Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534070)

Stage 1: Law (1948)

Here are the laws. We’ll split the land with you.

Stage 2: Law of War (1967)

We’ll attack you using conventional war methods.

Stage 3: Mindless Negotiations (1980s)

We’ll negotiate, you won’t do so in good faith.

Stage 4: Two State Solution

Bill Clinton has us within a breath of solution. Oh, wait… at the last minute, Mr. Arafat says no?

Stage 5: Here’s Gaza. Good Luck. (2005-Present)

We can’t even… Because it’s clear your rulers don’t want a solution.

Stage 6: Let’s Copy ISIS! (2023)

We’ve tried everything. Sorry about your human shields.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 534073)

No, not exclusively. Israel also has agency.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534077)

The aggregation works here because it's all (ostensibly, or as justification) about the Palestinians. Every war was waged in significant part if not entirely to liberate those people (whom no other Arab country is willing to accept, including currently, Egypt). At issue here is not whether some Arab nations have reached peace with Israel - it's whether historically Israel has tried time and time again to give the Palestinians a solution, and to live in peace, only to be attacked or had peace efforts scuttled at the last minute because of bad faith actors such as Arafat, who were more interested in keeping their power and personal fortunes (which accrue only from conflict).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534078)

If you really think that Israel has tried time and time again to give the Palestinians a solution, and to live in peace, I have a bridge in the Negev to sell you. Among (many) other things, the Netanyahu governed has strengthened Hamas to undermine the Palestinian Authority. No one should pretend that the Palestinians have been blameless, but that does not absolve Israel. It has suited Israeli governments for Gaza to be a Hamas-controlled powder keg.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534079)

Where do you get your clarity about Israel and its motives? The one time you’ve spoken about what was happening in Israel where I knew the truth you were dead wrong. Why should I listen to you now?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534079)

Where do you get your clarity about Israel and its motives? The one time you’ve spoken about what was happening in Israel where I knew the truth you were dead wrong. Why should I listen to you now?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534076)

And Israel is using that agency to act appropriately.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534083)

Let’s kill the “look at another cause” argument right here. Because it is garbage.

Netanyahu is at fault. Significant fault. He did strengthen Hamas as part of a cynical strategy to avoid a two state solution. Totally true from what I’ve read.

And he should be held responsible for doing that. And will be.

But that is a different thing from what Hamas did, and never let anyone conflate them. His crime is setting the stage for violence. Hamas then engaged in violence.

Making the argument that Netanyahu is responsible is a dodge. It is meant to detract from what Hamas did. Hamas had agency. It could’ve bombed. It could’ve held territory or even taken hostages and traded them for concessions. Instead, it massacred civilians.

Netanyahu owns his sin of setting the stage. But to attempt to change the subject and focus on him with the silly suggestion he’s somehow culpable for Hamas’ acts is deflection too moronic for serious consideration. It’s also the dumbest victim shaming. “You knew Cletus packed and was a mean drunk and bought him whiskey because you wanted to hit on his cute sister who was also at the bar! You deserve him shooting you!”

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534084)

No one here has said that Netanyahu is culpable for Hamas's acts. If you want to engage with stupid things that no one reasonable is saying, that's what Twitter is for. If you want to engage with other people here, read what they are actually saying and respond to that.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534085)

What’s your point, then, in citing Netanyahu’s culpability in response to my point about Hamas’ culpability in creating a situation in which murderers could commit murder?

I stipulate, as does every person who’s moderately read on the subject, to his culpability in creating a situation in which murderers could commit murder.

So tell me why, after having no substantive response to my prior points about Hamas being the sole bad actor here as having initially committed murders, why you offered “But what about Bibi’s negligence and opportunism?”

Was W at fault entirely for 9/11? Al Qaeda was like a natural disaster? He should have compelled us to be ready, and the US deserved it because we left Afghanistan to rebuild itself after helping it to push out the Russians?

You seem to want to refute my excoriating Hamas. Okay. But you can’t get there by citing Bibi’s failures and opportunism. So, then, what, if you’ve one, is the basis for you objecting to my assertion that Hamas is entirely at fault here because it murdered civilians. What’s your defense that that was not and is never an acceptable behavior?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534087)

I want to separate the issues. What Hamas did was uniquely reprehensible. I don't think it improves the discussion to note that Bibi enabled this. The focus for the moment should be on what Hamas did. Shifting it allows for consideration of something heinous in a broader context in which the grievousness and severity of it is obscured.

These killings were bloodthirsty in a manner (Manson Family-esque) that sets them apart from all the killings done by both sides previously. For this reason, they need to be examined in a vacuum more than they do within a broader context.

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 534080)

People in Gaza: "But we'll be homeless if we leave."
People in Israel: "Welcome to our lives since the beginning of time."

