Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[owlo]

Was trying to find the context for these numbers...
In Cast Lead, when the death ratio was ~100:1, US public support for Israel's military actions was 63%.
In 2014, when the death ratio was ~30:1, US public support was 57%.
This time, so far, the ratio is ~3:1, and with a far, far larger initial attack by Hamas. So I wonder if this poll is an outlier or there has been a shift.

(numbers for previous wars from here: https://www.jta.org/2014/07/23/unit...ent-of-americans-back-israel-in-gaza-conflict)

To paraphrase Ann selzer (a particularly good pollster and statistics wizard), the magic is in the framing of the question; where slight deviations can bring big changes.

I think the most interesting statistic there is that only 57% would send aid to the Palestinians, whereas 76% would send to isreal, when Palestinians clearly need it more.

it speaks to a lack of engagement in the topic by cbs viewers (probably), as well as a good 20% likely being very isolationist.

is cbs a dem or gop channel in viewership, and how radical does it lean?

 

[Cloud7]

It's disturbing how they do this repeatedly and can treat it like it's a video game where they're unlocking celebrity characters to help them on their quest.

The whole general vibe of demanding support/statements/solidarity from all sorts of governments, sporting bodies etc. has seemed really weird to me

 

[JagUTD]

Iran and the US have been going at it through proxies for 17 years in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, their support of drones to Russia for use against Ukraine, the US assassination of Suleimani etc. The Houthis just shot at a US ship in the past few days - so it would appear conflict with Iran will happen at some point.

I've always felt the Iranian government lacks the support of the Iranian public, so committing their armed forces to a direct battle with the US would leave them wide open to revolt and being overthrown.

 

[Red in STL]

To paraphrase Ann selzer (a particularly good pollster and statistics wizard), the magic is in the framing of the question; where slight deviations can bring big changes.

I think the most interesting statistic there is that only 57% would send aid to the Palestinians, whereas 76% would send to isreal, when Palestinians clearly need it more.

it speaks to a lack of engagement in the topic by cbs viewers (probably), as well as a good 20% likely being very isolationist.

is cbs a dem or gop channel in viewership, and how radical does it lean?

CBS is pretty centrist overall with a slight left bias I would say, certainly not a Dem or GOP station, it's not a cable news channel like Fox or CNN, more akin to ITV, BBC or Channel 4 news, and it's audience is much bigger than any cable show, you can say pretty much the same about NBC and ABC news as well

Edit: Should also add that hese national channels are actually local affilliates, they carry national news but also have local news and are owned by a lot of different groups

 

[berbatrick]

To paraphrase Ann selzer (a particularly good pollster and statistics wizard), the magic is in the framing of the question; where slight deviations can bring big changes.

I think the most interesting statistic there is that only 57% would send aid to the Palestinians, whereas 76% would send to isreal, when Palestinians clearly need it more.

it speaks to a lack of engagement in the topic by cbs viewers (probably), as well as a good 20% likely being very isolationist.

is cbs a dem or gop channel in viewership, and how radical does it lean?

I think many, many Americans do not want to help Muslims/terrorists, it is among the least surprising things in that poll.

 

[Raoul]

I've always felt the Iranian government lacks the support of the Iranian public, so committing their armed forces to a direct battle with the US would leave them wide open to revolt and being overthrown.

That's true. Sooner or later the US will have to deal with Iran, just like the Israelis are with Hamas, as the Iranians have a growing list of proxies in the region, which is itself odd for a regime that's struggling to remain afloat.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[NoPace]

I follow this thread but don't post much as I feel I am far less clued up on this than most of the posters here but something completely baffles me.

As far as I understand, Israel's reasoning behind the airstrikes and justification of killing Palestinian civilians has always been that Hamas hides within them, using them as human shields. They are collateral in this war. I don't agree with that at all but it seems this reason has been given. Then why has the West Bank accumulated over fifty deaths by Israeli forces? Hamas are not there, yet that area is being affected too.

Not gonna go into why but I have a very keen interest in the West Bank and would love someone to point me towards an article or video that explains why there are Israeli attacks on the West Bank?

