Isreal/Palastine conflict

I think you all will find that in any conflict, there is right and wrong on both sides… especially when you’re there to see it first hand. There are good and decent people on both ends of the rifle, fighting for what they believe in….but only at first. Let me explain the best I can.

Reasons, beliefs, excuses, sides, and groups often go right out the window when the bullets start flying. All too often these conflicts, regardless of why they started, end up being about survival. I vividly remember The first firefight I was involved with in Iraq, and I went into it as a proud American soldier, there to do what’s right and save a persecuted people. My last firefight, I spent over 600 rounds of ammo and hit nothing but sand, because I just didn’t care about the “why” anymore. They were shooting at me, so I shot back. My personal reasons shifted the longer I was in that hell to the point that all I cared about was getting myself and my soldiers home. In more organized conflicts, you see the same thing on both sides. In Ww2, when The war was ending it wasn’t uncommon to see German POWS are playing cards with their American captors, or even having a drink together. The why we were at war didn’t matter, and we were all feeling the same way on both sides.

This conflict in Israel has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years, this is just the latest iteration. It makes me wonder as a jedi how much of the “why” has been lost to time? How much of that conflict in engraved into the culture itself? How many children are taught to hate the other side no matter what from birth? Whose reason was right and who’s reason was wrong prolly doesn't come as much into play now as it did 500 years ago.

That all said….the current issue at hand we should be concerned with isn’t the why, but the how. How this conflict will be fought by either side will have consequences. Targeting civilians, kidnapping women and children, targeting hospitals…..those things will change it from an Israel Gaza conflict to a global conflict with a quickness. The US, england, Canada, France, Germany, and many other countries will only let that go so far before we put our foot in it. If and when we do, it will be quick and dramatic, and no matter what, we will be viewed as the bad guy. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If we show up all shock and awe, (which is the only way it’s done now) we will bee seen as bullies, and world police, and so on. If we stay out of it, then we “allowed” it to happen and are just as guilty as anyone else. No matter what, we lose.

This has been another 2am rant from a very sleepy Zero. Hopefully this one is a bit coherent and makes an ounce of sense when you all read it. It did in my head when I wrote it.

I disagree that this is a problem created by the fallout of WW2. The region known by different groups as Israel or Palestine has been inhabited by both groups for around 4000 years, and both have deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the area, particularly the area of the old city in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall or Wailing wall is the remnant of a Jewish Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. It was itself a rebuilding an older temple built around 3000 years ago. The Dome of the Rock (significant to Palestinians) was built around 1300 years ago nearby. To what extent each occupied that area throughout the different centuries of that time and who should have claim to the land seems to be the subject of extensive debate full of partial histories that make an armchair historian like myself dizzy trying to follow the details (and sift through unbiased fact versus revisionist history). On some level, I also don't know that it matters. At this point both groups have deep cultural and historical ties to the area and to the monuments within it and would feel like they've lost one of the core parts of their identity if that was taken away.

ZealotX wrote:

So I would say the Jedi response would be advocating first for a cease-fire, and then to address atrocities on both sides.

 

I think this is an interesting observation, and I'm not sure if it's an accurate one. (I'm also not sure it's an inaccurate one). There are certainly a lot of people who consider a cease-fire to be the inhumane response at this juncture. I think I remember seeing in the doctrine somewhere something along the lines of it being important to know when action or inaction is most appropriate. The argument for cease-fire seems to revolve around the idea that attacking Gaza puts a lot of civilians in harm's way, civilians that in many cases have no way to escape and nowhere to escape to even if they could. On the other hand those arguing against a cease-fire seem to be mainly focused on the idea that Hamas (the political group running Gaza, which will likely remain in power until removed by some force internal or external) will continue to commit atrocities and intentionally hurt civilians until they are stopped, and that a cease-fire is effectively putting innocent civilians in harm's way through inaction. The argument is that Hamas is hell bent on hurting people and will continue to do so until forcibly stopped. The unfortunate reality is that there's probably truth to both sides of that debate. Continued attacks on Gaza will almost certainly means more civilian deaths, but as far as I can tell Hamas whole identity and goal seems to be taken back the entire land by force and seems to prefer the more inhumane strategies for doing so.

