I was born in Israel and most of my family is still there. I share here what I have been saying for years. This conflict is not one between Israel and the Palestinian people. It is a conflict between moderates and extremists. The Israeli people and the Palestinian people generally want peace in much larger numbers than those minority extremists who want to kill the other side. As one example, it wasn't a Palestinian extremist who assassinated an Israeli Prime Minister on the brink of negotiating peace–it was an Israeli extremist. If the media would frame the conflict as one between moderates and extremists that might lead to each side being able to "win victories" by handling THEIR OWN extremists. Israeli's have to deal with their extremists (who are now in power) including the settlers, in particular, and Palestinians would then be emboldened to confront their extremists. If we could frame the conflict in this way we would see how ridiculous it is for Israel to fight Palestinian extremists and vice versa. Moderate majorities on both sides must create an opportunity to unite as one voice for peace, and it is incumbent on Israel to lead this (and to the US Media to reframe the discussion first). No change is possible if we speak as if the Palestinian people are the enemy of Israeli people. They are cousins.
It would be fair to say that both groups have legitimate claims to the land involved. It is also true that Hamas is using terrorist tactics to fight the Israelis. But while I believe that Israel has the right of self-defence, it has to take more responsibility for provoking rather than placating the Palestinians.
I have read at various points in time that the majority of Israelis were for halting the "colonization" of neutral or Palestinian properties and for the two state option yet one continues and the other seems dead. It points to a failure of leadership on both sides.
The power imbalance make Israelis look like bullies. I expect they are losing support from the West and creating new jihadis in the Muslim world. I don't expect Israel to lay down their arms, but indiscriminate killing on a 20:1 ratio isn't the answer either. They better come up with a better idea fast.
68 US civilians died at Pearl Harbor and 600,000 Japanese civilians died during the subsequent war (400,000 if you exclude the civilian deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima). 600,000 Japanese to 68 US civilian deaths. Was that indefensible and indiscriminate killing?
Why would you exclude Nagasaki and Hiroshima? America is certainly guilty of indiscriminate killing. There really was no need for the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or Iraq or Hanoi or Yemen or Dresden -- with the help of the British who were also known for overkill. Since the winner writes the history, it can be made to seem defensible, but the war was over when the Japanese cities were bombed, or when Dresden was bombed, and there were no WMD or Gulf of Tonkin provocation in Iraq and Vietnam.
I specified those numbers because the dropping of the atomic bombs is sometimes debated as though it were the only controversial instance of civilian casualties in our war on Japan. My overall point is that in almost every modern war there has been substantial loss of civilian life. Especially wars that occur in urban areas. We should not hold Israel to a unique, utopian standard not being applied to other modern combatants.
I was not saying that Israel did not have the right to defend itself nor that there would be civilian casualties. In fact, Hamas counts on that. What I am saying is that being legal or being right will not necessarily achieve their aims. What they have been doing didn't slow down the rocket attacks (and I suspect the cease-fire has to do with Hamas being out of rockets) and in the Western world there seems to be growing support for the Palestinians (people love to take the underdog which Israel had always been but has now relinquished to the Palestinians). Israel cannot afford the war without the support of the US. I think Principal Z (see below) has the right idea -- both sides need different and better leadership.
I’m open to hearing from other experts, but they need to have, as French does, legal and historical knowledge, and not just reacting emotionally to gut-wrenching photos.
Throughout history, there has always been conflict in the Middle East. There always will be. They call it the Holy Land for a reason. The conflict there is not about politics, and that is why it cannot admit to a political solution. It is about religion and race, primarily, and then about nationalism and culture, but ultimately it is about history, both recent and ancient.
Of the three Abrahamic religions, only two are common in the Middle East: Islam and Judaism. Both lack--but would perhaps benefit from--a cornerstone of the third related religion, Christianity. That would, of course, be the New Testament and its recurrent theme of Love Thy Neighbor. (Matthew 22:39) The elusive solution to this conflict is that simple, just three words.
Good point, Evan, and thank you for pointing that out. Mind you, Leviticus 19:18 refers to "the children of thy people," meaning other Jews. And the Quran, which which I am embarrassingly unfamiliar, comes down pretty hard on us infidels. Even so, the solution to the whole Middle East problem would be trivially simple, were it not for the myriad of ancillary issues, most of which no one talks about.
Eric, you are not wrong. Sometimes I think Jews thrive on persecution, and my Jewish friends do not disagree. Without question, European Christians have persecuted Jews mercilessly. Even so, all I ask now is that they love their neighbors, as one of their own once advised us all to do.
It’s startling how many people, including Saul, are so confident in their contention about what is and is not a “war crime” —in Saul’s words “by any sane definition”. Well before we start accusing soldiers and nations of crimes maybe we should make sure we know what we are talking about. One of the most detailed discussions of this topic is by David French here:
David actually had the job, in Iraq, of making legal judgments about what was permissible and what was not for US forces. In other words he’s not just flying by the seat of his pants (and emotions) like so many of the rest of us are. His conclusion is that the moral and legal responsibility for The civilian deaths in Gaza belong to Hamas.
I disagree with French on generalizing from what is/was permissible for US forces v what is permissible under international law. The subscription to World Politics Review that Isaac so kindly offered his subscribers looks at the issue.