This probably requires at least correction or 2, so someone please make any they have:.

Basically Israeli policy towards Gaza since Sharon disengaged has been to occupy the air and sea and blockade it and bomb it whenever rockets are fired or anything violent happens from Gaza to Israel.

Israeli policy towards the West Bank is to build settlements there and take over the land piece by piece, perhaps stopping at some point, leaving a bunch of West Bank towns/cities under the control of Fatah, with no voting rights in Israeli elections. The closest comparison I've seen is the Bantustans of South Africa, because in indigenous reserves in say Canada the residents can vote in Canadian federal elections.

The settlers in the West Bank have a pretty green light to launch attacks without Israeli state organs (police, IDF) stopping them, because the attacks and land grabs are consistent with Israeli state policy. The major political opposition to these attacks and land grabs is the Israeli center, illustrated by the figure of Gantz (in the coalition now, fairly good odds to be next PM), who has supported stopping the attacks and land grabs by settlers, though he is against giving back any of the settlements created so far.

So basically, the settlers on the ground and the right in Israel and some of the center want to keep creating new settlements/land grabs. The center mostly wants settlement creation/land grabs to be decided by the state, not the settlers on the ground, or not done anymore, but also no settlements made before today to be razed or have the Jewish population evicted from those places.

The West Bank is being taken piece by piece by settlers who are generally expansionist and believe Israel should control all lands they can make a biblical claim to, but don't want a one state solution where the Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections and can travel the country freely. They want the West Bank to be a mix of Israel, and Apartheid style Bantustans. The Netanyahu governments back them when they can get 61/120 seats without center votes and form a government, which they had before the War, but then they added in the center because Israeli convention is to be unified during a war, and likely also because the massive protests in Israel (Bibi and the right moved to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and Constitution) which meant the government was worried people wouldn't support the war effort unless someone like Gantz was in the war cabinet as well.

The center, like the center in many countries, doesn't love the right wing solution but doesn't oppose it, and effectively has no position on a long-term peace process, since that would mean either a one state solution (which they don't support) or a 2 state solution (which they sort of support in theory, but if they won't get rid of settlements, that would either be a state of patches of unconnected land (which I don't think has ever existed?) it would have to be only the Eastern half of the West Bank).

And in this specific case:
"Everything to the right" = more settlements in the West Bank, some of which are created via private settler attacks and some of which are state created.
"Block movement back to the left" = The state getting rid of those settlements.

 

[2cents]

Imagine a world without Hamas, that is the West Bank.

look at the West Bank for your answer. No Hamas or militants there

Not excusing anything the Israelis are doing in the West Bank, but I assume you guys simply mean that Hamas and/or PIJ are not in charge there? Because it’s not accurate to say they have no presence in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority have been struggling to contain them lately, especially in the north around Nablus and Jenin (PIJ are particularly well-rooted in the Jenin refugee camp).

 

[2cents]

That’s a very good summary @NoPace , I’d just expand on this bit -

The West Bank is being taken piece by piece by settlers who are generally expansionist and believe Israel should control all lands they can make a biblical claim to, but don't want a one state solution where the Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections and can travel the country freely. They want the West Bank to be a mix of Israel, and Apartheid style Bantustans

- to say that a significant proportion of these settlers, and their supporters in the current government, are in favor of mass expulsion rather than “Apartheid style Bantustans” as you put it. And are likely to view moments of mass crisis as an opportunity to attempt to conduct such a policy.

 

[Real Name]

What is Isreal expecting with a land invasion, especially with tanks. I think Hamas was just waiting for this opportunity. Urban guerrila warfare among rubble.

 

[Highfather_24]

The alternative is actively saying, "I don't give a feck about oppression/discrimination/apartheid... I stand with the oppressors openly" but if you're bitch made you can't say that out loud so you just keep quiet and play devil's advocate on behalf of Israel or so on.

That's my takeaway from seeing so many politicians, important/famous people, and regular joes (on NYTimes comment sections and the CAF) dance around the main issue, habitually.

Bingo. Basically Israel has its boot over Palestine's throat, and if Palestine resists in any way(be it violent or non violent), Israel will retaliate 5x more and justify it as self defense.