I think there is a lot of reason to be concerned about the conditions that civilians in Gaza have been living in under the Israeli blockade and I think that needs to be addressed, but I also see that as a closely related but separate issue. It wasn't really the people of Gaza that staged the terrorist attacks a few weeks ago, it was Hamas, and while Hamas is among the people of Gaza and holds control of Gaza that doesn't mean they are interchangeable or that they are acting out of the interest of the people of Gaza. Of course mixed up in all of this is the right to self determination. Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza (about 15 years ago, with no elections since, and was not elected to a majority but simply the largest percentage among multiple groups, but still seem to hold wide support among the people of Gaza), and by going in and effectively eliminating the political movement that the people of Gaza have elected does raise some ethical questions as well. I think those questions are a lot smaller (especially considering the lack of elections since they came into power), but it's worth at least pondering how that fits in. I'm not sure where exactly I was going with this paragraph, just that there are deeper issues that still need to be resolved but those may need to come after addressing the most immediate conflict.

Rex wrote:

I have 3 strong dislikes that all have been invoked by this:
(I) Devil's advocacy. It usually ends up on a trajectory for going pro se with extra steps.
 

Personally, I agree with your reasoning, but disagree with the sentiment as a whole. I can appreciate that sometimes "playing devil's advocate" is cover for sharing a controversial opinion without having to take ownership of it. On the other hand, it's also kind of the core of the Socratic method if I understand it correctly: question and challenge everything, look at the opposite point of view and verify that the original view was valid by basically arguing against it as much as possible.


Zero, your 2AM rant was indeed coherent, and insightful as well. It was also a little light in the "hope" department, but that seems to just be a reality of this entire situation. Pretty much every angle we can look at it from is tragic and worrying. That seems to be the one thing that just about everyone agrees on.

Unfortunately with this conflict there is an enduring belligerency in various Muslim groups going on now over 100 years - that have seemingly wanted to keep those lands under Islamic control ever since they lost them to the Brits in WW1. My concerns is as long as major elements within disputing parties wants nothing less than the destruction of the other, then nothing anyone can do will satisfy them short of meeting their demand.... and so when it's an untenable demand it just perpetuates ongoing conflict. That is the first and main problem IMO, the rest seem to have more to do with Palestine being unable or unwilling to manage their own security be it internally (stopping their people attacking Israel) and externally (reaching stable border agreements with Israel) - with so many super wealthy Muslim countries in the region I've never known why they can't sort it out - not withstanding the first aforementioned problem (which be extension falls within the solution to the second problem!?).

It might be of note to remember Jews have lived there continuously for thousands of years, even during Islamic rule post 7th century, for example in 1914 while still under Ottoman Turk rule they numbered nearly 100,000 or 1/5th of the population, apparently. But according to Wikipedia lots of Jews left Palestine (after the Muslim armies invaded) in the 8th and 9th century because of discrimination by the recently invading Islamic armies.

So going back to when this started more recently, the Brits having control and authority over those lands post 1917/1922 saw them start progress on building a Jewish homeland - not instead of Muslims living there but alongside until an enduring solution could be created. Despite effectively (roughly speaking) being ruled by the Brits between 1917 and 1947, conflicts ensued. Some Muslim groups even sided with Nazi Germany in WW2 to that same end. When the UN proposed the two state solution under their Partition Plan in 1947 the Jews accepted it but the Arabs rejected it and started decades long string of campaigns to destroy Israel.

Today the issue is the same, but a bit different, but the same at its root drivers IMO. So to me it seems more like a religious conflict than a political one.... certainly it's dressed up as a political one seemingly. AFAIK Hamas's stated reason for existence is the destruction of Israel and creation of an Islamic State over those lands... but I think its inaccurate to view it in a political context as per their narrative. Which is another point, I think its worthwhile trying to avoid either sides narrative as gospel.

