Israel general discussion

[Silent Hunter]

Gaza is understandable, but I can't support the settlements.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

To me, Gaza is much worse - definitely not supporting Hamas here, but it genuinely seems like hell on earth and I could certainly understand why people would feel very angry and militant if confined there.

[Silent Hunter]

Getting angry and militant unfortunately tends to get you killed when facing superior force.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Getting angry and militant unfortunately tends to get you killed when facing superior force.

Also, Gaza is geniuenly a place with potential. If Hamas hadn't spent all the the support and money they received on weapons meant to murder Israeli citizens, Gaza could've been a good place to live. So if the answer to that is spending more money on getting angry and militant and murdering Israelis, what should Israel do?
Yeah, I agree with you- the settlements are much, much harder to justify.

[Silent Hunter]

What potential does Gaza actually have?

[Hnv1]

Getting angry and militant unfortunately tends to get you killed when facing superior force.

Also, Gaza is geniuenly a place with potential. If Hamas hadn't spent all the the support and money they received on weapons meant to murder Israeli citizens, Gaza could've been a good place to live. So if the answer to that is spending more money on getting angry and militant and murdering Israelis, what should Israel do?
Yeah, I agree with you- the settlements are much, much harder to justify.

No it’s not. It had a nice beach but that’s it, it was a sh**t hole in 90’s before Hamas and even the PA, and it only got worse since. Even more over populated, overtly religious, ramshackle, with absolutely no free space to build In.

Gaza is a metastasizing tumor that no one can chop off. The only hope is a sea and airport with Egypt giving swathes of land in Sinai to move some population there.

I’m sorry but the whole Singapore of the ME is utter bollocks, everyone who has been there know it. And the sad thing is everyone knew it was coming since48

[America Needs R'hllor]

Getting angry and militant unfortunately tends to get you killed when facing superior force.

Also, Gaza is geniuenly a place with potential. If Hamas hadn't spent all the the support and money they received on weapons meant to murder Israeli citizens, Gaza could've been a good place to live. So if the answer to that is spending more money on getting angry and militant and murdering Israelis, what should Israel do?
Yeah, I agree with you- the settlements are much, much harder to justify.

Not it’s not. It had a nice beach but that’s it, it was a sh**t hole in 90’s before Hamas and even the PA, and it only got worse since. Even more over populated, overtly religious, ramshackle, with absolutely no free space to build In.

Gaza is a metastasizing tumor that no one can chop off. The only hope is a sea and airport with Egypt giving swathes of land in Sinai to move some population there.

I’m sorry but the whole Singapore of the ME is utter bollocks, everyone who has been there know it. And the sad thing is everyone knew it was coming since48

Fair. But I still don't see how all that delegitimizes self-defence by the Israeli army, against any threat to Israeli citizens that comes out of it. Defending the citizens is one of the most important roles of the government.

[Intell]

I don't even really have a major problem with Isreali action on Gaza though I feel it is definitely too disproportionate. The settlements and Isreal actions in the Westbank I can see no justification for.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I don't even really have a major problem with Isreali action on Gaza though I feel it is definitely too disproportionate. The settlements and Isreal actions in the Westbank I can see no justification for.

I find this position much more legitimate than that of many left-wing critics of Israel. If this was the bulk of the criticism, I'd be much more sympathetic to anti-Israeli leftists, but as it stands, the focus on Gaza reveals many of these critics to deny Israel's right to defend itself and thus exist, and specifically target Israel's actions there while ignoring, or focusing less, on the actions of numerous other western countries against targets much further from their borders. This is an indication that much of this criticism stems from the fact that Israel is the Jewish state.

The settlements, however, are something else- I also find them hard to defend, especially the radical, new ones which are basically a bunch of caravans holding the government by its balls. Though, of course, some settlement criticisms are also blatantly anti-Jewish, such as that of the BDS.

[Intell]

I don't even really have a major problem with Isreali action on Gaza though I feel it is definitely too disproportionate. The settlements and Isreal actions in the Westbank I can see no justification for.

I find this position much more legitimate than that of many left-wing critics of Israel. If this was the bulk of the criticism, I'd be much more sympathetic to anti-Israeli leftists, but as it stands, the focus on Gaza reveals many of these critics to deny Israel's right to defend itself and thus exist, and specifically target Israel's actions there while ignoring, or focusing less, on the actions of numerous other western countries against targets much further from their borders. This is an indication that much of this criticism stems from the fact that Israel is the Jewish state.

The settlements, however, are something else- I also find them hard to defend, especially the radical, new ones which are basically a bunch of caravans holding the government by its balls. Though, of course, some settlement criticisms are also blatantly anti-Jewish, such as that of the BDS.

I feel like that is the soft-left criticism of Israel vs the hard left criticism of Israel aka Corbyn. I would have more in common ideologically with the former in the past at least though have to support the latter.

By soft left, I am referring to the more moderate wing of the left-wing or center of social democratic parties.

