Israel/Palestine

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Israel/Palestine

(Thread IKs: Main Paineframe, Irony Be My Shield, punishedkissinger)

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Raenir Salazar posted:

This is actually not true, even the 1945 Strategic Bombing Survey which is often cited as evidence of the strategic bombing campaigns ineffectiveness actually very clearly shows how strategic bombing was effective in reducing Germany's output; some war industries were more disrupted than others, but more recent research, for example by Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction, believes strategic bombing was a critical aspect of the Allied war effort but often undercut by the wrong targets being selected.

https://adamtooze.com/2017/07/12/modern-history-world-war-ii-strategic-bombing-liberal-democratic-mode-war/

http://ww2history.com/experts/Adam_Tooze/Most_mistaken_decision_of_WW2

edit to clarify upon rereading your post: Or rather I suppose it is correct to say they turned towards civilian targets because they thought it wasn't effective enough, but at least in hindsight the war probably would've ended in 44' if they kept attacking Germany's war economy like the Ruhr region instead of Berlin, but incorrect to say that the bombers weren't militarily useful.

The Ruhr region was also a civilian target. Even in the Ruhr, strategic bombing didn't mean pinpoint-targeting munitions factories - it meant conducting mass bombing of entire towns and cities in hopes that mass "de-housing" of civilians would disrupt Germany's political and economic ability to continue fighting. And of course the bombing of the Ruhr was capped off with Operation Chastise, the destruction of several dams. I'll let the Imperial War Museum summarize that one:

quote:

On the ground, almost 1,300 people were killed in the resulting flooding. Although the impact on industrial production was limited, the raid gave a significant morale boost to the people of Britain.

And while we're pulling info from the Imperial War Museum, let's see how it presented the strategic bombing campaign in general:

quote:

Accepting that precision bombing was proving impossible, the War Cabinet sanctioned 'area bombing' � the targeting of whole cities to destroy both factories and their workers. It was judged necessary to defeat an enemy that seemed on the brink of victory.

And that's a source that was favorable toward the RAF efforts. "Destroy both factories and their workers" is, of course, a euphemism - it was indiscriminate targeting of cities, in the hopes that if they killed everyone they could and wrecked everything they could, the factory workers would end up just as dead as everyone else. The Imperial War Museum even includes photos of the destruction of Hamburg:

If those don't look much like wrecked factories, that's right. Here's the caption that was under that image:

quote:

Oblique aerial view of ruined residential and commercial buildings south of the Stadtpark (seen at upper right) in the Eilbek district of Hamburg, Germany. These were among the 16,000 multi-storeyed apartment buildings destroyed by the firestorm which developed during the raid by Bomber Command on the night of 27/28 July 1943 (Operation GOMORRAH). The road running diagonally from upper left to lower right is Eilbeker Weg.

Let's look at how a more neutral source, National Geographic, presents the burning of Hamburg:

quote:

When the flames finally died down a week after the first bombs fell over Hamburg, the magnitude of destruction was like nothing the world had ever seen. A total of 9,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and at least 37,000 people were dead. More than 60 percent of the city�s housing was gone. It had been the most destructive battle of the war thus far. In the days that followed, nearly a million people fled Hamburg; meanwhile, concentration camp prisoners were brought to the city to dig graves and clean up.

Germany was stunned. Although Nazi officials publicly accused the Allies of war crimes and milked the bombing for propaganda value, they were privately shaken. Meanwhile, the campaign was praised by the Allies as a much-needed success.

Was Operation Gomorrah justified?
The Allies� willingness to decimate an entire city�and tens of thousands of its civilians�presaged not just their eventual victory but also the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Nor did the Allies stop targeting Hamburg, whose war industry largely recovered within months. (For Hiroshima�s survivors, memories of the bomb are impossible to forget.)

But area bombing�s fiery debut still generates debate among historians, who wonder whether the tactic was justified by Germany�s commitment to total war�and whether it truly achieved its objectives. The hoped-for destruction of German morale never materialized. Instead, the bombings revealed the resiliency of the German people and the Nazi state�s determination to fight to the bitter end.