But a conflict going on this long will have plenty of problems on both sides, as population increases, technology changes, and histories become bloodier. It's easy for both sides to find reasons to fight, whats hard is finding solutions. I think when in complex situations sometimes ya have to step away from the emotion as much as possible, step away from the tit for tat, and instead start looking for compromises by both sides.

Not only coherent and insightful but pointedly quick in cutting to the bone of the issue. Which I think is that a lot of conflicts are played out on different levels. There is a political level of mostly theater where there "idea" of the conflict is planted, germinates, and is fueled by rhetoric. On this level, the conflict still exists but is fought with words. If this fight happens in temples and mosques without the other side represented, that side almost cannot lose and therefore it is easy to commit hearts and minds and eventually recruit actual bodies. Therefore, every wrong done by one side to the other serves as a recruiting tool and it is often the religious leaders, using the idea of God and of divine justice, to not only justify the taking of land but then also revenge against those trying to take it or retake it.

But on the physical/military level, it boils down to survival and warm bodies are smashed into warm bodies until so many are cold that the two sides are too tired or weak to continue. The reasons at this level don't necessarily matter because it's simply kill or be killed.

I think that is why a cease fire is necessary. Because both sides have a lot of bodies as well as resources/energy to exhaust. Both want to prove they have the will to win but often people don't necessarily care about winning or what winning means or looks like. Survival IS winning. Therefore, the way both can win is to stop fighting and instead of fighting in different rooms with verbal ammunition, they need to fight with words in the same room where both sides can be fairly represented, express their fears, hurts, and anger, and find solutions that don't involve the utter annihilation of the other party. Then they need to negotiate peace.

What one party seems to think is that if they can cut the head off then they can simply use their own head to rule (force into submission) the other people and keep them from gaining enough strength to fight them again. However, it depends on the source of a conflict. If the source of the conflict is the desire of one man (a king) then you can kill the conflict by killing the king. The people's desire may not be the same. If the source of the conflict is a prophet, then there are other prophets that can rise or carry the same influence. The head can keep regrowing because the head was never connected to the body in the first place (like the all-seeing eye on the capstone). In this case, the people feel obligated because of their beliefs.  That's why these are the conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years. It may sound impossible and terrible but sometimes gods need to be killed in order to bring real salvation to their people.

Master Adder, I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the insights. I do disagree with the idea that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is an issue of a border agreement as it is far more than the Gaza/Israel border that Israel controls. They also control the airspace and coastline as well. Even the border between Gaza and Egypt was established via a treaty between Israel and Egypt and has had a significant amount of influence exerted on it by Israel even after they officially withdrew from Gaza, orchestrating the closing of that border in 2008, and controlling who can and can't cross there through it's Palestinian registry since then. It does seem that part of the issue with the Egypt/Gaza border also stems from Egypt's dislike for Hamas leadership which is in part of the internal/external security issues you mentioned, but that wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if Israel wasn't already exerting some control over the border with Egypt and total control over the airspace and coastline. It really is a blockade more than a border agreement issue at that point. Of course even in all of this, it does still come back to the militant/combative nature of Hamas and the fact that they have had control internally within the borders since first elected, and there has been no mechanism for them to be ousted by the people of Gaza even if they wanted to, which all flows into the other point I found interesting:

ZealotX wrote:

What one party seems to think is that if they can cut the head off then they can simply use their own head to rule (force into submission) the other people and keep them from gaining enough strength to fight them again. However, it depends on the source of a conflict. If the source of the conflict is the desire of one man (a king) then you can kill the conflict by killing the king. The people's desire may not be the same. If the source of the conflict is a prophet, then there are other prophets that can rise or carry the same influence. The head can keep regrowing because the head was never connected to the body in the first place (like the all-seeing eye on the capstone). In this case, the people feel obligated because of their beliefs.  That's why these are the conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years. It may sound impossible and terrible but sometimes gods need to be killed in order to bring real salvation to their people.
 