The issue will never be solved because people are not addressing the disease(Israeli occupation/apartheid), but rather the symptom(Hamas's attacks).

If you conveniently ignore all the context of the oppression, and start looking it just from Oct 7th onwards, its the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala I dont hear you". Israel is choosing to do that because it just needs a justification to flatten Gaza.

 

[Beachryan]

An argument isn't discredited simply by restating it in a snarky voice.

If your argument hinges on asking people who've been witnessing America and Israel govts. lie their whole lives to take those govts. at their word, don't bother. It's not going to work.

No government is perfect but not all are as bad as all others. I'm not that nihilistic. If the US dod tells me one thing and, say, Russia says another then I do think there's a difference.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

No government is perfect but not all are as bad as all others. I'm not that nihilistic. If the US dod tells me one thing and, say, Russia says another then I do think there's a difference.

There is a difference.

But I would put it this way: "does X government lie", "does X government lie more than Y government", are objective issues. "should you trust government X if they are shown to lie" is a subjective issue. There isn't one right answer. Not trusting them on this matter is perfectly acceptable given the track record (IMO).

 

[Mike Smalling]

Probably belongs in the hypernormalisation thread, but I'm lost for words on the state of this.

Pathetic.

Hope no one falls for that crap.

 

[Buster15]

This probably requires at least correction or 2, so someone please make any they have:.

Basically Israeli policy towards Gaza since Sharon disengaged has been to occupy the air and sea and blockade it and bomb it whenever rockets are fired or anything violent happens from Gaza to Israel.

Israeli policy towards the West Bank is to build settlements there and take over the land piece by piece, perhaps stopping at some point, leaving a bunch of West Bank towns/cities under the control of Fatah, with no voting rights in Israeli elections. The closest comparison I've seen is the Bantustans of South Africa, because in indigenous reserves in say Canada the residents can vote in Canadian federal elections.

The settlers in the West Bank have a pretty green light to launch attacks without Israeli state organs (police, IDF) stopping them, because the attacks and land grabs are consistent with Israeli state policy. The major political opposition to these attacks and land grabs is the Israeli center, illustrated by the figure of Gantz (in the coalition now, fairly good odds to be next PM), who has supported stopping the attacks and land grabs by settlers, though he is against giving back any of the settlements created so far.

So basically, the settlers on the ground and the right in Israel and some of the center want to keep creating new settlements/land grabs. The center mostly wants settlement creation/land grabs to be decided by the state, not the settlers on the ground, or not done anymore, but also no settlements made before today to be razed or have the Jewish population evicted from those places.

The West Bank is being taken piece by piece by settlers who are generally expansionist and believe Israel should control all lands they can make a biblical claim to, but don't want a one state solution where the Palestinians get to vote in Israeli elections and can travel the country freely. They want the West Bank to be a mix of Israel, and Apartheid style Bantustans. The Netanyahu governments back them when they can get 61/120 seats without center votes and form a government, which they had before the War, but then they added in the center because Israeli convention is to be unified during a war, and likely also because the massive protests in Israel (Bibi and the right moved to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and Constitution) which meant the government was worried people wouldn't support the war effort unless someone like Gantz was in the war cabinet as well.

The center, like the center in many countries, doesn't love the right wing solution but doesn't oppose it, and effectively has no position on a long-term peace process, since that would mean either a one state solution (which they don't support) or a 2 state solution (which they sort of support in theory, but if they won't get rid of settlements, that would either be a state of patches of unconnected land (which I don't think has ever existed?) it would have to be only the Eastern half of the West Bank).

And in this specific case:
"Everything to the right" = more settlements in the West Bank, some of which are created via private settler attacks and some of which are state created.
"Block movement back to the left" = The state getting rid of those settlements.

Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.

Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.

 

[VorZakone]

Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.

Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.

The world tries to move on from such conquests. It should be a thing of the past. Russia's invasion of Ukraine wasn't just condemned by the West, but also by non-Western countries. Kenya's UN ambassador gave a good speech on it.

