DawnC

There were many troubling situations there. But the situation in Gaza was very similar to the West Bank before Israel left the place, and the minute they did, Hamas was elected, and a civil war started between Hamas and the PLO, resulting in Hamas coming to power. The most realistic possibility if Israel were to do the same thing it did in Gaza in the West Bank (that was the original plan of the Israelis) is that Hamas would rise to power there. That is not a horror movie scenario, it is the most likely realistic possibility. This is actually the reason Abu Mazen avoids conducting elections in the West Bank. He knows that Hamas would likely win. And again, the occupation there didn't happen in a vacuum either. It occurred in '67 after all the surrounding countries prepared for war against Israel (the territory was taken from Jordan). The fundamental aspects of Palestinian society are the same in the West Bank. They are not focusing on building a nation at all.

I don't speak out of a mere 'be responsible' attitude. I acknowledge that there are situations where people are victims. I just don't think this situation is like that at all. If we trace things back to the beginning of the conflict and observe the trajectory, the Palestinians not only didn't seek peace, they initiated war and were not able to compromise. They are actually caught up in the basics of understanding that a Jewish state is a fact. You don't have to even consider the Israeli perspective for that, just take a realistic look toward reality. Their society lacks any constructive elements, and they basically have no concept of building a nation. This is the main reason why they are dependent on Israel for electricity and water, still living in refugee camps, and are more focused on building tunnels to invade Israel from underground than building schools, hospitals, and universities. And the power imbalance is not the reason. There was no such imbalance in the establishment of Israel. The power imbalance arose because Israeli society focused itself on nation-building, whereas the Palestinians did not. The fact that Israel made mistakes in the past doesn't make them entirely responsible or victimizers. Some of your points were actually very reasonable actions. I will just copy and paste my comment from another thread because I don't want to write it again: "Yes, the conditions of the Palestinians under Israeli control are terrible and discriminatory. Yes, the conditions in the Gaza Strip are dire. Yes, many Palestinians lost their homes in '48. Yes, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank in '67. But those things did not happen in a vacuum either. That is precisely my point. Let me give you two simple examples: 1) 'Many Palestinians lost their homes in 1948': The Jews in Israel endured horrific riots and attacks from Arab Palestinians in the early 20th century, long before they had any real power or a state. It was only after the Arabs initiated a war on Israel that Palestinians lost their homes. Almost all of them fled and weren't forcibly expelled. There were some terrible acts of deportation by Israelis, but this wasn't the majority, and it occurred when Israel's very existence was at stake, facing aggression from five Arab countries, including Arabs within Israel. It wasn't civilians being expelled by an army; it was a total civil war, with one side supported by nearly all the surrounding countries. 2) 'The conditions in the Gaza Strip are terrible'. They are. But why is that? Why are they so dire? There have been enormous amounts of money sent to Gaza from all over the world. Did Israel hinder Palestinians from developing their own society and improving their quality of life? In fact, Israel removed its settlers from their homes, withdrew the military, and departed. From a broader perspective, when Israel attempts to help Palestinians, to seek an end to the conflict, or takes steps to improve the situation, instead of welcoming these efforts and trying to build something positive from them, the Palestinians make the situation worse."

But you are addressing this as if the pure condition situation is merely an injustice done to them and don't recognize that a major part of it is self-induced.

This is not a serious claim. It is not the sole cause of all problems in the world, nor the root of all criticism about Israel. But there is a serious problem of antisemitism in many regions and communities worldwide and it can also influence policies. Don't overlook this.

Do your own research. Just off the top of my head: locating military bases under hospitals, locating military bases under civilian residences and mosques, constructing tunnels beneath civilian residences with tunnel exits inside those homes, building tunnels under refugee camps, diverting gas from hospitals for military use, launching rockets at civilian populations from proximity to mosques, launching rockets at civilian populations from proximity to hospitals, launching rockets at civilian populations from proximity to refugee camps.