This seems hit the core of the cease-fire debate. Is the source of the conflict the desire of a king (or party that is in power) who has, as previously mentioned, stated their core reason for being as the total destruction of Israel? If that head is cut off will the conflict die down enough that cooler heads and diplomatic efforts have a chance? Are the people's desire sufficiently different that the removal of the head would remove much of the conflict? Or is this just a natural and inevitable manifestation of the deeper desires of the people and culture and cutting off the head will only at best temporarily delay the conflict? The argument against the cease-fire seems to be that it is Hamas that is the big issue, and that peace cannot happen so long as Hamas remains, and once Hamas is gone there is hope for peace. On the other hand, the argument for a cease-fire seems to be exactly what you've been proposing: this is a deeper conflict that won't be resolved simply by cutting off the head of the latest manifestation of the conflict and the only way to resolve it is by getting to that deeper conflict and resolving that first. In this argument, the sentiment seems to be that eliminating Hamas itself won't really make a big difference and is going to cost far too many civilian lives in the process of accomplishing very little in the bigger picture.

The question then perhaps becomes: what would things look like if Hamas were successfully eliminated? Who would take power in the region? Would it be the unpopular but more diplomatically favorable Fatah, or would one of the other smaller parties rise from the ashes of Hamas to take power? If so, how antagonistic or diplomatic would that new group be? What would change with the economic/border situation following the elimination of Hamas? Would the people of Gaza finally have the freedom they desire or would Israel continue to blockade the territory and limit its economic potential, and if so will that just foster new parties to rise and repeat the cycle of violence once again?

Two interesting observations I've made in this conversation (and more accurately my own side research throughout it) is that of Egypt's relationship with Hamas, and that of Hamas and Fatah's relationship with current public opinion. One of the reasons why Egypt has been stingy with opening its border over the last several years is disagreements with Hamas and not wanting anyone from Hamas at the border. Egypt in general is more allied with Palestinians than Israel, but Hamas control has shifted them toward policies that are more favorable to Israel. On some level that suggests that Hamas really is the problem, and if they were removed some of the other issues would themselves at least be reduced considerably. On the other hand, it isn't Hamas that has stopped a new election from happening. In fact they are very critical of the Palestinian Authority's president for not holding new elections, which is largely because Fatah who currently holds the majority in the PA has lost a lot of popularity, and a new election would likely hand more power to Hamas, probably giving them control of the West Bank as well. That seems to suggest that Hamas is not the problem but a manifestation of the people being fed up with the iron fist they feel they are under and are eager to have leaders who will fight back and do whatever it takes to win their freedom. That indicates that it is not Hamas and eliminating Hamas will not fix the issues and the underlying issues must themselves be fixed first. I think this also puts the video previously shared by Master Adder in an especially interesting light as it cuts to the core of what Hamas really want and what things might look like if a cease-fire does happen. What isn't as clear to me is what would happen if a cease-fire doesn't happen and Hamas is eliminated. Who would fill that void created?

Cornilion Seadragon wrote:

Master Adder, I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the insights. I do disagree with the idea that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is an issue of a border agreement as it is far more than the Gaza/Israel border that Israel controls. They also control the airspace and coastline as well. Even the border between Gaza and Egypt was established via a treaty between Israel and Egypt and has had a significant amount of influence exerted on it by Israel even after they officially withdrew from Gaza, orchestrating the closing of that border in 2008, and controlling who can and can't cross there through it's Palestinian registry since then. 


 

Didn't Israeli control of the Gaza border with Egypt effectively stop in 2011?

Israel's direct control of that crossing ceased, yes, but they have continued to exert influence on the crossing indirectly through a number of means.

The first is that Israel still controls the Palestinian population registry, and many Palestinians in Gaza have been unable to get IDs or passports which are issued by Israel and necessary in order to leave regardless of which border they are crossing, and even necessary in some cases to move from town to town across internal military checkpoints.

The second is the multiple attacks they have carried out on Rafah, the town the border crossing is in. Israel bombed this town in 2014 shutting down the border crossing (Israel said they were destroying the tunnel system in the town), and again just a couple days ago did a large strike on Rafah complicating any passage through the Rafah border crossing.