Yeah, I suppose factory operations slow down a bit when you burn down literally half the city, killing tens of thousands and turning a million people into internal refugees. It was certainly effective at shaking the morale among German leadership, who were shocked by the extent of the destruction - but despite Speer's dire predictions about the impact, factory output returned to nearly pre-bombing levels within a few months.

As for the 1945 Strategic Bombing Survey, I'll just quote directly from its actual report:

quote:

Because the German economy through most of the war was substantially undermobilized, it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in trade channels and consumers' possession were also high. These helped cushion the people of the German cities from the effects of bombing. Plant and machinery were plentiful and incompletely used. Thus it was comparatively easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed. While there was constant pressure throughout for German manpower for the Wehrmacht, the industrial labor supply, as augmented by foreign labor, was sufficient to permit the diversion of large numbers to the repair of bomb damage or the clearance of debris with relatively small sacrifice of essential production.

It even comes with specific examples! Here, we'll pick one that was specifically focused on targeting industry, heavily concentrating its attacks on heavily concentrated industrial plants during good conditions for accurate targeting:

quote:

The German anti-friction bearing industry was heavily concentrated. When the attack began, approximately half the output came from plants in the vicinity of Schweinfurt. An adequate supply of bearings was correctly assumed to be indispensable for German war production.

In a series of raids beginning on August 17, 1943, about 12,000 tons of bombs were dropped on this target-about one-half of one per cent of the total tonnage delivered in the air war. In an attack on August 17 by 200 B-17's on Schweinfurt, the plants were severely damaged. Records of the industry taken by the Survey (and supplemented and checked by interrogation) show that production of bearings at this center was reduced sharply-September production was 35% of the pre-raid level. In this attack 36 of the 200 attacking planes were lost. In the famous and much discussed second attack on October 14, 1943, when the plants were again severely damaged, one of the decisive air battles of the war took place. The 228 bombers participating were strongly attacked by German fighters when beyond the range of their fighter escort. Losses to fighters and to flak cost the United States forces 62 planes with another 138 damaged in varying degree, some beyond repair. Repeated losses of this magnitude could not be sustained; deep penetrations without escort, of which this was among the earliest, were suspended and attacks on Schweinfurt were not renewed for four months. The Germans made good use of the breathing spell. A czar was appointed with unlimited priority for requisitioning men and materials. Energetic steps were taken to disperse the industry. Restoration was aided by the circumstances-which Survey investigations show to have been fairly common to all such raidsthat machines and machine tools were damaged far less severely than factory structures. German equipment was redesigned to substitute other types of bearings wherever possible. And the
Germans drew on the substantial stocks that were on hand. Although there were further attacks, production by the autumn of 1944 was back to pre-raid levels. From examination of the records and personalities and the testimony of war production officials, there is no evidence that the attacks on the ball-bearing industry had any measurable effect on essential war production.

The SBS does say that targeted attacks against specific crucial infrastructure (mostly oil and transportation) were far more effective, but those didn't really get going until after D-Day, by which point Germany was already firmly on the back foot.

Similarly, the Pacific War section concludes that targeted attacks against transportation infrastructure would have done more economic damage than bombing of urban areas, and the city bombing owed much of its economic impact to its impact on the city's labor force (i.e., the civilian workers).

# ? Nov 1, 2023 02:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 11:43

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

An outrageous poll results broadcast on MSNBC
https://x.com/Bilalbay/status/1719520725663387773?s=20

And that's from a couple weeks ago, it's has to be larger now. Regardless, how is President Biden think ignoring this is a good idea?

# ? Nov 1, 2023 04:05

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Young Freud posted:

An outrageous poll results broadcast on MSNBC
https://x.com/Bilalbay/status/1719520725663387773?s=20

And that's from a couple weeks ago, it's has to be larger now. Regardless, how is President Biden think ignoring this is a good idea?

