Live Conflict Israel-Palestine War|Regional Escalations

[Gary]

Unfortunately one side supports Israel and other side covers for Russia, Iran and the Assad regime.

True, shills for Assad and Putin are now suddenly "outraged" with the bombings in Gaza.

 

[contricusc]

Even if the casualties is disproportionately with the Arabs (they can afford this though).​

So easy to say from the sidelines that others can “afford” the casualities. Arabs are humans too, and their lives matter as well. Why would they sacrifice their lives just to destroy a country that will fall anyway sometime in the future?

Human lives are more valuable than some stupid state borders.

 

[Relic]

If we step away from the fantasies about the Muslim nations teaming up in some great jihad and invading / destroying Israel, which of course would lead to Israel launching nuclear weapons against the most densely populated cities it could strike, what long term solution to this ongoing conflict do people in this thread suggest?

Obviously, a third party mediator needs to be involved. I don't care about a "one state solution" or "two state solution". What parameters would the countries that surround Israel, including an independent Palestine in the scenario I'm proposing, accept for regional peace? Be realistic, in your response. We'd be LUCKY to return to the 1967 borders. Anything before that time frame is a pipe dream in the short to medium term.

 

[Relic]

So easy to say from the sidelines that others can “afford” the casualities. Arabs are humans too, and their lives matter as well. Why would they sacrifice their lives just to destroy a country that will fall anyway sometime in the future?

Human lives are more valuable than some stupid state borders.

While ethically, that makes sense, in reality, it's almost never true. Ultimately, almost every state / country has chosen at some point to trade a disproportinatly large number of lives, for a disproportinately small track of land. That's true both from an offensive perspective and a defensive perspective.

Land is finite, the population can regenerate itself.

 

[contricusc]

While ethically, that makes sense, in reality, it's almost never true. Ultimately, almost every state / country has chosen at some point to trade a disproportinatly large number of lives, for a disproportinately small track of land. That's true both from an offensive perspective and a defensive perspective.

Land is finite, the population can regenerate itself.

That’s because most states / countries are and have been ruled by murderous psychopaths who care more about a presumed personal “legacy” than about the people they are supposed to lead.

Most wars happen because both sides are ruled by evil psychopaths. The current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are clear examples of that.

If the leaders would have to battle it out themselves in a personal death-match, instead of sending young men to die, we would have no wars.

 

[Relic]

That’s because most states / countries are and have been ruled by murderous psychopaths who care more about a presumed personal “legacy” than about the people they are supposed to lead.

Most wars happen because both sides are ruled by evil psychopaths. The current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are clear examples of that.

If the leaders would have to battle it out themselves in a personal death-match, instead of sending young men to die, we would have no wars.

I have to push back on this. I'm going to use a hypothetical that I would like you to engage with.

There are two countries. Country A and Country B. They live beside each other relatively peacefully for many, many years. At some point, Country A gets power / territory hungry under the leadership of a "psychopath" an invades Country B. Now, Country B has a genuinely caring leader, who chooses the path of concession, rather than sending his people to war, with the expressed desire of trading the land of his people, rather than their lives. In this instance you live on the border, so your land and your home, as well as the land and the homes of your family, friends and neighbours are given to Country A in order to appease them. You and your family are displaced and forced to move with whatever you have left of your possessions, let's say 100km away. You're happy to be alive though, you re-settle and start to get your life back on track. Then two years later, Country B, knowing that your leader will not commit to warring (in order to save lives) comes back and invades again. Country B's leader again makes concessions, and again, your home, your land and that of everyone you know that re-settled along with you, is given away, without any say from you...

How many times would that have to happen to you before you'd want Country B to elect their own "psychopath", willing to go to war and inevitably trade the lives of his civilians, to push back the psychopath annexing their territory?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

 

[Gary]

So easy to say from the sidelines that others can “afford” the casualities. Arabs are humans too, and their lives matter as well. Why would they sacrifice their lives just to destroy a country that will fall anyway sometime in the future?

Human lives are more valuable than some stupid state borders.

I'm saying this not because I saw Arab (and by extension Muslims) lives are CHEAP. I say this knowing full well that all wars are painful and especially so when you're fighting in a position of general weakness. But doing nothing means handing total victory. So embrace the pain, the same way all previous "weak" fighting forces embrace pain to achieve victory.

I really want Indonesia to do something but Indonesia is too far away for us to do something about this, and it really is this matter must be solved by the Arabs, because it's in their region ffs.

Think about it, the region is very 'fertile' and young, Egypt alone would reach somewhere between 100-150 million in the next 50 years or so and there aren't many economic opportunities for these young men, that's a free pool of recruits to be used in a long campaign of sustained wars and conquest, and I believe the religion of Islam has made it compulsory for them to sacrifice their lives to do so. So why not use those energies, instead of protesting in the streets into something that achieves results?

