Israel, Palestine and Iran (and Lebanon)

[_AA_786]

Just now, Jonesy7211 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, but continue to play out that reasoning. Israel have the Iron Dome in response to repeated and continual shelling from the states and organizations that refuse to acknowledge them as a country and a people. There's never going to be a bigger person in either side of this, especially when all combatants want the explicit and total annihilation of the other.

I get your point mate, its vicious circle. I'm just saying it in the sense that the UK/US and others are standing by Israel more than they are Iran per say as they see them as the "more reasonable" or diplomatic, in which case you'd like that see that diplomacy.

[desensitized43]

33 minutes ago, _AA_786 said:

I get your point mate, its vicious circle. I'm just saying it in the sense that the UK/US and others are standing by Israel more than they are Iran per say as they see them as the "more reasonable" or diplomatic, in which case you'd like that see that diplomacy.

It’s more than that though isn’t it?

The Israelis are people the US and UK share values with. Culturally, diplomatically, historically. They’re the only thing we could point to in the region and say is a longstanding functioning democracy like ours.

They’ve been our partners in confronting a number of groups and countries in the region and further afield you’d at best describe as hostile and worst you’d describe as enemies.

i don’t think anyone considers the current Israeli government as “good partners” given their actions, but you’d say the same for the US government under Trump or how the EU would have seen us under the last few Tory governments. I have faith in the people of Israel and the democratic institutions of that country that where they’re heading at the moment is temporary and they’ll come to their senses eventually. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

Did anything ever come of the Israel/Saudi deal though?

No. Scuppered when Israel responded to the attack by Hamas, by being monstrously violent.

[Xela]

1 hour ago, _AA_786 said:

I get your point mate, its vicious circle. I'm just saying it in the sense that the UK/US and others are standing by Israel more than they are Iran per say as they see them as the "more reasonable" or diplomatic, in which case you'd like that see that diplomacy.

Why on earth would UK/US stand by Iran? They are the antithesis of everything the 'West' stands for. I'd imagine the US and UK are more than happy to stand by and watch Israel flatten the rest of the Middle East, while meekly calling for calm. 

[omariqy]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

It’s more than that though isn’t it?

The Israelis are people the US and UK share values with. Culturally, diplomatically, historically. They’re the only thing we could point to in the region and say is a longstanding functioning democracy like ours.

They’ve been our partners in confronting a number of groups and countries in the region and further afield you’d at best describe as hostile and worst you’d describe as enemies.

i don’t think anyone considers the current Israeli government as “good partners” given their actions, but you’d say the same for the US government under Trump or how the EU would have seen us under the last few Tory governments. I have faith in the people of Israel and the democratic institutions of that country that where they’re heading at the moment is temporary and they’ll come to their senses eventually. 

Yeah colonisation

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Xela said:

I'd imagine the US and UK are more than happy to stand by and watch Israel flatten the rest of the Middle East, while meekly calling for calm. 

Except they can’t actually do that.

Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, that’s a combined population of about 130,000,000. It’s not a war they can win. It’s also not a war the other murderous nutters can win either. At some point in the future they’ll have to work this out for themselves.

 

[omariqy]

 

59 minutes long 

[Awol]

15 hours ago, Xela said:

Why on earth would UK/US stand by Iran? They are the antithesis of everything the 'West' stands for. I'd imagine the US and UK are more than happy to stand by and watch Israel flatten the rest of the Middle East, while meekly calling for calm. 

Not forgetting that Iran has and is supplying 1000’s of one way attack drones being used to murder Ukrainian civilians, and also ballistic. Missiles for the same end. 

Plus the anti-ship missiles used by the Houthis in Yemen to target civilian shipping in the Red Sea.

[Awol]

14 hours ago, omariqy said:

Yeah colonisation

Are those the only values shared by UK, US, and Israel? Not a commitment to democratic government, individual liberty, and the rule of law? 

Besides, leveling the colonisation argument against the West seems both hypocritical and more than a little shortsighted. Colonisation is basically the mass movement of people from one country or region to another and/or the imposition of cultural norms and legal systems by a minority that are alien to that territory.

North Africa and the Sahel, as one example, are Muslim regions today because they were violently colonised and Islamised by the Arabs. There are plenty of other examples.

