in WWI, and the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate over Palestine. Jewish migration to the area continued under the British Mandate Both the Jewish and Arab residents of the area came calling to the British to honor their promises. The Arabs revolted against the British from 1936-1939; then the Jews revolted against the British from 1944 until the end of the Mandate. There were large populations of both Arab and Jewish communities in the area by then.

The solution the UN came up with was the Partition of Palestine. Along the lines of the Partition of India, you would have an Arab state and a Jewish state. Of course, Egypt and Jordan immediately attacked in 1948, and seized nearly all of the land that would have been the Arab state for themselves....and most folks know the story from there.

But to coin a phrase, history did not begin in 1948.

<Sometime in the 20th century it became less fashionable to take over a land by force of arms. Even objectionable. The Palestinians were minding their own business, and radical Zionists were launching terrorist attacks to claim their "holy land that god promised us". After WWII, the Palestinians were told -in essence- to get lost, and the land was given to the Jews.

This isn't true. The nascent Israeli nation offered the Palestinians the choice to stay. They chose war instead, allying with various Arab nations. They lost, and fled.

I was painting with a broad brush, since the original question was "who was there first". As such, I was incomplete (and likely wouldn't have pulled out Sykes-Picot since I was dimly aware of it, and not aware of the details).

I had to look it up...the Zionists were causing problems long before 1944. Begin's mugshot is dated 1940. The Zionists were stirring trouble well before that, that's just when that one guy (future PM) was caught.

My overarching point was that both Palestinians and Jews have occupied that land, often at the same time, for many millenia. "Who was first" isn't really relevant when you're talking thousands of years, or else all us non-native folks should pack-up and return to "the old world" (which, obviously, isn't going to happen).

Yeah, the Brits and French messed it up (as per usual...such are colonial empires**). But a mix of Jews and now-Islamic Palestinians resided in the area at the end of the Ottoman Empire before the white folks arrived to upset the apple cart. Going back to the Romans seems irrelevant (and the Babylonian exile was sometime B.C.E.). I think it more relevant, given the history, who was living there at the end of the Ottoman Empire. That is a long history (hundreds of years), and overlaps the more modern attitude of not seizing territory by force of arms. It clearly wasn't the European and American Jews (as the names suggest, they lived in Europe and the US). So, really, it is Palestine that was occupied by Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Muslims for at least 400 years.

The heart of the issue (besides the white people interfering) is religion. The Muslims see that as "once Muslim land, always Muslim land"***, and the Jews see it as the land "promised by god". Those are incompatible positions.

Out of curiosity, do Egypt and Jordan still occupy those lands? Or did they lose them along the way (e.g. the Six Day War)? Seems we shouldn't have let those seizures stand (in 1948, no one could have stopped us if we counterattacked...Egypt and Jordan wouldn't have lasted 2 days).




**Another example: India, Pakistan and Kashmir. That you alluded to. Also Afghanistan and Iraq (both because of the Brits).

***What about Spain, you Islamic ignoramuses? It was occupied by the Moors long ago, and lost. Spanish architecture still reflects that heritage.

Gotta link? Apparently, there was an offer in 1967, nearly 20 years after the creation of the state of Israel. I don't quickly find an offer earlier (but there could have been, hence my asking for a link).

In 1967 the Palestinians were offered Israeli citizenship, and declined. Seems pretty late to be offering "the Arabs" citizenship. A lot of resentment would have built up by then.

I also note that the supposed 'allied Arab nations' don't actually want them on their lands. They're happy to fund conflict with Israel, but seem unwilling to take the Palestinians in. IMO, that is less about the Palestinians and more about the existence of Israel.

The heart of the issue (besides the white people interfering) is religion. The Muslims see that as "once Muslim land, always Muslim land"***, and the Jews see it as the land "promised by god". Those are incompatible positions.

Again, that's not accurate. The Jews see it as the land we are indigenous to. We came from that area - the name "Jew" derives from the kingdom of Judea, the southern of the two historic Jewish kingdoms of the pre-Babylonian exile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

Unlike lots of other things in the Bible, there is no doubt of the historicity of the Jewish people living there for centuries. There's coins and artifacts in Hebrew and such - we even show up in the historical records of the Romans. That's where we're from, originally. While there are certainly some Jews that base their vision of the Jewish homeland based on a belief that it was promised by G-d, most Jews ground it on the fact that we're indigenous to the area. It's based on history, not religion.

It's based on history, not religion.