The third is that Egypt, not wanting to see relations with Israel sour any more than necessary, have largely been following Israel's lead on what good and population can cross the border. The only goods that cross are construction materials and food, and on multiple occasions specific demographics (like men younger than 40) have been barred from crossing. Most recently Egypt blamed Israel for the closing of the Rafah crossing during the current conflict as well. Because Egypt has been trying to act as a mediator between Israel and Palestine, they have been cautious of any activity that might piss off Israel.

The fourth influence is through the pressure that Israel puts on that crossing by cutting off all other potential ports of entry. Israel controls any other way in or out of Gaza by land via Israel, by air, and by sea. This means any refugees trying to leave Gaza would pour into Egypt (which Egypt doesn't really want) since they can't leave any other way. Being the sole port of entry not directly controlled by Israel also means that any activity permitted there that Israel itself wouldn't permit would quickly earn Israel's ire. If there were multiple ports of entry it would put a lot less political pressure on that one crossing, but since there aren't it becomes a political firestorm causing an extraordinary amount of caution by Egypt.

All of these issues just compound the fact that Egypt itself has some political instability and change in regime in Egypt has led to temporary border closures in the past, and the fact that Egypt itself doesn't like or trust Hamas has meant that even when Israel isn't interfering with people crossing this border it can be unpredictable with it only seeming to be open about half the time from what I can tell. Since Gaza doesn't control any of its own ports of entry (including air or sea ports) and all other ports of entry are controlled by Israel who is very restrictive, the largely unstable Rafah crossing becomes the only way in or out and the unpredictability with that port makes it difficult for people to be able to reliably come and go as needed.

Because of all of this, Israel may not be directly controlling that crossing anymore, but they are still exerting a lot of indirect influence on who, what, and when people/goods can cross and still gets in the way of Gaza having a predictable port of entry/exit. There are certainly both internal and external security issues and those are no small part of why the Rafah crossing is complicated and unpredictable (Egypt, for example, won't accept Hamas forces manning the border, only Palestinian Authority, because they don't trust Hamas, and some of the restrictions at the border are out of concern for security in the Egyptian controlled Sinai peninsula), but the larger issue restricting passage in and out of the the Gaza territory is still Israel's blockade and influence on Gaza, which would remain a significant hurdle even if the security concerns were removed. The fact that Palestinians are reliant on Israel to get IDs and other paperwork needed to cross and that there have been significant issues for a lot of people trying to get IDs itself is a huge way that Israel continues to control all border crossings even as they officially withdrew from controlling the crossing into Egypt.

Is there a way to rescue Palestinian LGBTQ couples from the Isreal-Hamas war? Many Palestinians fled to Isreal to escape persecution over the years just for being gay?
Because the Gay Palestinian refugees already have a strong community in Isreal, I find the “open air prison” argument rather sus. 

https://www.jta.org/2023/10/25/ideas/the-abandonment-of-israel-by-lgbt-groups-is-hypocritical-and-cruel

https://www.haaretz.com/life/2022-09-22/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-tragedy-of-queer-palestinians-now-on-stage/00000183-65d3-db87-a18f-67ff48420000

I haven't seen anything about specifically LGBT+ persecution in this conflict. Also from demographic data I was able to find, Palestine and Israel have ~0 and 8.5% LGBT+ populations respectively, so I don't see this as a conflict with high risks in general. Israel has a very interesting pluralistic approach to these issues predating this which leads to certain centers (e.g. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya) being more LGBT-friendly; these areas aren't too proximate to the conflict either.
I also would caution reading those articles as gospel given that Haaretz is a fun mix of socially liberal but hawkish on Israel's FP.
I think also relevant to this conflict is that it took place right when Saudi-Israel normalization had viability. I'd highly recommend listening to War on the Rocks' recent pair of podcast episodes if you want a tactical deep dive into the context and facts undergirding this conflict.

Thanks, I’ll totally check Haaretz out.
Fog of war is pretty daunting to say the least.