By contrast, British colonialism in Africa and Asia tended not to try and replace existing cultural norms (except for extremes like wife burning in the Indian sub-continent), but to impose a light footprint of governance for ongoing economic exploitation. Bad? Yes, of course, but a qualitatively different approach.

Except for Australasia and North America, colonialism ended when the British went home, and Zimbabwe is a good example of what happened to British settlers who tried to hang on once imperial rule was withdrawn. The point being, colonialism ended when the British were kicked out or chose to leave. 

Fast forward to now. There are growing political movements in continental Europe alarmed by rapid demographic and cultural change, caused by rapid inward migration from Africa and Asia. In extreme cases they are looking to reverse what they consider to be the slow motion colonisation of their own countries.

Hopefully those values shared by the UK and US, (and post-WW2 broadly entrenched across Europe) are able to prevail forever over those who would seek to expel those non-Europeans, their customs, and norms. To do so, it will be necessary to lean heavily on all the core UK and US values (now Western values) that you glibly dismiss as “colonisation”, so we should all hope that you are wrong about that.

 

[omariqy]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Are those the only values shared by UK, US, and Israel? Not a commitment to democratic government, individual liberty, and the rule of law? 

Besides, leveling the colonisation argument against the West seems both hypocritical and more than a little shortsighted. Colonisation is basically the mass movement of people from one country or region to another and/or the imposition of cultural norms and legal systems by a minority that are alien to that territory.

North Africa and the Sahel, as one example, are Muslim regions today because they were violently colonised and Islamised by the Arabs. There are plenty of other examples.

By contrast, British colonialism in Africa and Asia tended not to try and replace existing cultural norms (except for extremes like wife burning in the Indian sub-continent), but to impose a light footprint of governance for ongoing economic exploitation. Bad? Yes, of course, but a qualitatively different approach.

Except for Australasia and North America, colonialism ended when the British went home, and Zimbabwe is a good example of what happened to British settlers who tried to hang on once imperial rule was withdrawn. The point being, colonialism ended when the British were kicked out or chose to leave. 

Fast forward to now. There are growing political movements in continental Europe alarmed by rapid demographic and cultural change, caused by rapid inward migration from Africa and Asia. In extreme cases they are looking to reverse what they consider to be the slow motion colonisation of their own countries.

Hopefully those values shared by the UK and US, (and post-WW2 broadly entrenched across Europe) are able to prevail forever over those who would seek to expel those non-Europeans, their customs, and norms. To do so, it will be necessary to lean heavily on all the core UK and US values (now Western values) that you glibly dismiss as “colonisation”, so we should all hope that you are wrong about that.

 

My point was tongue in cheek. I’m fully aware of the history of colonisation. They didn’t replace the indigenous population. They converted them to their religion. Whether you agree with the methods or not.

You mention democracy like the UK the US or Israel is truly democratic. Like hell it is. Individual liberty? In Israel? For who? Rule of law? In Israel? For who? Honestly. The UK imo is probably the closest to having all those things and even then we are way off. Also who decided what Eutopia looks like? Just because in our eyes neo-liberalism is the holy grail, does it mean everyone else in the world must follow that? I think we put ourselves on a pedestal and these perceived share values when the reality is quite different. 

[magnkarl]

15 hours ago, omariqy said:

Yeah colonisation

What would you call the Gulf nations and Iran's policies towards their neighbours then?

[magnkarl]

46 minutes ago, omariqy said:

My point was tongue in cheek. I’m fully aware of the history of colonisation. They didn’t replace the indigenous population. They converted them to their religion. Whether you agree with the methods or not.

You mention democracy like the UK the US or Israel is truly democratic. Like hell it is. Individual liberty? In Israel? For who? Rule of law? In Israel? For who? Honestly. The UK imo is probably the closest to having all those things and even then we are way off. Also who decided what Eutopia looks like? Just because in our eyes neo-liberalism is the holy grail, does it mean everyone else in the world must follow that? I think we put ourselves on a pedestal and these perceived share values when the reality is quite different. 