It's based on both. The history also includes Palestinians living there simultaneously. In fact, prior to Islam (~700 AD), they were both Semitic peoples. I don't want to say that they were Jews who changed religion, because I don't know that for a fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

The region was Judea, and Palestine, at different times. Same territory (more or less), different names, same people living there throughout (allowing for the exiles, but those were long ago).

If not for religion, both peoples would probably not have many problems. The Jewish religion (not the Bible, the Torah) says that is the land promised by Yahweh. The Muslim religion says "once Muslim land, always Muslim land". Both of those claims are based in religion, and therefore both are invalid. Historically, both peoples lived there (in relative peace) for centuries. And Jerusalem specifically is a flashpoint because Judaism, Islam, and Xianity have "holy" sites within (Judaism and Islam having the same "holy" site, which is really a problem).**



**The Xians have that one church, and are always getting into fights over which sect cleans what parts...it's really comical.

If they Jews would have settled for another region (as you suggested), there would be no conflict.

What region between before 1940 afforded Jews safe communities such as Christians, Buddhists, Muslims enjoy; where the government offered them equal rights and protections?

It's based on both. The history also includes Palestinians living there simultaneously. In fact, prior to Islam (~700 AD), they were both Semitic peoples. I don't want to say that they were Jews who changed religion, because I don't know that for a fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

That's also inaccurate. The Jewish people date back to the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea, roughly a millennium or so BCE (they start showing up in the archeological record around 900-800 BCE). The two kingdoms were conquered by Babylonia/Assyria in 720-580 BCE - the Jewish population was forcibly rounded up and removed from the area, exiled to Babylon. In the Babylonian exile we developed a lot of the religious and cultural traditions that make up what we consider the Jewish religion. A large population of Jews returned to the area in the 300's BCE, and we were a separate "people" from the other folks living in the area (culturally, religiously, linguistically, and ethnically) by around that time...

....about a thousand years before Mohammed.

We were still there for several centuries later, after the Romans took the area. The Jewish-Roman Wars lasted around half a century, from 66 CE to 136 CE and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. We were utterly crushed, the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem (though not from the area entirely, we were still trying to retake the area as late as the seventh century):

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

At that time, the Romans (or more accurately the Byzantines) were full on Christians, and apart from occasional conquests by the Persians (Iranians), they were still in charge up until the Arab/Muslim conquest of the Levant in the mid-seventh century.

The population in the area was not an undifferentiated group of "Semites" at the time of the Muslim conquest; and Jews had become a discrete ethnos and people a millennium prior.

What region between before 1940 afforded Jews safe communities such as Christians, Buddhists, Muslims enjoy; where the government offered them equal rights and protections?

Yeah, I thought of that after I posted. There were large communities in Poland and Russia, but before 1940 those would be no-gos. We were talking about after the war, in lieu of taking Palestine and displacing all the Palestinians. But I'm not sure attitudes towards Jews had softened much in Europe after the war (I suspect not, but don't know).

So, where did the Palestinians come from? Genetically, they're indistinguishable from Jewish persons (I read a paper about that many years ago). The primary difference appears to be religion. Did a different group repopulate during the exile? Because genetics says "no". Perhaps they escaped the roundup/exile, and remained in-situ?

Though I can see how the exile would cause different traditions/culture to evolve before they returned to Judea/Palestine. You have different traditions within the group of "Jews" even today...some people don't trim their sideburns, some literally wear bags over themselves so they don't brush up against women, etc. You can draw lots of distinctions, depending on how finely you wish to slice the groups.

Regardless, they did live in relative peace side by side until the extremists (and also white colonialists) started messing it up. Which was towards the end of the Ottoman Empire.

Regardless, they did live in relative peace side by side until the extremists (and also white colonialists) started messing it up. Which was towards the end of the Ottoman Empire.

Also not quite accurate.
The entire area was under the control of the Ottoman Empire until the end of World War I when the British were awarded the area as a mandate. At various points in time the Ottomans expanded their conquests to include more and more territory.

All religious minorities (Jews and Christians primarily) were restricted to living in certain areas and had to pay special taxes. In other words, they were all 2nd class citizens. Up until the 19th century things were relatively peaceful but started to go south at that point, with massacres of Jews taking place in Baghdad and Barfurush. Further riots and mob attacks continued all the way through the end of the 19th century.

So, where did the Palestinians come from?

Well, when a mommy Palestinian and a daddy Palestinian love each other very much.....