Other polls don't back up those results, largely because this one was a lovely push poll. Here's the actual poll question:

I did a post explaining why it's a lovely question over in USCE:

Main Paineframe posted:

Now, on the subject of this particular poll: that is one hell of a push-poll question right there. It's heavily loaded, with the clear intention of influencing people to answer in a particular direction. I thought Data for Progress (despite being a known political advocacy group with strong ideological motivations) was better than that, at least when it comes to its actual polling. I don't think I've ever seen a poll question quite so dedicated to influencing its own answer, though I'll admit that I don't usually read polls from right-wing thinktanks. I'm actually going to take a break from electoralism talk and pick apart this question for us, because it is practically a dictionary example of a push polling question.

First of all, this is actually asking a number of different things, all combined into a single question. It asks if the US should call for a ceasefire in Gaza, it asks if the US should call for "a de-escalation of violence in Gaza", and it asks whether the US should "leverage its close diplomatic relationship with Israel to prevent further violence and civilian deaths". Those are all separate things, but the question intentionally lumps them together to link them in the voters' minds. That people are likely to say yes to "preventing civilian deaths", in a vacuum, isn't actually useful information. Plenty of Americans said "yes" to preventing civilian casualties while supporting aggressive and bloody invasions in the War on Terror.

Moreover, if you discard your preconceived notions and look at the question closely from the standpoint of somebody who doesn't really know what's going on in Gaza right now, you'll see that the question is actually quite vague, and intentionally so. Just from reading the question alone, with no prior knowledge to fall back on other than the basic American mainstream perception of the Palestinian situation to what is happening in Gaza, you would come away with a drastically misleading interpretation of what's going on. All the question really says is that there's some violence going on in Gaza and that the US has a close diplomatic relationship with Israel. It clearly avoids words and phrases that might increase the chances of a negative response from respondents, while going out of its way to load up the question with words and phrases that might increase the chances of a positive response. It doesn't tell readers who's responsible for the violence or who the ceasefire would be between; in fact, it carefully avoids linking Israel to the violence, and it doesn't mention "Hamas" or "Palestinians" at all. And of course, Americans are always ready to say yes to "preventing civilian deaths" in the abstract, even though in practice they hardly see any reason for a first-world country to stop bombing Arabs over it.

For someone who doesn't know in detail what Israel's been doing since Oct 7th, the question could very easily be misinterpreted as a call for a ceasefire to stop Hamas violence against Israeli civilians. After all, that's the default American assumption about how things go in the Middle East, and the poll carefully avoids correcting them on that misunderstanding. At no point does the question clearly state that it's talking about a ceasefire to stop Israel's violence. With how heavily Data For Progress loaded their question, it's no shock that they also got a lot fewer "Don't Know" responses than YouGov's series of Israel/Palestine questions did.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 04:10

BUUNNI: Jun 23, 2023; by Pragmatica

https://twitter.com/artan_ayan/status/1719453324284452944

Not sure if this was posted or not? Either way, powerful condemnation of the genocide being perpetrated by a UN official that resigned.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 04:52

Lord Lambeth: Dec 7, 2011

BougieBitch posted:

(I'm not Jewish and I'm originally from a US state with so little Jewish population that I can only recall knowing one Jewish person from 0 to 18, so recognize that is my context for understanding how things play out in the real world and take my opinion with a large pile of salt)

The post you were replying to is talking about the press reporting on and government responding to the protests, hence "your own Jewish citizens". The reason it is antisemitic is because it plays into the extremely old "stateless Jew" stereotypes from pre-WWII Europe. There is absolutely no reason why anti-Semitism has to be a conscious bias any more than racism or sexism has to be a conscious bias. These stereotypes of Jews = foreign, whether by calling them stateless prior to the modern era or conflating them with Israelis in the period since the 60s are still otherizing and still tie in to all the global Jewish conspiracy theories and such.