You may not be considering the regional situation fully. Currently, the Israeli army is spread across the Syrian and Lebanese borders, with significant resources directed towards Iran, the Houthis, and also dealing with Hamas militants in the West Bank. From an Israeli perspective, this is a highly threatening and dangerous situation, which I believe is a reasonable perception. Referring to Palestinian deaths as "casualties of an opponent" is not an attempt to disregard their significance, but rather an attempt to gain insight into the experiences of those involved in the conflict. When a regime initiates war, it plunges the entire country into the throes of conflict, which unfortunately includes refugee camps. I'm not suggesting Israelis are without fault, but it's crucial to acknowledge the harsh realities of war. Are Israelis any less conscientious about minimizing civilian casualties compared to other nations facing similar wartime conditions? I genuinely don't believe so.

Yes, it was simplistically put. But I don't think it's so far-fetched from reality as you might believe. Hamas operates in a very very problematic military manner (to say the least). Their tactics involve things that are sickening and very difficult to address. I'm not sure people fully grasp how deep this goes.

Clearly not. This was exactly my third point. Throughout world history, no country or military has been held to a standard where it would be considered immoral to prioritize their own casualties over those of the opponent. It's an unrealistic standard that no country in the world can meet, and none will in the foreseeable future. Are the Israelis less careful about civilian casualties than other countries? Perhaps, but even that is open to debate.

Don't reduce my point to the lowest level you can perceive it, wrap it with the most immoral quote you can come up with, and then attack me on it. Try to understand the core issue I'm trying to present and respond to that. If you seriously think that I am suggesting anything resembling Hamas, you really misunderstand my point. Note that I didn't even say anything about the actual event. If you were to read my comments with an open mind, you'll see I made three major points: 1. It is simplistic to make numerical calculations based on a single scenario and then draw conclusions about the entire conflict. 2. Drawing a moral conclusion based solely on casualty numbers is overly simplistic. 3. The moral standard we put Israel to may be unrealistic during war.

I didn't say that. I never suggested killing civilians indiscriminately or doing any other thing that Hamas did intentionally. Again, consider an individual shooting at at you and advocating for genocide against your people from a house containing 80 civilians who support him. Can't you see the significant, fundamental difference here?

It's not a matter of 'comparing the value of human lives', it's about grasping what exactly you're proposing. If this individual were shooting at you and advocating for genocide against your people from a house containing 80 civilians who support him, you might perceive things differently.

@Leo Gura A simplistic form of consideration and analysis. This is heavily dependent on the individuals involved. It hinges on who the person in question is and who the civilians are. Would you hesitate to eliminate this individual if it meant that 80 civilians would die, assuming this is the guy and those are the civilians? It's easy to be moral when your own survival isn't at stake. edit: my points are: 1. It is simplistic to make numerical calculations based on a single scenario and then draw conclusions about the entire conflict. 2. Drawing a moral conclusion based solely on casualty numbers is overly simplistic. 3. The moral standard we put Israel to may be unrealistic during war.

This is not a realistic possibility and I don't think it is even considered seriously. Egypt would go to war to avoid displacing the entire Palestinian population in Gaza into its territory, and the Israelis understand this. For the moment, Israel and Egypt are closely aligned on most things (though there are of course some tensions), and the relationship with Egypt is very important to the Israelis. The situation in Gaza is very complicated militarily. There are tunnel exit points in almost every house. It would be impossible to maneuver on the ground in civilian-populated areas in Gaza without a huge number of civilian casualties. This is probably the main reason for this. Edit: The only way this strategy would be considered is if some (idiotic) Western country would be willing to take the Palestinians. I don't think it's realistic at this point.