But more seriously, the Palestinians come from the same place that Jordanians and Syrians and Lebanese (or, say, the Portugese and the Spanish in Iberia or the Flemish and Wallons in Belgium) and other "peoples" come from that aren't genetically distinct from each other. Self-identification as a separate "people" is based on a host of factors: language, culture, heritage, customs and tradition, and (yes) religion as well. The Catalan separatist movement isn't based on the Catalans self-identifying as a separate people as a racial or genetic matter, for example. Any "people" comes from a set of common community identifiers that distinguish them in a material way from other peoples of the world. We're all genetically similar (race is a social construct, not a biological attribute) - different Peoples come from the evolution of different communities and cultures, not from genetic speciation.

Anyway, Palestinians and Jews aren't genetically "indistinguishable" from each other. We're not genetically far from each other, as far as human groups go - we both come from the same part of the world, so that's not surprising. That lends a certain irony to the conflict, a sort of metaphorical "brother against brother" color to it. But that happens all the time with conflicts between different peoples from the same general part of the world - the Pakistanis and Indians aren't especially genetically distinct from each other, nor the Hutsi and the Tutu.

The set of linguistic, cultural, traditional, religious, and social attributes that make the Jewish people distinct from other peoples first developed around 800 BCE, and those distinctors crystallized during the exile through about 550 BCE. Non-Jewish peoples in the area prior to the seventh century were mostly the Phoenicians and the Zoroastrian Persians. They were all subjugated during the Arab conquest of the region in the mid-600's, with the expansion of the Rashidum Caliphate.

Got any best one book recommendation(s) that put the Jews and their problems in good proper historical perspective? I read a book about the Muslim religion with some Xtians and it seemed the Xtians couldn't wrap their heads around the metaphors that were used in the book whereas they made sense to me. I just thought they were a little obvious and sorta primitive (the ones that gave them headaches).

One simple metaphor was that a fellow loved a woman, but couldn't be close to her, so they were apart. She died and was buried. He would go to her grave and lay on the ground striving to be close to her even though the earth separated them. Seemed pretty straight forward to me, that just as in life, in death you should strive to be closer to Allah.

But let's face it, Jews are portrayed badly in Shakespeare,etc., so it permeated cultures. That we can think people that you can talk to, laugh with, etc., are somehow inferior subhumans so it's OK to mistreat and kill them just shows me I should never put anything past Trump. We can unknowingly turn a corner and be faced with our own ugliness. I'm just happy to be able to discuss things openly with other rational people.

Got any best one book recommendation(s) that put the Jews and their problems in good proper historical perspective?

No, I'm afraid not. Most of what I've written above is from being taught in Sunday school as a kid, augmented with some wikipedia look-ups to get the dates right; and obviously the history of the Jews is much broader than just what took place in this specific part of the world. As a diasporic minority that's been around for thousands of years, and expelled from more countries than you can shake a stick at, there's a lot of history to put into perspective.

BTW - sure we got poor publicity in The Merchant of Venice - but we had already been expelled from England (and France and Hungary and Austria and Spain and Portugal and other places) centuries before Shakespeare was born. Shylock is a reflection of, not the genesis of, prejudice against Jews that was centuries old and spread across the world by then.

BTW - sure we got poor publicity in The Merchant of Venice - but we had already been expelled from England (and France and Hungary and Austria and Spain and Portugal and other places) centuries before Shakespeare was born

Yes, and it makes little sense to me. The explanation of usury, and the Rothschilds, seems recent and inadequate. Perhaps there were more groups kept separate, and easily expelled that I'm not aware of, but it seems that the Jews were well known for this - and the holocaust was horrific. It begins to make more sense if the Catholic Church felt somewhat threatened by Jews and helped instigate the expulsion from Britain. (Just reading a paper on this.) It seems that Italians took over lending money via loopholes.

Yes, and it makes little sense to me.

It's pretty straightforward to me. Humans have been persecuting minority groups since the dawn of time. It's even more understandable when you look at the relationship between the Jews and their social and political environment at the time.

The Jews were a diasporic community - driven from their place of origin - that retained their own language, culture, traditions, dress, social organization, and most importantly religion. So they were a discrete and insular subculture.

Meanwhile, during the Middle Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was organizing into separate nations where the legitimacy and power of the king was being grounded on religious basis. The King ruled because he was chosen by the Christian G-d, backed by the Church, which based his power in large part on the religious fealty of his subjects. The Westminster model of secure nation-states which we live under today was centuries away - national borders were fluid, all the feudal lords under the King were potential rivals, and every Crown was insecure from both domestic and national threats.