That being said, the specific matter of Israel building settlements has already been criticized and condemned internationally. Israel is ignoring all that and continuing it.

 

[RedC]

Probably belongs in the hypernormalisation thread, but I'm lost for words on the state of this.

Why aren't Hamas sharing great tweets like this?

 

[Buster15]

The world tries to move on from such conquests. It should be a thing of the past. Russia's invasion of Ukraine wasn't just condemned by the West, but also by non-Western countries. Kenya's UN ambassador gave a good speech on it.

That being said, the specific matter of Israel building settlements has already been criticized and condemned internationally. Israel is ignoring all that and continuing it.

Understood.
As I said, I was not in favour of what Israel is doing. It was just something I wanted to question from a historical perspective.

 

[B. Munich]

I think many, many Americans do not want to help Muslims/terrorists, it is among the least surprising things in that poll.

I can understand them though.

Germany send millions to improve the infrastructure and living conditions in Gaza. Also pipes to improve and increase the water supply.

Apparently Hamas took these pipes out of the ground and built missiles with them.

And don't anybody tell me Hamas aren't the Palestinians. Without strong support of the population Hamas couldn't rule Gaza and going what they do.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Highfather_24]

The world tries to move on from such conquests. It should be a thing of the past. Russia's invasion of Ukraine wasn't just condemned by the West, but also by non-Western countries. Kenya's UN ambassador gave a good speech on it.

That being said, the specific matter of Israel building settlements has already been criticized and condemned internationally. Israel is ignoring all that and continuing it.

Yes. Also another layer to the whole thing, the Israeli settlements also kinda ensure that any future two state solution will be extremely complicated. Cant be any Palestine, if there isnt any contiguous land left. It has been likened to negotiating over how to share a pizza while one of them continues to eat it.

 

[moses]

I’m certain he doesn’t. If only you gave time to learn from actually good information, you might know more too.

here, I posted a source. Predictably no traction as it’s too clinical, boring, and doesn’t make wild claims. https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/

And @moses tbis is what I mean. People just want to consume grief to backup their views. I’ve posted several excellent sources which nobody bothers to read or comment on, because they don’t give the sort of traction to juvenile consumption that people expect.

Well that always happens on this place, in every thread. You just have to ignore or engage directly. You don't just deliver blanket dismissals and or insults. Again you've decided people who don't read your posts are juvenile. People don't have to read everyone's posts, we have an ignore function for that reason. People have all sorts of reasons to ignore other posters.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

This time, so far, the ratio is ~3:1, and with a far, far larger initial attack by Hamas. So I wonder if this poll is an outlier or there has been a shift.

There's been shifts away from Israel for a while now. See here, here.

 

[Buster15]

I can understand them though.

Germany send millions to improve the infrastructure and living conditions in Gaza. Also pipes to improve and increase the water supply.

Apparently Hamas took these pipes out of the ground and built missiles with them.

And don't anybody tell me Hamas aren't the Palestinians. Without strong support of the population Hamas couldn't rule Gaza and going what they do.

That is a very fair point.
I do think that Hamas is trying to draw the IDF into a trap.
By that, I am referring to 2 things.
1. They are obviously concerned by the potential warming of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. And by attacking Israel and the expected reprisals, they would be hoping that support for Israel would suffer.
2. For Israel to defeat Hamas, they are going to have to destroy the vast labyrinth of tunnels.
And achieving that is going to result in significant loss of life.
If Israel is actually intent on destroying Hamas, it is going to be extremely difficult.

 

[RedC]

Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.

Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.

It genuinely baffles me you even think it's a question that needs to be asked.

 

[B. Munich]

The issue will never be solved because people are not addressing the disease(Israeli occupation/apartheid), but rather the symptom(Hamas's attacks).

You probably are also support Putin who always claims that NATO east expansion is the real reason for the Ukrainian war and his special military operation is just a symptom from it.

The Israel Palestine conflict goes far beyond Hamas. It started 1947 when the Palestinians (Arab world) didn't acknowledge the UN resolution 181 and started the war against the Jews. 2 further major wars followed. 1967 and 1973 both started by the Arabs.

 

[harshad]

Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.

Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.