The litmus test for whether something is incorporating antisemitic tropes is to substitute "China", "Saudi Arabian" or "Russia" for "Israel" and "Asian, "Arab", or "Eastern European" for "Jewish" and see if people would still say the same things. If they wouldn't, then you have to acknowledge that the otherizing frame is being used to conflate Israel with the Jewish diaspora on some level

Again, we are talking about press and government statements too, so consider whether the government would write in law that boycotting SA is anti-Arabic or anti-Muslim sentiment that is disqualifying for government contracts, or that sanctions against Russia are racially charged. The press in the UK at least would be sued instantly if they threw around accusations of racism as freely as they did anti-Semitism, and obviously no government is going to characterize their own actions in response to the invasion of Ukraine as motivated by hate for the Russian people. They absolutely know better, and to the degree that Israel is a blind spot for them it is pretty clearly systemic in the same way that different reporting about white and black victims is the result of systemic racism.

Don't forget that discrimination isn't always about strictly NEGATIVE stereotypes, it also includes model minority issues

Edit: the most insidious anti-Semitism, and one that I find myself falling in to on many occasions, is assuming that people who are Jewish have a strong reason to care one way or the other about Israel. In a lot of ways, the discourse on this issue mirrors how people talk about the waves of Cuban immigration and how that relates to their personal views on the embargo, but that context MAKES SENSE. They have a personal stake in the outcome because they once lived there, and they have relatives either living or dead still there.

By contrast, very few Jewish-Americans "came from" Israel. Some percentage went there for a tourist trip in their teens or 20s, in much the same way that plenty of people in America take trips to Europe, Canada, or Mexico for similar lengths of time. Nothing about that gives them any insight into Israeli politics or any particular investment in the Middle East. My husband has distant relatives in Germany and took a trip to visit them once - that doesn't give any particular insight into past or present German politics.

The majority of Jewish-Americans have been in America for multiple generations, and to the extent they have an inherited national identity it is more likely to be Polish or Russian than Israeli. They are more New Yorker or Bostonian than they are anything else. It's ridiculous to constantly put a microphone in their face and ask for their opinion on recent protests against Israel, but time and again it happens.

I can offer some perspective here.

I come from a Jewish family, but also a Scottish one. Both of my parents immigrated to America within their own life time. I've spent most of my life in the Americas, whether it is Canada or America proper. So I probably fit into the Jewish-American category in some sense. But I have had many visits with my family in europe over the years. I also have had family in europe who have immigrated to israel within my life time, directly because of antisemitism they felt that they experienced in the country in which they lived.

I have visited israel, once. But it was done with family, not through birthright or anything like that. I think that led to my experience of israel probably being better than some other jews. I would say I do have some connection with israel, enough that I was a bit rattled when the attack happened.

This is an extraordinarily difficult thing to generalize here. This is my personal experience. Every jewish person I've met has had a different relationship with their jewish identity.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 04:57

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

MikeC posted:

Gaza will likely never be solved by either the Palestinians or Israelis alone.

Why can't Gaza be solved by Israel, since they are the ones that instituted the world's largest open air prison, creating the conditions for the extremism they lament? There's plenty of other examples of terrorism wielding indigenous fighters shifting to solely political entities. Why can't it happen here? Especially compared to the alternative of a US led occupation that you have to stretch back to WWII to find any successful example of (and there largely "succeeded" by reinstating the previous regime and its participants).

# ? Nov 1, 2023 05:09

mannerup: Jan 11, 2004; ♬ I Know You're Dying Trying To Figure Me Out♬

♬My Name's On The Tip Of Your Tongue Keep Running Your Mouth♬

♬You Want The Recipe But Can't Handle My Sound My Sound My Sound♬

♬No Matter What You Do Im Gonna Get It Without Ya♬

♬ I Know You Ain't Used To A Female Alpha♬

mannerup fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Nov 5, 2023

# ? Nov 1, 2023 05:30

i fly airplanes: Sep 6, 2010; I STOLE A PIE FROM ESTELLE GETTY

Lord Lambeth posted:

I can offer some perspective here.