This post discusses the situation in Israel and Gaza, approaching it from a systemic point of view. My major claim is that the problem in Gaza runs much deeper than just the Hamas regime, It is a profound and structural issue within Palestinian society. This is not a challenge unique to the Palestinians, but rather a broader problem within most of the Arab world. Democracy faces difficulties there because the society lacks adequate development. Let's consider Egypt, for example. After the removal of the dictator Mubarak, the Egyptians elected radicals, the Muslim Brotherhood, who were subsequently replaced by a military dictator, Sisi. It appears that there are three options for such countries: a moderate ruler who enforces policies with force (like in Jordan), extremist and oppressive regimes like those in Iran or Turkey, which have significant support from one segment of the population while suppressing the other, and the third is a bloody civil war like in Syria. The Palestinians not only lack the development needed for an open, pluralistic, and democratic society, but they have also prevented any moderate movements from gaining any real influence. They consistently choose and support irresponsible leadership, leading them into further chaos and conflict. This pattern can be traced back to early Palestinian leader Amin al-Husseini (who, by the way, had affiliations with the Nazis, and this was before the establishment of Israel) and continues to this day with widespread public support for Hamas (even in the west bank). The Palestinian leadership has rejected all proposals for peace and fundamentally struggles with the ability to compromise due to their deep-seated concept of justice and twisted concept of honor. While their claims of connection and ownership of the land may make some sense from a Western perspective, understanding their society and level of development reveals that their claims differ fundamentally from what we might initially perceive from a Western mindset. These claims of ownership are deeply rooted in religious beliefs, and thus, the struggle for it is considered a holy war. However, the issue runs even deeper. Their religious mindset hinders their capacity for compromise, they tend to think in a zero-sum manner and the major isue is that they invest all their resources to their 'just cause,' neglecting the essential element necessary for a functioning country - building a society (education, infrastructure, institutions, etc). The most clear example is the allocation of funds and resources in Gaza, that received substantial donations from Europeans and Americans in past years and seems to be a worthless investment. Israel, on the other hand, has a strong society and institutions, and a relatively open and pluralistic culture. It does have a problematic right-wing faction (about 5%-10% of the population), however, the majority of Israelis (to my understanding about 60%) are located in the center of the political spectrum, and the radical left is negligible. Israel does have a problem with some of the settlers in the West Bank and with the way Palestinians are treated there. Nevertheless, Israel's control of the West Bank is rooted in a mindset fundamentally different from that of the Palestinians. Essentially, Israelis fear a recurrence of what happened in Gaza in the West Bank. Geographically, the West Bank is situated exactly in the middle of Israel and is only 20 minutes from Tel Aviv. There are factions that advocate holding onto all of the territory from a religious standpoint, but they constitute a small, insignificant minority in Israel. The perspective of most Israelis is focused on national security and strategic considerations. As for the Gaza situation, from what I am aware of, Israel's army is doing more than any other military in the history of warfare to protect civilians in Gaza (and if you think otherwise, please provide an example). Israel possesses the capability to cause indiscriminate harm, yet consciously chooses to avoid it. As I understand it, to most Israelis, this is a deliberate choice (with varying degrees) and not solely a strategy to gain global public favor. Clearly, the protection of civilians can be done to some extent and war is not a pretty thing. To me, it is clear that Hamas cannot remain in control of the Gaza Strip, as any society that values and cherishes life cannot tolerate such a regime on its borders. Unfortunately, I believe that relying solely on the air force is not a viable means to remove Hamas from power. I'm uncertain about what would be beneficial for the region after Hamas is removed (if you guys have a take on this I would love to hear it). As far as I'm concerned, until there is a cultural revolution within Palestinian society, the situation will remain unchanged. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can enforce such change from the outside, neither through military intervention nor through impassioned speeches about freedom. Sadly, I don't foresee this changing in the near future, and sadly, they will continue to suffer until change comes from within. I didn't address the influence of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement. Clearly, as long as Palestinian radicalism is nurtured by Iran, this makes the situation even more difficult and complicated, But this post has become quite lengthy, so I'll leave it here. edit: I hope this goes without saying, but I'll mention it anyway - this clearly does not address individual Palestinians or Israelis, but rather the societies from a systemic point of view. I'm sure there are good and bad people everywhere. My concern is the functioning of the collectives.

@Nivsch an optimistic assessment 😄

@Leo Gura @Nabd @Lila9 @Samsonov Just to provide a brutal example of this society's mentality, take a listen to this recording: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/by11zbthm6. This is a completely distorted spiritual-like catharsis this guy experiences from killing Jews. His family is literally weeping with a sense of fulfillment and joy. I urge you not to solely rely on my assessment of this issue or base your assessment solely on this single recording. Take the time to study their educational system. You'll be amazed to see how this recording is not surprising at all.