I was born in Israel and most of my family is still there. I share here what I have been saying for years. This conflict is not one between Israel and the Palestinian people. It is a conflict between moderates and extremists. The Israeli people and the Palestinian people generally want peace in much larger numbers than those minority extremists who want to kill the other side. As one example, it wasn't a Palestinian extremist who assassinated an Israeli Prime Minister on the brink of negotiating peace–it was an Israeli extremist. If the media would frame the conflict as one between moderates and extremists that might lead to each side being able to "win victories" by handling THEIR OWN extremists. Israeli's have to deal with their extremists (who are now in power) including the settlers, in particular, and Palestinians would then be emboldened to confront their extremists. If we could frame the conflict in this way we would see how ridiculous it is for Israel to fight Palestinian extremists and vice versa. Moderate majorities on both sides must create an opportunity to unite as one voice for peace, and it is incumbent on Israel to lead this (and to the US Media to reframe the discussion first). No change is possible if we speak as if the Palestinian people are the enemy of Israeli people. They are cousins.
It would be fair to say that both groups have legitimate claims to the land involved. It is also true that Hamas is using terrorist tactics to fight the Israelis. But while I believe that Israel has the right of self-defence, it has to take more responsibility for provoking rather than placating the Palestinians.
I have read at various points in time that the majority of Israelis were for halting the "colonization" of neutral or Palestinian properties and for the two state option yet one continues and the other seems dead. It points to a failure of leadership on both sides.
The power imbalance make Israelis look like bullies. I expect they are losing support from the West and creating new jihadis in the Muslim world. I don't expect Israel to lay down their arms, but indiscriminate killing on a 20:1 ratio isn't the answer either. They better come up with a better idea fast.
68 US civilians died at Pearl Harbor and 600,000 Japanese civilians died during the subsequent war (400,000 if you exclude the civilian deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima). 600,000 Japanese to 68 US civilian deaths. Was that indefensible and indiscriminate killing?
Why would you exclude Nagasaki and Hiroshima? America is certainly guilty of indiscriminate killing. There really was no need for the bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or Iraq or Hanoi or Yemen or Dresden -- with the help of the British who were also known for overkill. Since the winner writes the history, it can be made to seem defensible, but the war was over when the Japanese cities were bombed, or when Dresden was bombed, and there were no WMD or Gulf of Tonkin provocation in Iraq and Vietnam.
I specified those numbers because the dropping of the atomic bombs is sometimes debated as though it were the only controversial instance of civilian casualties in our war on Japan. My overall point is that in almost every modern war there has been substantial loss of civilian life. Especially wars that occur in urban areas. We should not hold Israel to a unique, utopian standard not being applied to other modern combatants.
I was not saying that Israel did not have the right to defend itself nor that there would be civilian casualties. In fact, Hamas counts on that. What I am saying is that being legal or being right will not necessarily achieve their aims. What they have been doing didn't slow down the rocket attacks (and I suspect the cease-fire has to do with Hamas being out of rockets) and in the Western world there seems to be growing support for the Palestinians (people love to take the underdog which Israel had always been but has now relinquished to the Palestinians). Israel cannot afford the war without the support of the US. I think Principal Z (see below) has the right idea -- both sides need different and better leadership.
And another piece by David French here.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/the-law-of-war-permits-israel-to-destroy-hamas/
I’m open to hearing from other experts, but they need to have, as French does, legal and historical knowledge, and not just reacting emotionally to gut-wrenching photos.
Throughout history, there has always been conflict in the Middle East. There always will be. They call it the Holy Land for a reason. The conflict there is not about politics, and that is why it cannot admit to a political solution. It is about religion and race, primarily, and then about nationalism and culture, but ultimately it is about history, both recent and ancient.
Of the three Abrahamic religions, only two are common in the Middle East: Islam and Judaism. Both lack--but would perhaps benefit from--a cornerstone of the third related religion, Christianity. That would, of course, be the New Testament and its recurrent theme of Love Thy Neighbor. (Matthew 22:39) The elusive solution to this conflict is that simple, just three words.
Love thy neighbor isn’t only a New Testament idea. Old Testament has it too (Leviticus 19:18). So does the Quran.
Good point, Evan, and thank you for pointing that out. Mind you, Leviticus 19:18 refers to "the children of thy people," meaning other Jews. And the Quran, which which I am embarrassingly unfamiliar, comes down pretty hard on us infidels. Even so, the solution to the whole Middle East problem would be trivially simple, were it not for the myriad of ancillary issues, most of which no one talks about.
Yes Jews got 20 centuries of Christian love and barely survived it
Eric, you are not wrong. Sometimes I think Jews thrive on persecution, and my Jewish friends do not disagree. Without question, European Christians have persecuted Jews mercilessly. Even so, all I ask now is that they love their neighbors, as one of their own once advised us all to do.
It’s startling how many people, including Saul, are so confident in their contention about what is and is not a “war crime” —in Saul’s words “by any sane definition”. Well before we start accusing soldiers and nations of crimes maybe we should make sure we know what we are talking about. One of the most detailed discussions of this topic is by David French here:
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-two-wrongs-of-the-gaza-narrative
David actually had the job, in Iraq, of making legal judgments about what was permissible and what was not for US forces. In other words he’s not just flying by the seat of his pants (and emotions) like so many of the rest of us are. His conclusion is that the moral and legal responsibility for The civilian deaths in Gaza belong to Hamas.
I disagree with French on generalizing from what is/was permissible for US forces v what is permissible under international law. The subscription to World Politics Review that Isaac so kindly offered his subscribers looks at the issue.
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29669/a-closer-look-at-hamas-israel-war-crimes-and-international-law
Yes, I thought this was particularly helpful as well!