I come from a Jewish family, but also a Scottish one. Both of my parents immigrated to America within their own life time. I've spent most of my life in the Americas, whether it is Canada or America proper. So I probably fit into the Jewish-American category in some sense. But I have had many visits with my family in europe over the years. I also have had family in europe who have immigrated to israel within my life time, directly because of antisemitism they felt that they experienced in the country in which they lived.

I have visited israel, once. But it was done with family, not through birthright or anything like that. I think that led to my experience of israel probably being better than some other jews. I would say I do have some connection with israel, enough that I was a bit rattled when the attack happened.

This is an extraordinarily difficult thing to generalize here. This is my personal experience. Every jewish person I've met has had a different relationship with their jewish identity.

Not to mention that it is a Jewish state with an open policy for Jews�a home for Jews no matter where they have been persecuted. They have a minister for diaspora. Near a quarter of Israelis are dual citizens. For people to treat Israel as some monolith is just ignorant, and the double standard is horribly apparent when they give Hamas (let alone Palestine) benefit of the doubt. Take for example, the poster that differentiated between "the soup kitchen Hamas member" versus "the Hamas military paraglider". And in this same thread, ones that blame Israelis for 'deserving' it by their sole existence as occupiers�or worse, by 'stupidly' attending a music festival.

It's deeply an emotional thing and every Jewish person I know has been upset at the sequence of events�no matter which side they support.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 06:51

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Having been horrified by the whole saga over the past few weeks, I'm trying to understand where it could possibly redirect towards any sort of progress.

I've been trying to understand recent history as best as I can, freely admitting I lack nuanced knowledge. Reading up on articles from the ceasefire in Spring/Summer 2021, the eventual renewal of hostilities and conflict (though undoubtedly on a much smaller scale than now), followed by another ceasefire in August 2022; I'm trying to imagine what Israel would accept. I can't imagine they'd agree to a ceasefire without the immediate release of the hostages, but would Hamas agree to that? I really doubt so. In 2021 articles I read listed one of Hamas's demands being the freeing of Qatari funds to pay for civil servants in Gaza. Presuming this is Hamas administration, I can't imagine anything like that being in the picture. Would Israel agree to any sort of ceasefire that presupposes some sort of return to status quo ante? I think they want Hamas gone and I'm not convinced that even the United States publicly humiliating Israel and denying arms transfers is going to stop them from pursuing that.

That's a separate issue from demanding it on moral grounds anyway, don't get me wrong. I'm just really trying to understand, ceasefire and then what. Ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid and then, stalemate for hostage negotiations? An election cycle that hopefully topples Netanyahu and then everyone tries to negotiate with new players? It all seems so untenable, ceasefire after ceasefire, taking of hostages, then another ceasefire. With temperature only ever going up. The 2021 articles I was reading had a lot of cynical quotes about skepticism for the 2021 ceasefire even then and the doubts were sadly borne out. It is difficult not to despair.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 07:16

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

i fly airplanes posted:

Not to mention that it is a Jewish state with an open policy for Jews—a home for Jews no matter where they have been persecuted.

This very thing is what makes Israel an ethnostate. They are actively committing genocide and apartheid for their goal of Zionism - the benefit of Jews above all others. And you keep saying it like it's a good thing and not an abject tragedy.

Do you think that only Jews can be persecuted? Do you think that the persecution of Jews gives Israel carte blanche to persecute others? Where is the limit?

# ? Nov 1, 2023 07:34

Argas: Jan 13, 2008; SRW Fanatic

I feel like the awful PR campaign is in part to have some schadenfreude by discrediting the western world because our governments are doing their best to show how they're all contorting themselves to support Israel.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 1, 2023 07:56

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

Argas posted:

I feel like the awful PR campaign is in part to have some schadenfreude by discrediting the western world because our governments are doing their best to show how they're all contorting themselves to support Israel.