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534089)

The last time Ty was so certain about how Israel was bad was maybe 10 years ago. There were rocket barrages coming into cities so Israel bombed shit. Ty helpfully explained the rockets were no threat to anyone, more like a mosquito, and the bombings were a gross overreaction. I guess he was informed by the same newspaper's opinion pieces?

Meanwhile, my daughter was in Israel for her Birthright trip and they cancelled the Tel Aviv part because it was unsafe. I begged Ty to pass his big knowledge on to the Israel gov so my kid could see the city, but he either did not make the call, or they didn't listen{sad face}

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534089)

The last time Ty was so certain about how Israel was bad was maybe 10 years ago. There were rocket barrages coming into cities so Israel bombed shit. Ty helpfully explained the rockets were no threat to anyone, more like a mosquito, and the bombings were a gross overreaction. I guess he was informed by the same newspaper's opinion pieces?

Meanwhile, my daughter was in Israel for her Birthright trip and they cancelled the Tel Aviv part because it was unsafe. I begged Ty to pass his big knowledge on to the Israel gov so my kid could see the city, but he either did not make the call, or they didn't listen{sad face}

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534087)

What Hamas did was uniquely reprehensible.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534092)

I could throw this right back at you. Looking at the whole of it illuminates nothing regarding a radical change in tactics by Hamas.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534089)

The last time Ty was so certain about how Israel was bad was maybe 10 years ago. There were rocket barrages coming into cities so Israel bombed shit. Ty helpfully explained the rockets were no threat to anyone, more like a mosquito, and the bombings were a gross overreaction. I guess he was informed by the same newspaper's opinion pieces?

Meanwhile, my daughter was in Israel for her Birthright trip and they cancelled the Tel Aviv part because it was unsafe. I begged Ty to pass his big knowledge on to the Israel gov so my kid could see the city, but he either did not make the call, or they didn't listen{sad face}

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534095)

I'm not going to respond to this, because I'm having a hard time not responding in a way that I wouldn't regret later.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534095)

I'm not going to respond to this, because I'm having a hard time not responding in a way that I wouldn't regret later.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534098)

Arafat created a permanent impasse by dragging Barak and Clinton thru a peace process that was 90% done, only to back peddle at the last second and demand what he knew would blow up the deal - right of return. He conveyed to Israel and the world that the PLO was not and would not negotiate in good faith for realistic two state solutions.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 534097)

I know the feeling. I'm considering whether or not people have strong feelings on what kind of garlic to plant. I've got mostly hardnecks going in, some Music, some Ukrainian and Romanian varieties, but most people are a lot more used to the softneck stuff, especially California Garlic, and its much more gentle taste. To tell you the truth, I say screw the Californians and their weak little garlic.

There, I said it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534098)

Arafat created a permanent impasse by dragging Barak and Clinton thru a peace process that was 90% done, only to back peddle at the last second and demand what he knew would blow up the deal - right of return. He conveyed to Israel and the world that the PLO was not and would not negotiate in good faith for realistic two state solutions.



There isn't one. You know my view of religion, so it won't surprise you to hear that any claim to the land based on that is void in my opinion. So then we're left with the law of power. The Israelis did live in the area historically and received and held the land for the last eight decades. Not unlike the Native Americans here, who will never get back that which was lost, nor will the Palestinians. Time marches on and the realpolitik has been for a long time (indeed, embraced by Egypt, Jordan, and soon, Saudi Arabia) that Israel is there to stay, as a Jewish state.

You can argue the Brits fucked up the boundaries, the state should have been elsewhere, whatever. It is what it is. It's there, and most of the Palestinians who lost land are long dead, and their families could have received equivalent land or money under various different deals, but have refused.

And finally, perhaps most importantly, what did those Palestinians lose? Desert. They'd not done anything with it and it wasn't worth anything. The Israelis made the state of Israel into what it is today, because they installed a liberal democracy. Would the Palestinians have done so? No.

Yeah, it's unfair, but any more unfair than giving generations long removed from Israel a right to return to it and reclaim something that's been improved 100X only by the hard work of the current residents?

I totally agree with you that it's a really messy situation. I don't like the law of power ruling any more than anyone else, but if you look around this country, are things much different? We're never giving reparations to descendants of slaves or land back to indigenous peoples because it's just not realistic, and too much time has elapsed for the concept to have any validity. Israel, Northern Ireland... these places are the same.

You can't give the Palestinians back the land, so that means the only thing you can give them is money. How? I don't know.



Yes. I agree. But I also think it's a lack of a future that drives them into Hamas. Rather than disengage, Israel should have subsidized more of the industry that was growing north of Gaza and given aid to the area itself. The more Gazans worked with Israelis and made decent wages, the more money Gazans had, the more its people would develop a sustainable economy as opposed to a welfare state dependent on Iranian money.