[Silent Hunter]

Even more over populated, overtly religious, ramshackle, with absolutely no free space to build In.

There's some farmland you could use... but then again feeding people is a problem. What do they grow there anyway?

[Kingpoleon]

Getting angry and militant unfortunately tends to get you killed when facing superior force.

Also, Gaza is geniuenly a place with potential. If Hamas hadn't spent all the the support and money they received on weapons meant to murder Israeli citizens, Gaza could've been a good place to live. So if the answer to that is spending more money on getting angry and militant and murdering Israelis, what should Israel do?
Yeah, I agree with you- the settlements are much, much harder to justify.

Would you support the handing over of roads, water/electronic necessities, and settlements to Palestine?
This map is unacceptable.

I support the right of Israel to exist and I support the rights of Palestinians. Peace must be sustained and democracy normalized for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Getting angry and militant unfortunately tends to get you killed when facing superior force.

Also, Gaza is geniuenly a place with potential. If Hamas hadn't spent all the the support and money they received on weapons meant to murder Israeli citizens, Gaza could've been a good place to live. So if the answer to that is spending more money on getting angry and militant and murdering Israelis, what should Israel do?
Yeah, I agree with you- the settlements are much, much harder to justify.

Would you support the handing over of roads, water/electronic necessities, and settlements to Palestine?
This map is unacceptable.

I support the right of Israel to exist and I support the rights of Palestinians. Peace must be sustained and democracy normalized for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Roads, water\electronic necessities? Of course. I subscribe to the genral liberal idea that every country needs to have "welfare borders"- you can't let a potential Palestinian country NOT have the necessities it needs. As for settlements- no, I refuse to leave Jews to their fate amongst a hostile population. In a possible agreement, many tiny and small settlements would, unfourtunately, have to be dismantled. The large population centers like Ariel, Gush Etzion etc have to be handed over to Israel in exchange for other territories.

I'm a pragmatist- I'm willing to compromise on many issues truly important to a potential Palestinian country, but they'll have to compromise on issues important to Israel, giving up the right of return a very important one.

[DavidB.]

I'm a pragmatist- I'm willing to compromise on many issues truly important to a potential Palestinian country, but they'll have to compromise on issues important to Israel, giving up the right of return a very important one.

I assume you mean a right to return to Israel "proper" (which they currently don't have in the first place, and rightly so) as opposed to a right of return to hypothetical "Palestine"?

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm a pragmatist- I'm willing to compromise on many issues truly important to a potential Palestinian country, but they'll have to compromise on issues important to Israel, giving up the right of return a very important one.

I assume you mean a right to return to Israel "proper" (which they currently don't have in the first place, and rightly so) as opposed to a right of return to hypothetical "Palestine"?

Of course, I don't think we should dictate the hypothetical Palestine's immigration laws- in the same way they can't dictate ours.
Sovereignity is also a reason I'm opposed to demanding a demilitarized Palestine- it's not only unfair, unsustainable and unrealistic, but also outright damaging since Israel will never be threatened by a Palestinian army, rather by terrorist organizations which will just flourish in a demilitarized Palestine.

[Silent Hunter]

It wouldn't be threatened by a Palestinian army, but the concern is - and it would require a change of government in Jordan of course - that it would be used as a forward base for a large Arab attack.

[America Needs R'hllor]

It wouldn't be threatened by a Palestinian army, but the concern is - and it would require a change of government in Jordan of course - that it would be used as a forward base for a large Arab attack.

Eh, I'm not afraid of that. If they want to get aggressive, they can bring it on- we'll crush them like always. But I think the Arabic countries learned, by now, that it's not the way to go. What I do fear is the erosion of Israeli society and the bitter divisions caused, in a large part, by the ongoing conflict.

[Hnv1]

Even more over populated, overtly religious, ramshackle, with absolutely no free space to build In.

There's some farmland you could use... but then again feeding people is a problem. What do they grow there anyway?

The farmland there is tiny (especially compared to the urban area) and produces small amount of cucumbers and such. Definitely nothing to feed the population there. And definitely not enough to build the thousands of new home needed for the locals

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It wouldn't be threatened by a Palestinian army, but the concern is - and it would require a change of government in Jordan of course - that it would be used as a forward base for a large Arab attack.

Eh, I'm not afraid of that. If they want to get aggressive, they can bring it on- we'll crush them like always. But I think the Arabic countries learned, by now, that it's not the way to go. What I do fear is the erosion of Israeli society and the bitter divisions caused, in a large part, by the ongoing conflict.

What they've learned is that it's not the way to go now.  However, the idea that Israel {or any other country) will indefinitely maintain superiority in military technology and training is contrary to all of recorded history. Sooner or later (just not anytime soon) the Arabs will reach parity in technology and training. At that point, the Arab advantage in territory and population will mean Israel would have a tough time winning a war, though for some time after that point Israel would be able to make the cost of war such that even if Israel lost, the Arabs wouldn't really win either. However, Israeli policy at times seems determined to make it such that the Arabs wouldn't mind that if it finally got rid of the State of Israel.