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. The Western world is intentionally loving up PR for comic relief purposes? Hamas has an awful PR campaign aimed at making the West look stupid? The West wants to not have terrible PR but their crippling Israel addiction is forcing them to slam their own dick in the drawer?

Maybe I'm too tired, but I'm having trouble following your statement.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 08:03

Elden Lord Godfrey: Mar 4, 2022

The Rules Based International Order is loving dead. Irrevocably, permanently so. Sure it used to go into finger wagging tizzies when sovereign nations do typical state repression poo poo within their borders, but if the Rules Based International Order actively fuels and abets a genocide performed by its members, what reason is there to exist?

The absurd PR bullshit thrown out there is its death throes. No one should ever let yourself be lectured to by some media nepotite upset that truth has been fragmented into dozens of competing narratives, not when it actively dehumanizes the victims of a genocide and cries foul at people who oppose that genocide.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 08:15

Szarrukin: Sep 29, 2021

i fly airplanes posted:

Not to mention that it is a Jewish state with an open policy for Jews�a home for Jews no matter where they have been persecuted.

At least you admit that Israel is an ethnostate, although for some reason you think it is a good thing?

quote:

It's deeply an emotional thing and every Jewish person I know has been upset at the sequence of events�no matter which side they support.

"We commit war crimes, but it makes us very sad" is not really as good argument as you think it is.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 1, 2023 08:42

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

The UN has been a useless congregation for as long as I can remember since Kosovo - like just idle as gently caress and when something does happen "Oh that's terrible, time for Lunch recess."

It's also the kind of performative juncture where people can put stars of David on their suits and not be asked "what the gently caress are you doing?"

Diet Crack fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Nov 1, 2023

# ? Nov 1, 2023 08:43

CeeJee: Dec 4, 2001; Oven Wrangler

Szarrukin posted:

At least you admit that Israel is an ethnostate, although for some reason you think it is a good thing?

An ethnostate is where only one group can become citizens. Which is not the case.

Treating different ethnicities differently is not an ethnostate, for instance a non-Jordanian woman married to a Jordanian can become a citizen after 3 years if she's an Arab and after 5 if she is not.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 08:50

I said come in!: Jun 22, 2004

i fly airplanes posted:

Not to mention that it is a Jewish state with an open policy for Jews�a home for Jews no matter where they have been persecuted.

Except that the reality is that many jews are still persecuted in Israel by their own people. Israel in reality is only accepting of specific groups of jews.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 09:03

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

CeeJee posted:

An ethnostate is where only one group can become citizens. Which is not the case.

It may not be, but it's what certain figures want.
https://twitter.com/ettingermentum/status/1719395340644659534

# ? Nov 1, 2023 09:16

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

CeeJee posted:

An ethnostate is where only one group can become citizens. Which is not the case.

This is way too strict a definition. According to this Australia under the White Australia policy wasn't an ethno-state because Māori were exempt.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 09:34

Sri.Theo: Apr 16, 2008

I feel like there are good reasons for Jews to want a dedicated state. The Yazdis, and various Christian groups in the region would probably be better off if they had one as well.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 09:53

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

Sri.Theo posted:

I feel like there are good reasons for Jews to want a dedicated state. The Yazdis, and various Christian groups in the region would probably be better off if they had one as well.

For some reason I feel like repeating the mistakes of the past isn't going to suddenly resolve things. Who's next to have their land taken, Lebanon? Just need a regional/global scale war to get the ball rolling...

# ? Nov 1, 2023 09:56

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Sri.Theo posted:

I feel like there are good reasons for Jews to want a dedicated state. The Yazdis, and various Christian groups in the region would probably be better off if they had one as well.

The bigger takeaway is probably just how bad failed/failing states are more than that ethnostates are the way to go.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 09:58

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

I mean, when two thousand years of varying degrees of oppression culminates in the Holocaust, it's pretty easy to see why many Jewish people felt that a homeland of their own was an absolute imperative. I had a Jewish friend a few years ago and we got to talking about I/P now and then, and during (I think) Cast Lead I asked him why Israel was so insistent on itself and went about its defense in such a way, why was Israel so hostile to genuine international mediation or the like. His reply was succinct: "What happened the last time we trusted our safety to others?"