#1 It's okay, but it is not a major diversion from what actually happens. It won't have a major positive effect from an Israeli perspective on anything besides maybe on how Israel is perceived by some Westerners (not even on how Palestinians perceive them). On the other hand, the negative can be crucial in terms of hostages' release, and the ability of Hamas to maintain its control command (that is exactly beneath hospitals). #2 It fails to understand the regional situation. Israel cannot afford such action to take place without a response. The more that organizations like Hamas gain power on Israel's borders, the higher the risk for the country. Hiding behind their walls was the exact strategy that led to Hamas' ability to surprise them. Consider what would happen if there were a coordinated attack from Hezbollah, pro-Iran militant groups, and Iran's regime. This suggestion heavily plays into Iran's strategy to wear out Israel. From an Israeli perspective, they should be more proactive and not passive, and this is very reasonable. Edit: This also neglects the fact that Israel has 200 civilians held by Hamas. #3 If you think that Hamas can be negotiated with for peace, you totally misunderstand what Hamas is. Good luck negotiating peace with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, WWII Japan, and the Nazis. Announcing an end to settlement expansion is actually a good suggestion, but it has not much to do with how to deal with Hamas in Gaza now. Also, I would target the focus on specific settlements and not on the entire project. I highly suggest avoiding a mindset that is solely focused on finding a solution. These suggestions may not be helpful in reducing the intensity of this conflict. They might actually be more like 'Chamberlain deed'.

@Leo Gura I have watched the entire video. In simplistic terms, it seems as if the research question they tackled was 'Why does the US have a special relationship and support for Israel?' The answer they arrived at was 'because of Israel-favored lobbies.' Unfortunately, the way they address the actual question is lacking depth and seriousness. They spend much more time on the answer than on the question. To me, this suggests that they either lack a deeper strategic and global perspective, or they conducted the research in the opposite direction—starting from their biased solution (treating Israel like a normal country) and working backwards to justify it with research (citing the influence of lobbies). Even if I take their investigation seriously, the way they address the question indicates they have a limited view on two levels: a strategic level and the role of the US in the current global situation. From a strategic perspective, they fail to see how aligned the strategic interests of the US and Israel are (not to say that there aren't cases where they differ or that US and Israeli governments simply made strategic mistakes). They also have a totally misunderstanding of who their enemies are. I'm using the word 'enemy' here intentionally. If you misunderstand Putin or Khamenei, you have a major strategic problem. Understanding that someone is an enemy doesn't always mean going to war, but it does have an impact on your strategic viewpoint. But I believe the deeper problem lies in a failure to recognize the role of the US as the keeper of world order. They tend to lean towards the belief that the sole interest of the US is its national security, and this perspective can be very dangerous for Americans to adopt. If Putin and Khamenei can act with impunity, Putin might have already taken over Ukraine by now, and it's only a matter of time until the entire Arab world falls under the control of Iranian militant groups. And I haven't even mentioned China. Maintaining world order requires force, and the American alternatives are very troubling. It may sound poetic for Americans to shy away from being a dominant power and be American centered, but the alternative players poses great danger to the entire world. I'm not sure they understand how significant this is. And as for trust in US officials, I think you may be exaggerating in your assessment of unconditional support in terms of credibility, especially regarding the impact this would have on personal relationships with those involved. It's good to question this, but everyone is biased. It's important to be mindful of veering into conspiracy-like thinking where you can't trust anything.

Israel's and the US's intelligence agencies are so connected and collaborate on so many different levels now that presenting false claims or claims with no evidence would be easily disproven by the US. Israeli officials would not risk being perceived as highly unreliable by their American counterparts. They might be biased, but they understand credibility well enough.

Multiculturalism can only happen when a society or an individual meets certain crucial elements. Having tolerance toward some cultures is like having dinner with a cannibal. Yes, it's noble to have tolerance for vegetarians, vegans, keto, Halal, Kosher, etc. Such a diverse dinner would be lovely. But I wouldn't add a cannibal to the table. I want to know if I'm on the menu or not. It is very easy to confuse a respectful approach toward different cultures with non-intervention or appeasing policies. I have respect for lions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go pet them, avoid putting a bullet in one's head if it tries to eat me, or ignore their spread around the world. When Germany made themselves energetically totally dependent on Russia, or when the West tries to appease Iran, it is not a respect towards their culture. It is a misunderstanding of culture. The Islamic world is diverse, and from a western perspective, different factions of it should be dealt with using varying approaches. Some can actually benefit from direct assistance in their cultural development, some may require a credible militant threat alone and others should be left alone.