Add into that the superstition and xenophobia that permeates any illiterate and ignorant society - leading people to fear and distrust all people different from them. Sprinkle in that the dominant interpretation of the holy text was that the Jews killed G-d. Combine that with the dominant cultural imperative to spread Christianity to all the non-believers of the world - the Spanish monarchs didn't just drive the Jews out of Spain, but the Moors as well - and that lands pretty hard. Mix in the constant persecution of heretics of any sort - the purification of Catholic Christianity during the pre-Middle Ages, the wars between Protestants and Catholics that divided the Continent (and the world). It's not like the Huguenots were having a lot of fun back then, either.

Finally, expelling the Jews was always a tempting way for any Crown to raise money in times of need. Drive out the Jews, and you get to seize all their property - then let them trickle back in, rebuild their communities, and drive them out again.

So - the Jews were a discrete religious minority that did not assimilate to local customs and did not acknowledge the religion upon which the legitimacy of the secular government was based, in a time when even the strongest Crowns had a somewhat tenuous grip on power and recurring need for funds, during a half-millennium where promoting the dominant religion was an important aim of the state, and when it was a widespread belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Usury ain't the half of it.

Sprinkle in that the dominant interpretation of the holy text was that the Jews killed G-d.

I never understood that whole “Jews killed Jesus” thing, besides the fact that the Romans actually killed him (maybe the Italian lobby was stronger than the Jewish lobby back then). I mean, how could anyone kill God? Isn’t God all powerful?

While I consider myself spiritual, I definitely don’t believe in religion. Religions seem confining to me.

Then again, there’s those unaccounted 18 missing years in the life of Jesus.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=suoJ6mLVBlU

So - the Jews were a discrete religious minority that did not assimilate to local customs and did not acknowledge the religion upon which the legitimacy of the secular government was based, in a time when even the strongest Crowns had a somewhat tenuous grip on power and recurring need for funds, during a half-millennium where promoting the dominant religion was an important aim of the state, and when it was a widespread belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Usury ain't the half of it.

That makes more sense. I was surprised to learn of the recent hostility toward Catholicism - that Kennedy had to assure the clergy he wouldn't take orders from the Pope. And Op Eds by Ben Franklin that the Germans were not assimilating. I guess if my knowledge of history was better it would make more sense. Every time I read history how I look at the world changes.

...it was a widespread belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.

Despite the figure of Jesus (Yeshu) being himself a Jew...

But, yes, that seems to be the consensus. Hitchens went further, and said the Jews also rejected Jesus and Mohammed, which p-o'd both religions. Not sure about the consensus around that statement, but it does make a bit of sense. Atheists weren't treated much better (also rejecting Jesus and Mohammed).

Can't really expect any consistency or logic from any of them. The first books on the Bible/Torah state that the Jews are "god's chosen people". Which clearly ain't the xians or muslims, even though they hold to those books. And they're responsible for much of the torment of the Jews for the past 1500 years.

I never understood that whole “Jews killed Jesus” thing, besides the fact that the Romans actually killed him (maybe the Italian lobby was stronger than the Jewish lobby back then). I mean, how could anyone kill God? Isn’t God all powerful?

The biblical account of Jesus' final days has him being first tried by the Sanhedrin (a Jewish priestly court), then off to Pontius Pilate, then to Herod (because Jesus was from Galilee), then back to Pilate for final judgment. In this account, Pilate demurs from sentencing Jesus personally, but instead presents Jesus to a mob of Jews that have gathered outside the court, and asks the mob if they want Jesus freed. The mob demands that Barabbas be freed instead. The Gospel of Matthew account then has Pilate disclaim responsibility for Jesus' death and has the Jewish crowd accept Jesus' blood on their head for themselves and all their children:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/27-25.htm

That one line from Matthew may have caused more suffering for more people than perhaps any other single line in the whole of literature.

The Gospel of Matthew account then has Pilate disclaim responsibility for Jesus' death and has the Jewish crowd accept Jesus' blood on their head for themselves and all their children:

The gospels were written between about 50-100 AD. Matthew specifically was written no earlier than about 85 AD. Was anti-semitism prevalent that early? Because that line seems to target that one specific group, instead of blaming it all on the Romans (which it could have done). Xianity was growing at that time, but was still a tiny minority of religious thought. The Romans were still killing xians, often via damnatio ad bestias (i.e. being mauled by wild dogs, or more commonly predatory big cats like lions or leopards).