I don't think this is a justification for how Israel acts, to be clear; it's both morally atrocious and absolutely counterproductive. My own conclusions lead me in totally the opposite direction, and I believe that we should be abolishing borders and creating a world where anyone of any creed and race is safe anywhere on its surface. And obviously this is not the sole or uppermost reasoning for many zionists. But it is a sincere consideration for at least some, and I have no idea how you even begin to crack through such a belief when it is rooted in so much historical experience.

Anyway a few years later he moved to Israel and joined a kibbutz so for all I know he got killed by Hamas a few weeks ago.

Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Nov 1, 2023

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:11

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

What do people think about the argument that Israel should have been established in Germany instead of in Palestine at the end of WW2?

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:20

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

Considering they already divvied it up with or without, It'd make some level of sense in a purely hypothetical scenario.

Then there's a list of underlying reasons why it wouldn't because nothing can ever be goddamn simple.

Diet Crack fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Nov 1, 2023

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:22

Collapsing Farts: Jun 29, 2018; ð

Shageletic posted:

Why can't Gaza be solved by Israel, since they are the ones that instituted the world's largest open air prison, creating the conditions for the extremism they lament? There's plenty of other examples of terrorism wielding indigenous fighters shifting to solely political entities. Why can't it happen here? Especially compared to the alternative of a US led occupation that you have to stretch back to WWII to find any successful example of (and there largely "succeeded" by reinstating the previous regime and its participants).

The scale of the conflict and the many decades it has spanned makes it very unlikely. This is generational hatred now

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:23

I said come in!: Jun 22, 2004

Dedicated states like Israel are clearly a terrible idea, but it also didnt help that the west propped them up with overwhelming military might and made Israel the most powerful actor in the region.

Stringent posted:

What do people think about the argument that Israel should have been established in Germany instead of in Palestine at the end of WW2?

We would just be right back where we started but in a different part of the world and a different group of people being oppressed.

I said come in! fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Nov 1, 2023

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:26

Hong XiuQuan: Feb 19, 2008; "Without justice for the Palestinians there will be no peace in the Middle East."

mannerup posted:

https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/1719548884555288901

Think it is important to put the above quote in context with what was said before, where a United States Senator is openly talking about the use of nuclear weapons as a proportional response.

I'm really worried about this sort of stuff increasing antisemitism. To the more conspiracy-minded when you see lines like "what about Dresden and Hiroshima" coming out from the Israeli Ambassador to Britain and then becoming more prevalent in state of Israel talking points only to *then* be used frequently by politicians and govt officials, it immediately results in "groups are controlling the messaging; have outsize power" etc rather than politicians desperately pandering to what they think voting blocs want by interpreting messaging from another state. It's profoundly problematic.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:32

I said come in!: Jun 22, 2004

Are these people calling on using nuclear weapons on Gaza? What would that even look like? I have no idea how modern nuclear weapons work and how powerful they actually are. If they are anything like the ones tested during the cold war though, then they are a last resort you only use when you dont care about the future of your country. Israel using one on Gaza would also be the end of Israel due to the radiation fallout.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:41

Collapsing Farts: Jun 29, 2018; ð

They have no need to use nukes, that would just be self destructive. They have air superiority already and if they wanted to level all of Gaza down to the last building they can already do so

# ? Nov 1, 2023 10:44

Zulily Zoetrope: Jun 1, 2011; Muldoon

Ms Adequate posted:

I mean, when two thousand years of varying degrees of oppression culminates in the Holocaust, it's pretty easy to see why many Jewish people felt that a homeland of their own was an absolute imperative. I had a Jewish friend a few years ago and we got to talking about I/P now and then, and during (I think) Cast Lead I asked him why Israel was so insistent on itself and went about its defense in such a way, why was Israel so hostile to genuine international mediation or the like. His reply was succinct: "What happened the last time we trusted our safety to others?"