He is a truly unique, impressive and inspirational individual. He has many interesting interviews and a nice book, ‘Son of Hamas.' The fact that he is completely rejected by his society and faces numerous death threats is deeply saddening. What do you mean? What do you think Israel should do?

Nothing happens in a vacuum. The problem is that when people observe the present situation, what they often see is an enormous power imbalance, which easily leads them to a victim-aggressor framework. Yes, the conditions of the Palestinians under Israeli control are terrible and discriminatory. Yes, the conditions in the Gaza Strip are dire. Yes, many Palestinians lost their homes in '48. Yes, Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank in '67. But those things did not happen in a vacuum either. That is precisely my point. Let me give you two simple examples: 1) 'Many Palestinians lost their homes in 1948': The Jews in Israel endured horrific riots and attacks from Arab Palestinians in the early 20th century, long before they had any real power or a state. It was only after the Arabs initiated a war on Israel that Palestinians lost their homes. Almost all of them fled and weren't forcibly expelled. There were some terrible acts of deportation by Israelis, but this wasn't the majority, and it occurred when Israel's very existence was at stake, facing aggression from five Arab countries, including Arabs within Israel. It wasn't civilians being expelled by an army; it was a total civil war, with one side supported by nearly all the surrounding countries. 2) 'The conditions in the Gaza Strip are terrible'. They are. But why is that? Why are they so dire? There have been enormous amounts of money sent to Gaza from all over the world. Did Israel hinder Palestinians from developing their own society and improving their quality of life? In fact, Israel removed its settlers from their homes, withdrew the military, and departed. From a broader perspective, when Israel attempts to help Palestinians, to seek an end to the conflict, or takes steps to improve the situation, instead of welcoming these efforts and trying to build something positive from them, the Palestinians make the situation worse. As to some of the things you have mentioned: Settler violence is troubling, yet it's relatively isolated and lacks significant support from the Israeli public. I do believe that the expansion of settlements was a foolish and irresponsible move on Israel's part (at least in areas that disrupted the continuous Palestinian-inhabited territories). And the Israeli spokesperson's statement may not have been nice, but it's certainly understandable given the circumstances. But my main point is that while these actions do create friction and may worsen the situation, they are far from being the core issue. The misperception of the victim-aggressor creates a distorted version of history, leading to things like falsely labeling it as colonialism and an obsession with historical justice not only for the Palestinians but also in the Western world. This is a much more complicated conflict and it is wrong to address it this way. I think that this false perception creates a problem with acknowledging the deeper issue I was describing. It is not the deeper issue of who is right or who behaved immorally here, or made a mistake there. It is the deeper issue of why peace or any sort of solution is not a realistic possibility at all. Israel has more power, but all of its power is useless when it comes to changing the foundational principles that govern the Palestinian society. "Any proposal fell short of fairness and the meeting of minimum standards set by international law." I don't think so. I think that any society with responsible leadership, that has an appreciation for peace and a desire to build a nation, would agree to those proposals if they were in the shoes of the Palestinians. I agree that spiral dynamics can be simplistic, and an investigation of a society should be more nuanced than that. That doesn't mean there aren't cases where the gap in development is very much clear when you do investigate it. I hardly disagree with your assessment on young Palestinians. The Palestinian education system is incredibly problematic in so many ways. The society's sole role model is basically a killer, and this is a crucial element of the society. Young Palestinians differ in some manners, but they don't show any real signs of change in the important elements of the problem. Stating that one culture or society is better than another in some crucial elements of human freedom and dignity is not the same as believing the culture or society you think is better is flawless. Clearly, there are problems within western societies. The comparison remains relative.