I think we can all agree that what you call neo-liberalism is far better than hanging students for dancing, murdering all minorities, having women kept as property and forcefully assaulting people of other religious faiths than your own. Unless you think you can find an example in the Middle East which is better at human rights and values than most Western nations your argument is just silly. The reality is that even indexes funded by theocratic authoritarian regimes show that people are by far the happiest under Western ideology, and in that sense in the Nordic nations who have likely got the purest form of Western ideology. 

Besides, you just sidestepped 1600 years of brutal Arab colonialism, one instance of it is Lebanon which was a secular thriving country before Arab Muslim militias broke the country with the help of funding from all the people you seem to think are nice compared to the West.

One is blind to the perspective which doesn't suit the current algorithm-based hogwash being sold by the heroes of the 'resistance', even though the same resistance has upended Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Sudan and every other country it touches. Western colonialisation was (and still is in some places) bad, but don't try to sell this alternative history that Arabs and Muslims are guilt free in that instance. Arab colonialisation is part of the issue in Israel, it's the reason why they wouldn't accept 97% of the land, they're not willing to give up a tiny slither of land to non-believers and have a fetish for holding on to holy sites of other religions above keeping their own people safe.

If you haven't learnt it, people of other colours and religions than white\christian can also colonialise others, and its current biggest proponents in the world are Shiite Iran, Sunni UAE\Qatar\SA, Orthodox Russia and neo-communist\fascist China. I know it doesn't suit the victim mentality that many people in the 'resistance' camp (lowkey, Geoge Galloway, Mehdi Hassan+++) espouses but it is nonetheless true. The biggest killer and colonialist of Arab Muslims today is other Arab Muslims. Have a bit of a look at what RSF is doing in Sudan with UAE\Qatar and Libyan backing. It makes Israel's gross war crimes look like a picnic.

In short regarding Israel, it would likely be wise to stop being antagonistic to a country that the collective Arab world has attacked umpteen times and lost to in every instance, that way there might be normalisation in all the countries. No one in the region prospers from the rule in Israel (far right) and it's neighbourhood (everything from fundamentalist Islamic republics to Jordan who are doing fairly well). The Arab world needs to come to the realisation that the below 10 million Israeli population currently living on about 0,1% of the land area are there to stay in their sea of 493 million people.

Edited Tuesday at 11:05 by magnkarl

[Awol]

16 minutes ago, omariqy said:

You mention democracy like the UK the US or Israel is truly democratic. Like hell it is. Individual liberty? In Israel? For who? Rule of law? In Israel? For who? Honestly. The UK imo is probably the closest to having all those things and even then we are way off. Also who decided what Eutopia looks like? Just because in our eyes neo-liberalism is the holy grail, does it mean everyone else in the world must follow that? I think we put ourselves on a pedestal and these perceived share values when the reality is quite different. 

I agree with you that no country is perfect or even close to it, and civilisational norms and values are contingent on the social (and often geographic) environment in which they evolved. They should not be enforced (or attempts made to enforce them) on other cultures. The events since 9/11 make the stupidity and hubris of that crystal clear.

Israel is undoubtedly democratic (with much more variety than the homogenised and pasteurised neo-Lib version we have here), and Israeli citizens benefit from the rule of law and individual liberty. Muslim Arab Israelis serve in the IDF and participate in national life as a much as Jewish Israelis. Equally, the Israeli state has no responsibility or authority to extend those benefits to people beyond Israel. 

So what are we left with? Protecting our own cultures, both physically when they are attacked from outside and domestically through law and the political process.

We are fortunate that our neighbours are currently peaceful and do not wish us physical harm - long may that continue. If that changes, as it has in the past, we’d expect our government to everything in its power to defend us. we probably wouldn’t care that much about the judgements of others, particularly when their own moral standards are so far removed from our own. 

The Israeli government is doing what it feels it must do to defend its state and people, when both are under direct attack. I really don’t blame them for not giving a flyer what you, I, or anyone else might think about how they achieve it.

[Jareth]

43 minutes ago, Awol said:

Are those the only values shared by UK, US, and Israel? Not a commitment to democratic government, individual liberty, and the rule of law? 