Remind me which country Israel is at war with in the West Bank?

 

[africanspur]

Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.

Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.

Can you clarify any other countries currently in the world are settling land that is internationally recognised as not their own?

If Israel also enslaved Palestinians, would you be asking how this is different to any similar historical situation from a philosophical point of view?

 

[Jim Beam]

Philosophical question regarding the West Bank:
How is what Israel is doing in building settlements in the West Bank any different to any other similar historical situation.
Wars have been fought since forever.
One country wins a war and over time, the frontier changes.
And that country takes over and occupies the territory it has won.

Now I am not saying that I agree with what Israel is doing in the West Bank.
As I have indicated, this is a purely a philosophical question.

Such a brilliant and deep philosophical question to wake up to. A real food for thought.

 

[Buster15]

Remind me which country Israel is at war with in the West Bank?

You tell me please.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

People just want to consume grief to backup their views. I’ve posted several excellent sources which nobody bothers to read or comment on, because they don’t give the sort of traction to juvenile consumption that people expect.

You've posted excellent sources and made some level-headed comments. But you've posted a video of a terrorist shooting a dog, and a report of a kibbutz attacked followed by your fantasy of "bullets in the head of terrorist scum." If you are concerned about the consumption of grief, the place to start is 'your posts.'

 

[Buster15]

It genuinely baffles me you even think it's a question that needs to be asked.

So you never question what is going on???

 

[2cents]

The Israel Palestine conflict goes far beyond Hamas. It started 1947

There was plenty of conflict before 1947, it seems an arbitrary date to begin the analysis.

 

[Halftrack]

You probably are also support Putin who always claims that NATO east expansion is the real reason for the Ukrainian war and his special military operation is just a symptom from it.

The Israel Palestine conflict goes far beyond Hamas. It started 1947 when the Palestinians (Arab world) didn't acknowledge the UN resolution 181 and started the war against the Jews. 2 further major wars followed. 1967 and 1973 both started by the Arabs.

Palestinians (Arab world) and "the Arabs".

And don't anybody tell me Hamas aren't the Palestinians. Without strong support of the population Hamas couldn't rule Gaza and going what they do.

So you're just looking for reasons to be able to say "bombing civilians in Gaza is ok"?

 

[Buster15]

Can you clarify any other countries currently in the world are settling land that is internationally recognised as not their own?

If Israel also enslaved Palestinians, would you be asking how this is different to any similar historical situation from a philosophical point of view?

Your first point.. I did say historically.
Your second point. Is Israel not enslaving Palestinians.
Edit.
There are dozens of posts in this thread saying that is the case.

 

[Real Name]

I can understand them though.

Germany send millions to improve the infrastructure and living conditions in Gaza. Also pipes to improve and increase the water supply.

Apparently Hamas took these pipes out of the ground and built missiles with them.

And don't anybody tell me Hamas aren't the Palestinians. Without strong support of the population Hamas couldn't rule Gaza and going what they do.

Its not that they have choice, there's a democratic society there and Hamas is some kind, nice organization which would just say its ok we'll let someone else govern the people.

You probably are also support Putin who always claims that NATO east expansion is the real reason for the Ukrainian war and his special military operation is just a symptom from it.

The Israel Palestine conflict goes far beyond Hamas. It started 1947 when the Palestinians (Arab world) didn't acknowledge the UN resolution 181 and started the war against the Jews. 2 further major wars followed. 1967 and 1973 both started by the Arabs.

Love the Palestinians (Arab world) part.

In any case it suited Israel nicely who then banished hundreds of thousands Palestitans from the land and burned hundreds of villages to the ground.

 

[Lash]

Can you clarify any other countries currently in the world are settling land that is internationally recognised as not their own?

If Israel also enslaved Palestinians, would you be asking how this is different to any similar historical situation from a philosophical point of view?

Russia and China, quite blatantly and recently, I might add.

 

[harshad]

You tell me please.

Your 'philosophical question' is predicated on Israel being in war in West Bank and winning the land in West Bank in such war on which the settlements are continuing to be built. So, I ask again, in your 'philosophical question' which country is Israel in war with?