I'm not sure what the counterargument is, either, other than the obvious ideological opposition to nationalism and discrimination, which doesn't really do anything to address anyone's concerns since we are powerless to implement it.

Building your ethnostate on top of an existing indigenous population, however, is absolutely unconscionable. It's also not gonna be a safe haven for anyone living there so long as it's still actively engaged in ethnic cleansing. Israel is a terrible answer.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 11:07

idontpost69: Jun 26, 2023

Zulily Zoetrope posted:

I'm not sure what the counterargument is, either, other than the obvious ideological opposition to nationalism and discrimination.

Israel geographically is a horrendous choice for Jewish security in a hostile world. It is a tiny, narrow strip of land surrounded by enemies that at best are temporarily stymied by the US's waning global reach.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 11:39

Slashrat: Jun 6, 2011; YOSPOS

Looking back with hindsight, "We failed to protect jewish people within our own borders from our own prejudices, so now we must carve out a chunk of the middle-east and send them there to live in a country of their own." kinda feels a bit too much for comfort like just another form of ethnic purge, only instead of using the stick of violence to drive people out, there's a dangling carrot of "You will be totally safe forever over there, promise!"

# ? Nov 1, 2023 11:45

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

# ? Nov 1, 2023 11:45

Argas: Jan 13, 2008; SRW Fanatic

KillHour posted:

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. The Western world is intentionally loving up PR for comic relief purposes? Hamas has an awful PR campaign aimed at making the West look stupid? The West wants to not have terrible PR but their crippling Israel addiction is forcing them to slam their own dick in the drawer?

Maybe I'm too tired, but I'm having trouble following your statement.

Nah, Israel is loving up PR. Not purely for comic relief but turning the Western world into a grotesque mockery of what it pretends to be (even more than before) is just to its benefit. Our governments and media outlets have already made themselves clowns for Israel and they're likely to double down any time this sort of thing happens instead of recanting or walking anything back.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 11:52

Nail Rat: Dec 29, 2000; You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!!

idontpost69 posted:

Israel geographically is a horrendous choice for Jewish security in a hostile world. It is a tiny, narrow strip of land surrounded by enemies that at best are temporarily stymied by the US's waning global reach.

Not that this was a consideration at the time, but it's also going to be somewhat early in the list of places that become useless due to climate change.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 12:04

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

Sri.Theo posted:

I feel like there are good reasons for Jews to want a dedicated state. The Yazdis, and various Christian groups in the region would probably be better off if they had one as well.

Jewish people are a lot safer in the US than they are in Israel.

And yeah Israel should've been carved out of some chunk of Europe. It's not like the Allies were sheepish about ethnically cleansing areas of Germans after the war.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 13:18

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

Sri.Theo posted:

I feel like there are good reasons for Jews to want a dedicated state. The Yazdis, and various Christian groups in the region would probably be better off if they had one as well.

Replace "Jews" with "white people" to see the obvious problems with this. Saying that different races/ethnicities/religions/whatever should have their own countries is an extremely common refrain from white supremacists and Nazis.

When a state has an explicit goal of preferring a group of people based on ancestry, you inevitably end up with caste systems, violence and subjugation of the out-group by the in-group. Wars inherently become crusades and creating an ethnostate in the first place requires ethnic cleansing unless you found it in the moon.

Groovelord Neato posted:

And yeah Israel should've been carved out of some chunk of Europe. It's not like the Allies were sheepish about ethnically cleansing areas of Germans after the war.

Here's a crazy idea - the lesson learned from the Holocaust shouldn't be "let's do the same thing again but switch the groups."

KillHour fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Nov 1, 2023

# ? Nov 1, 2023 13:30

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

No I meant it already occurred not that they should've done more of it.

# ? Nov 1, 2023 13:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 11:43

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

How would Germans complain about being displaced by Jews in the wake of WW2?

# ? Nov 1, 2023 13:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Israel/Palestine

«‹›721 »