Ahem -

A commitment to democratic government - where there was and is still an attempt to cancel the judiciary and give the far right gov all the powers

Individual liberty - yes if you are Israeli in an apartheid country

Rule of law - See literally every international law broken for god knows how long - supported it seems by those with shared values

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

Ahem -

A commitment to democratic government - where there was and is still an attempt to cancel the judiciary and give the far right gov all the powers

Individual liberty - yes if you are Israeli in an apartheid country

Rule of law - See literally every international law broken for god knows how long - supported it seems by those with shared values

Judicial activism is an issue in the US and the UK, democracy survives in both. As far as I know, the judiciary hasn’t been “cancelled” in Israel, either.

There is no apartheid in Israel. There is a hellish situation in the occupied West Bank, but unless that becomes part of the Israeli state (a ‘one-state’ solution the Israeli Right would definitely support) it remains a messy legal and morally indefensible situation created by Jordan’s failed attempt (with other Arab states) to conquer Israel. See also Gaza, although it hasn’t been occupied for 20-odd years now. It’s a great pity that the Palestinians have rejected every internationally mediated attempt to codify a two-state solution.  

International law is mainly observed in the breach, and not a concept I take particularly seriously (mostly because there is no supranational authority to enforce it). 

[Jareth]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Judicial activism is an issue in the US and the UK, democracy survives in both. As far as I know, the judiciary hasn’t been “cancelled” in Israel, either.

There is no apartheid in Israel. There is a hellish situation in the occupied West Bank, but unless that becomes part of the Israeli state (a ‘one-state’ solution the Israeli Right would definitely support) it remains a messy legal and morally indefensible situation created by Jordan’s failed attempt (with other Arab states) to conquer Israel. See also Gaza, although it hasn’t been occupied for 20-odd years now. It’s a great pity that the Palestinians have rejected every internationally mediated attempt to codify a two-state solution.  

International law is mainly observed in the breach, and not a concept I take particularly seriously (mostly because there is no supranational authority to enforce it). 

Difficult to argue with this - if you reject international law and all definitions laid down by the UN, then you're right, no apartheid and no laws broken. 

On Israeli national law that you agree with, my sentence was based on the below - 

Quote

 

The eruption of the Israel–Hamas war in October 2023 and subsequent formation of a war cabinet led to a temporary suspension of the judicial reform and its opposition.^[95][96][97] However, official procedures obligated the Supreme Court to made a decision within three months of the October closing of the 2023 court case challenging the proposed Basic Law, which would limit the court's powers.^[96][98] At the same time, three of the court's justices were scheduled for mandatory retirement in mid-January 2024. Of the three retiring justices, two were liberal, and their departure and replacement could result in a conservative majority on the court who might have approved the reform. Before their retirement, the liberal-majority court announced its decision, in the first-ever panel to include all 15 justices.^[96][98][97]

On 1 January 2024, the court ruled, by a narrow 8-to-7 majority, that the Knesset law blocking the court's use of the "reasonableness" doctrine was unconstitutional, overturning the law—thus self-validating, reasserting and reinforcing the court's own authority to use the "reasonableness" standard, at its discretion, to review and overturn Knesset-passed laws.^[96][98][97] At the same time, by a broad 12–3 majority, the court ruled that it had the right to review any Knesset-passed Basic Law, and decide on its constitutional legitimacy, so as to "intervene in those rare and exceptional cases wherein the Knesset exceeds its Constitutive authority."^[96][98][97] The rulings were seen as a major defeat for Netanyahu and his ruling coalition government, but not likely the final word on the issue

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, Awol said:

The Israeli government is doing what it feels it must do to defend its state and people, when both are under direct attack. I really don’t blame them for not giving a flyer what you, I, or anyone else might think about how they achieve it.

Hmm. That’s one reading and I agree with much that you’ve recently posted, but on this point, not so much. The route chosen by Netanyahu seems to be one of personal survival above all else, rather than the best way to resolve an admittedly difficult and awful situation. It wasn’t necessary to flatten half of Palestine and kill 40,000 civilians, for example. It wasn’t necessary to deprive the population of aid and water and food and medicine to such an extent that disease and hunger and trauma are rife.  There’s a strong element of hardline ultra nationalism and rejection of a peaceful 2 state solution, or of peace at all.