[Silent Hunter]

Israel already can make the cost of war too high for Arabs - it's got nuclear weapons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel already can make the cost of war too high for Arabs - it's got nuclear weapons.

If it can get them on target.  Imagine if the Arabs had something like Iron Dome and an effective air force plus atom bombs of their own.  That's not anything that'll happen in our lifetimes, but never is a very long time.

[Hnv1]

Israel already can make the cost of war too high for Arabs - it's got nuclear weapons.

If it can get them on target.  Imagine if the Arabs had something like Iron Dome and an effective air force plus atom bombs of their own.  That's not anything that'll happen in our lifetimes, but never is a very long time.

Let’s suppose they do, it’s still unlikely they’ll achieve the political unity required to be surpass the Israeli edge. Even when we were almost on parity and they were almost United through Nasser that wasn’t enough.

The Arabs will never be a true existential threat to Israel (or the region), it’s the Iranians and the Turks down the road.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel already can make the cost of war too high for Arabs - it's got nuclear weapons.

If it can get them on target.  Imagine if the Arabs had something like Iron Dome and an effective air force plus atom bombs of their own.  That's not anything that'll happen in our lifetimes, but never is a very long time.

Let’s suppose they do, it’s still unlikely they’ll achieve the political unity required to be surpass the Israeli edge. Even when we were almost on parity and they were almost United through Nasser that wasn’t enough.

The Arabs will never be a true existential threat to Israel (or the region), it’s the Iranians and the Turks down the road.

Israel's existential problem is it can't ever afford to lose a war, while the Arabs can.  I don't see the Turks trying to reestablish the Ottoman Caliphate.  Not even Erdogan is that crazy. Potentially the Iranians might try to get revenge for Purim, but Iran is more focused on dealing with the Sunni at the moment.  Israel is more a useful scapegoat and a way for Iran to show that Shias are more devoted than Sunnis than a central focus of Iran.  (Not that not being the focus makes Iran any less of a threat to Israel. If anything, it makes Iran more of a threat since they are less likely to do anything unless they think it'll actually work.)

[Hnv1]

Israel already can make the cost of war too high for Arabs - it's got nuclear weapons.

If it can get them on target.  Imagine if the Arabs had something like Iron Dome and an effective air force plus atom bombs of their own.  That's not anything that'll happen in our lifetimes, but never is a very long time.

Let’s suppose they do, it’s still unlikely they’ll achieve the political unity required to be surpass the Israeli edge. Even when we were almost on parity and they were almost United through Nasser that wasn’t enough.

The Arabs will never be a true existential threat to Israel (or the region), it’s the Iranians and the Turks down the road.

Israel's existential problem is it can't ever afford to lose a war, while the Arabs can.  I don't see the Turks trying to reestablish the Ottoman Caliphate.  Not even Erdogan is that crazy. Potentially the Iranians might try to get revenge for Purim, but Iran is more focused on dealing with the Sunni at the moment.  Israel is more a useful scapegoat and a way for Iran to show that Shias are more devoted than Sunnis than a central focus of Iran.  (Not that not being the focus makes Iran any less of a threat to Israel. If anything, it makes Iran more of a threat since they are less likely to do anything unless they think it'll actually work.)

We lost the 2006 war and nothing happened. Losing a war doesn’t mean unconditional surrender anymore.

And I was talking about the very long run regarding Turkey

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel already can make the cost of war too high for Arabs - it's got nuclear weapons.

If it can get them on target.  Imagine if the Arabs had something like Iron Dome and an effective air force plus atom bombs of their own.  That's not anything that'll happen in our lifetimes, but never is a very long time.

Let’s suppose they do, it’s still unlikely they’ll achieve the political unity required to be surpass the Israeli edge. Even when we were almost on parity and they were almost United through Nasser that wasn’t enough.

The Arabs will never be a true existential threat to Israel (or the region), it’s the Iranians and the Turks down the road.

Israel's existential problem is it can't ever afford to lose a war, while the Arabs can.  I don't see the Turks trying to reestablish the Ottoman Caliphate.  Not even Erdogan is that crazy. Potentially the Iranians might try to get revenge for Purim, but Iran is more focused on dealing with the Sunni at the moment.  Israel is more a useful scapegoat and a way for Iran to show that Shias are more devoted than Sunnis than a central focus of Iran.  (Not that not being the focus makes Iran any less of a threat to Israel. If anything, it makes Iran more of a threat since they are less likely to do anything unless they think it'll actually work.)

We lost the 2006 war and nothing happened. Losing a war doesn’t mean unconditional surrender anymore.

And I was talking about the very long run regarding Turkey

Israel lost that war in the same sense as the US lost the Vietnam War.  Israel didn't achieve its intended objectives, but considering that the IDF returned home rather than reoccupied lost territory after the cease-fire, it is not a loss like Poland 1939, France 1940, Germany 1945, or ROC 1948 were.