@Leo Gura Some problems just don't have a solution. This is a fact of reality that people seem to always forget. It's the wrong paradigm to address this conflict. The misguided actions America took because every third president believed they would bring peace to the Middle East are enormous. Even the Israelis have difficulty grasping it. A better framework would be to try to lower the flame to a bearable condition. This is similar to fighting poverty and crime. Sometimes 'the perfect is the enemy of the good.' Peace is not a realistic possibility, and it would be beneficial to get it out of our system when it comes to the Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately, while Hamas rules over any territory that is adjacent to Israel, or any civil society for that matter, the situation is clearly unbearable. Every militant capability they have will be used to target Israel in the most horrific ways. The Israelis actually had a huge misperception and thought that Hamas could be made to be a more moderate organization by improving conditions in Gaza and negotiating with them. I think that even from an American or global perspective, Hamas shouldn't stay in power. I'm not sure what your suggestion is and what you oppose. How would you propose removing them from power? It's true that Israel is less concerned about collateral damage than in the past, but it's clearly not recklessly bombing civilians. Hamas' hold on Gaza is strong, and they are very skilled at using their strategic advantage. This is not a regular military-military fight. Their tactics involve intentionally fighting from civilian facilities and engaging in very difficult door-to-door combat while forcing their civilians to be in the crossfire as a tactic. This is what I think Israel is trying to prevent by urging the Palestinians to move south and targeting specific areas for bombing. I don't see a better militant option that would not put Israeli soldiers at high risk, and not even options that might put them at risk that would actually result in fewer civilian casualties. The thing is, there is actually a greater and more important issue at play. The bigger picture is Iran and its attempt to gain control over the Gulf countries and the Middle East. From a global perspective, this is a very dangerous situation. Israel is the only country that is actually capable of dealing with Iran in the region (and the Iranians understand this). To my understanding, Hamas was actually putting into practice a part of Iran's strategy against Israel, which is to make life in Israel unbearable by targeting civilians and imposing a significant economic burden to the point where a western society cannot endure. In that regard, the role of the US in the world is much more significant than just shouting for human rights like the Europeans. US is the only country that can actually ensure freedom in the world. If the Iranians and Putin can do what they are doing and get away with it, in the long run, it means death to freedom and to our way of life. From an American perspective, Israel is the most reliable ally in the region that has the capabilities and determination needed to confront Iran (Israel is actually the only ally of the US that doesn't want US soldiers to fight for them on the ground). When Israel is perceived as weak in the region or even when support from the US is wavering, this can have a major effect on the conflict with Iran. I don't think the US has to cheer for every bomb Israel throws, but unwavering support is definitely a US and global interest. edit: 1) Sometimes radicals are simply radicals, and it doesn't really matter what the US or Israel would do or have done. Believing that Iran's regime or the Houthis in Yemen emerged solely because they were created by bad policy from the West is simplistic. Of course, bad policy can contribute, but it's not always the case. Some cultures are more susceptible to radicalism, and the question of why is more complex. 2) I think that a realistic approach to Israel and Palestine would also include: denying any militant capabilities from the Palestinians, finding creative ways to ensure continuity in Palestinian territories (to reduce day-to-day friction), targeting the pressure on Israel to the specific settlements that interrupt that continuity in an irreparable way (like Hebron, unfortunately 7/10 made it much more difficult), and focusing Palestinian aid on the Palestinian education system, which is the most problematic element at the moment.

Not every 'normal' human definitely desire peace. And there is a difference between individuals will and the societies structure and value system. Those are two major misconceptions. Try to investigate the Palestinian social structure, values and belief system (including all places you have mentioned) with an open mind and tell me what you see. Don't seek out impressive individuals (some of whom I know personally). Study the society. I understand that you hold this belief. I also acknowledge that there are certainly moments in history where, even after examining an issue from all perspectives, the moral stance is clear as you suggest. But in this particular conflict, it isn't such a straightforward case at all (and I'm taking a soft approach here). It goes deeper than just understanding Israel's perspective. It's about seeking an accurate, undistorted version of history. Your viewpoint is historically inaccurate. I thought about writing it down, but I'm starting to wonder if it would be a good use of my time. I hope you'll consider taking some time to investigate this matter with an open mind. And by the way, realize that this discussion doesn't contradict my original assessment. Even if you are correct, expecting and fighting for historical justice can be unrealistic, unwise, and irresponsible. And the Palestinian society can be the current major obstacle for peace, even if historical justice is on their side.

I'm mostly talking about countries in the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Palestinian Territories. This doesn't mean there aren't impressive individuals in those countries. I'm referring to the overall state of affairs and the trajectory.