[Awol]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

Hmm. That’s one reading and I agree with much that you’ve recently posted, but on this point, not so much. The route chosen by Netanyahu seems to be one of personal survival above all else, rather than the best way to resolve an admittedly difficult and awful situation. It wasn’t necessary to flatten half of Palestine and kill 40,000 civilians, for example. It wasn’t necessary to deprive the population of aid and water and food and medicine to such an extent that disease and hunger and trauma are rife.  There’s a strong element of hardline ultra nationalism and rejection of a peaceful 2 state solution, or of peace at all.

Just on the 40K number, that includes all Hamas casualties which are estimated by the IDF to be around 20K (and we can accept or dismiss those numbers to suit).

In the battle of Mosul, which provides a recent example of high intensity urban warfare, the casualty rate was 9K ISIS militants and 11K civilians. Just in terms of comparison Gaza fits the recent historical pattern - and Mosul was of course supervised by the Americans operating under the Laws of Armed Conflict.

It’s extremely grim, but also an inevitability of war - and did Hamas and its delirious supporters in Gaza expect any other response on 7th of October last year?

Aid that flowed into Gaza for its civilian population was hijacked by Hamas, but even so Israel was under no obligation to aid the civilian population of the enemy who attacked them. Israel’s legal obligation was to civilians in areas it controlled, and the majority of those remained in areas the IDF was not occupying.

Had Hamas released the hostages they took on the 7th of October, the domestic and international pressure on the Israeli government to take a different course would have been much more significant. Instead, elements of the civilian population actively assisted Hamas in holding the hostages, as has been demonstrated during several raids to recover small groups of them not secured in tunnels. 

Netanyahu is undoubtedly trying to save his own political skin, but there’s no evidence that a majority (or anything close to it) of Israeli civilians want the government to take a different course in Gaza. They want Hamas to be militarily destroyed and the hostages to be recovered. Hamas was entrenched beneath civilian infrastructure and fighting them inevitably led to massive destruction - again, see what remained of Mosul after the battle. 

The idea of a two-state solution is dead, because the Israelis (whoever is in charge) won’t have it anymore. There needs to be a much wider change of strategic circumstances that creates the conditions for another way forward.

My guess (fwiw), is that the Israelis have decided that there can be no resolution of their immediate security concerns until the threat from Iran - including its support for Hamas and Hezbollah - has been neutralised. The conundrum they face is how to cripple the regime enough to enable its internal collapse, while minimising the fallout (figurative and literal) for the Iranian people.

Biden’s incapacity has paralysed any meaningful US leadership, and Israel has 6 weeks or so to take advantage of that vacuum by trying to resolve the threat sufficiently, and in so doing totally change the reality on the ground.  The strategic goal (imo) is likely to be the collapse of the Iranian regime and a revolution in that country, plus the effective removal of Hezbollah as a military-political actor within the state of Lebanon. Is any of that achievable? Dunno, but we’ll probably see quite soon.

Quite a long response to your post, but none of this is simple to discuss properly. 
 

 

[Jareth]

This really is quite a unique 'war'. 

Quote

 

Conservative figures show that more than 6,000 women and 11,000 children were killed in Gaza by the Israeli military over the last 12 months. Data from 2004-2021 on direct conflict deaths from the Small Arms Survey, estimates that the highest number of women killed in a single year was over 2,600 in Iraq in 2016...

The record number of women and children killed in Gaza does not include those among nearly 20,000 people who are either unidentified, missing or entombed beneath rubble. Earlier this year, a study published in The Lancet estimated the true number of deaths in Gaza could be over 186,000, taking indirect deaths – for example, due to starvation and lack of health care – into consideration. 

 

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

It’s extremely grim, but also an inevitability of war - and did Hamas and its delirious supporters in Gaza expect any other response on 7th of October last year?

Probably they did expect a different response, yes. One not so grotesque.

Hamas had around 15-20,000 full time and another 30,000 part time personnel before this started. If 20,000 have been killed, they’re nowhere near eradicated. I’ve an inkling that Israel has rather given them a bit of a recruiting opportunity by their actions. And within Israel the failure to get hostages freed is a major factor of discontent. Yes they’re more supportive of the actions against Hezbollah, despite that being almost an accident in terms of timing.

Anyway, appreciate the analysis. Thanks.