We fucked that up. The Israelis fucked that up. We should have tried to buy off/improve these people (those two are not mutually exclusive). Instead, Sharon cut it off, and Netanyahu encourage Hamas for his own political gain.

We piss away so many billions on bullshit around the world. Why we haven't thrown a few billion at placating/improving the Palestinians baffles me.



I've said why. I think Hamas' recent attack is depravity. They've not been depraved before.



We can talk about both, as we are here. But when something so grotesque happens that the perpetrator deserves to be globally condemned in the harshest possible terms, noting in immediate response that the victim isn't exactly blameless is a counterproductive diversion.

An imperfect analogy is the George Floyd thing. In the fallout of that a number of stories cited the fact that he had a long criminal record, that he came from a poor background, that police were ill trained, etc. All these things were true. But IMO they all detracted from what needed to be assessed in a vacuum - the cold blooded killing of the man. That first had to be processed. And I think it had to be seen for nothing more than the brutality it was. Because it was so shocking. Among all the other takeaways that would follow, this had to be front and center, and stand alone: A guy was choked to death under a police boot on camera while three other officers watched and did nothing.

I still cannot figure out how that horrific event occurred. And similarly, I still cannot figure out how Hamas soldiers raped mothers in front of their families and shot them.

An event of depravity is always part of a bigger book. But needs its own chapter, devoted to nothing else but it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534100)

You might like to read A Garlic Testament, by Stanley Crawford. I did.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 534102)

Looks like a good book.

Garlic is among my favorite crops. We grow a little bit of a lot of things, but if I were to actually farm a big crop, garlic would be at the top of my list. It gives you three crops, the chives, the scapes, and the bulbs, and two ways of reproducing (bulbils and cloves). The crops come in at times of year when other things aren't ready for harvest, so it fills in quiet times. And there is a wonderful variety of different kinds.

Of course, I'm also laying plans now to get over 50 varieties of peppers going next year (we did 30 last year and were trying for 40 this year - didn't quite make it because I got distracted).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534103)

Fuck distraction.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534101)

It is somewhat remarkable to see you move so quickly from a completely unprincipled approach to what the Palestinians should expect from a settlement to a stridently moralistic approach to Hamas's recent atrocities. I mean, either can make sense on their own terms, but the juxtaposition between the two is jarring. The guy who says the Palestinians are screwed because of the law of power is aghast when Hamas exercises power.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534105)

The dividing line is easy. Taking land, retaining land, barring right of return. These are of a kind.

Bombing in response to that? I can understand that.

Killing people in a manner on par with serial murderers en masse? Raping women in front of their families? These are of a kind. A very different kind.

But you’re right. I’m trying to square the circle. The situation is not resolvable in any fashion that stands as entirely just. I don’t think it can ever be.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534106)

The dividing line is not easy at all. The Israeli Army forces Palestinians off their land and gives it to settlers. You say, might makes right, such is life. Hamas comes back over the fence and massacres the settlers. You say, this is uniquely awful! Uh, no it is isn't. It is a long-running tragedy of two peoples, each convinced (not without reason!) that they are uniquely world-historical victims, and that that justifies their doing awful things to the other side. Both are aggressor and victim, each in their own unique and incommensurable way. To the Israelis, they are few, the victims of centuries of anti-Semitism and then the Holocaust, and the Arabs are many. To the Palestinians, they are powerless and abandoned by other Arabs, victims of a form of European colonialism that is no longer tolerated anywhere else in the world. Each absolutely and justifiably sees the conflict as existential.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534108)

1 Have you ever used law to harm another person’s position?
2 Have you ever raped a woman in front of her husband and kids?
3 Have you ever chopped a baby’s head off?

I’m willing to bet for you it is Yes, No, No?

For Hamas it’s the other way.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534109)

So you're saying Hamas is bad. Got it. Thanks for contributing that.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534109)

So you're saying Hamas is bad. Got it. Thanks for contributing that.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 534106)

The dividing line is not easy at all. The Israeli Army forces Palestinians off their land and gives it to settlers. You say, might makes right, such is life. Hamas comes back over the fence and massacres the settlers. You say, this is uniquely awful! Uh, no it is isn't. It is a long-running tragedy of two peoples, each convinced (not without reason!) that they are uniquely world-historical victims, and that that justifies their doing awful things to the other side. Both are aggressor and victim, each in their own unique and incommensurable way. To the Israelis, they are few, the victims of centuries of anti-Semitism and then the Holocaust, and the Arabs are many. To the Palestinians, they are powerless and abandoned by other Arabs, victims of a form of European colonialism that is no longer tolerated anywhere else in the world. Each absolutely and justifiably sees the conflict as existential.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 534110)

You'd be an interesting judge. Everybody who did bad would get a similar sentence.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 534111)

Was 9-11 an understandable response in your mind?