BTW, figured out the answer to whether Jordan/Egypt/Syria retained the lands. The Jordanians were the West Bank, and Jordan does not control that anymore. Apparently Egypt didn't hold any land for long (a matter of days/weeks), as they were counter-attacked and driven out. Apparently Syria had the Golan Heights, which they lost later.

Also, I'm wondering if this is more appropriate on the atheist board. It's not US Policy (for a change), and is mostly history and religion. Just a thought.

The gospels were written between about 50-100 AD. Matthew specifically was written no earlier than about 85 AD. Was anti-semitism prevalent that early?

There was certainly conflict between the early Christians and the Jews during that time period, yes - though I don't think the modern concept of "anti-semitism" really maps onto it. Early in the first century, Christianity was still mostly a sect of Judaism - those first Christians were all ethnically Jewish or recent converts to Judaism, but were starting to differentiate themselves from the rest of Judaism through their belief that Jesus was the messiah. By the time Matthew was written, you were starting to see more gentile Christian communities springing up, but the two faiths were still in the process of separating. So while the blood curse passage in Matthew might indeed have indeed been a political or ideological attack Jews who did not follow Jesus or accept him as the Messiah, it was probably written from the perspective of people who thought of themselves as Jewish.

IOW, the author probably read it not as "Jews are responsible for killing Jesus" but rather "Those are responsible for killing Jesus, as opposed to us Jews who realize he was the Messiah." But over the next few centuries, when Christianity was fully split from Judaism, the passage reads differently.

BTW, figured out the answer to whether Jordan/Egypt/Syria retained the lands. The Jordanians were the West Bank, and Jordan does not control that anymore. Apparently Egypt didn't hold any land for long (a matter of days/weeks), as they were counter-attacked and driven out. Apparently Syria had the Golan Heights, which they lost later.

That's not entirely correct. Egypt controlled Gaza from 1948 until 1967 - the same time that Jordan controlled the West Bank. Almost all of the land that the Oslo Agreement contemplated might form a Palestinian state was controlled by those two countries from 1948 until Israel retook those lands after they defeated Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 War.

Then again, there’s those unaccounted 18 missing years in the life of Jesus.

I knew where that link was goin... things shut down at midnight, at least round here they do.....

rec for the JP reference

IOW, the author probably read it not as "Jews are responsible for killing Jesus" but rather "Those are responsible for killing Jesus, as opposed to us Jews who realize he was the Messiah."

Who are "those"? Non-xian Jews? So xianity likely was regarded as the Mormons of Judaism at the time (i.e. a splinter, adding another tome to the "established" doctrine). Still not sure why they wouldn't heap more blame on the Romans. They were the mutual enemy (i.e. occupying power, punishing/torturing for religious ideology, etc).

Also, yeah...I missed that bit. The Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza (and Sinai) in '49 after routing the Egyptians. They must have had a lot of help (from the US and Britain), since they were barely a state and already at war. Hard to pull a military organization together in such a short time, and then expect them to be effective. Which they were, apparently.

Who are "those"? Non-xian Jews? So xianity likely was regarded as the Mormons of Judaism at the time (i.e. a splinter, adding another tome to the "established" doctrine). Still not sure why they wouldn't heap more blame on the Romans.

Yes - those Jews. The Jews who made up the crowd who weren't followers of Jesus.

As for the Romans, when Matthew was written it would have been shortly after the end of the first of the Roman-Jewish wars. The Romans would have just finished laying siege to Jerusalem, crushing the Jews in a brutal repression, and destroying the Second Temple in 70 AD. About a third of all the Jews in the region were either killed or taken as slaves....but the destruction of the Temple and loss of access to Jerusalem was a massive earthquake for the Jews. It destroyed one of the fundamental pillars of Judaism - for 500 years, Jewry had focused specifically on sacrificial worship in that specific location in Jerusalem. Now that was gone, forcing a shift away from five centuries of tradition and towards the religious structure we see in contemporary practices.

In the aftermath of that kind of horror, it would have been...impolitic to lay the blame for Jesus' death on the Romans. And that's around the time that the different sects of the Jews were really going their separate ways, since the loss of the Temple eliminated a common point that had moored the different sects together (and some that were more integrally associated with Temple worship disappeared altogether).

That is an interesting point that both those who accepted the blood and those that believed in the Messiah were Jews at that point. The gist I got is that Jesus was a rabblerouser that made the more orthodox Jews uncomfortable and so - handing him over to the Romans. It was mostly oral tradition back then, so nothing was written for a while.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.