Israel is just a nation of 7 million, which happens to be strong by borrowing power from Washington many thousands of Kilometers away. It is in the general consensus that they will eventually capitulate once their backers are out, but in the meantime, there needs to be some "testing waters/probing attack" to make conquest easier when the time comes.

 

[Ryder]

So easy to say from the sidelines that others can “afford” the casualities. Arabs are humans too, and their lives matter as well. Why would they sacrifice their lives just to destroy a country that will fall anyway sometime in the future?

Human lives are more valuable than some stupid state borders.

You dont realise this but Eastern regardless if its Middle Eastern to Far Eastern cultures have always been about sacrifice for the greater good.

Even if Arabs sacrifice a million of themselves they believe its for the greater good.

Japan sacrificed millions of soldiers in WW2.

They always believe we will die one day lets make that sacrifice worthwhile.

Thats the mentality that sets Eastern and Western cultures apart.

 

[Gary]

This @contricusc guy probably thinks I'm being cynical when I said that Arabs could afford deaths. When there are actually 2 reasons why I wrote that:

1. Demography, The Arabs are young and fertile people which will continue to grow past 900+ Million people this century.​

2. Psychology, and this is important. Most of these Arabs are Muslims, and due to constant warfare and conflicts, they're naturally inclined to be Orthodox Muslims rather than Secular muslims because nothing pulls a man closer to god other than hardships.​

​

Here's a recent video of a Palestinian father in Gaza after losing his wife and 22-year-old son in recent bombings.​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1714929669307302391

​

And ALL Orthodox Muslims know that the fastest way to heaven is actually death in combat defending (and expanding) Islam. As this father above clearly explains. So I'm not expecting any kind of unnecessary mourning when death news comes to their families, in fact some of the families will rejoice it.​

​

So NO I'm certainly not being "easy from the sidelines" talking about their death.​

 

[Ryder]

This @contricusc guy probably thinks I'm being cynical when I said that Arabs could afford deaths. When there are actually 2 reasons why I wrote that:

1. Demography, The Arabs are young and fertile people which will continue to grow past 900+ Million people this century.​

2. Psychology, and this is important. Most of these Arabs are Muslims, and due to constant warfare and conflicts, they're naturally inclined to be Orthodox Muslims rather than Secular muslims because nothing pulls a man closer to god other than hardships.​

​

Here's a recent video of a Palestinian father in Gaza after losing his wife and 22-year-old son in recent bombings.​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1714929669307302391

​

And ALL Orthodox Muslims know that the fastest way to heaven is actually death in combat defending (and expanding) Islam. As this father above clearly explains. So I'm not expecting any kind of unnecessary mourning when death news comes to their families, in fact some of the families will rejoice it.​

​

So NO I'm certainly not being "easy from the sidelines" talking about their death.​

Turkish reporter was talking about how the people in Gaza have got used to the death and suffering.

 

[Afif]

If we step away from the fantasies about the Muslim nations teaming up in some great jihad and invading / destroying Israel, which of course would lead to Israel launching nuclear weapons against the most densely populated cities it could strike, what long term solution to this ongoing conflict do people in this thread suggest?

Such holy war is a pipe dream.
And Israel launching nukes would be death sentence to almost every jews on earth.

Also, Israel's nuclear deterrence is more vulnerable than any others. Thanks to its lack of strategic depth, If you put ABM systems in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon amd protect it, you can almost shoot down Israeli nuclear missiles in their boost phase. Of course, they have submarine based deterrence, but it is similarly weak as Pakistani and North Korean one.
I am not saying taking even a few nuclear hit would be walk in the park, but it is an unrealistic scenario. And even if it happnens, it would be more consequential for jews than Muslims.

Obviously, a third party mediator needs to be involved. I don't care about a "one state solution" or "two state solution". What parameters would the countries that surround Israel, including an independent Palestine in the scenario I'm proposing, accept for regional peace? Be realistic, in your response. We'd be LUCKY to return to the 1967 borders.

Muslim/Arab countries will gladly back down if Israel go back to its 1967 border. Anything less than that, in which Israel continue to hold east Jerusalem is not gonna work, not in the long run.

Also, I simply don't think a war would be necessary to make Israel accept 1967 border. (Internationally recognised one)

When Western aids dries out, if Israel's neighbors decides that, you know what? You may not use our straits and canals for trade. If countries block Suez Canal and Bab-el-Mandeb, which they can easily do, it will be a blow to Israeli economy. If your neighbour decides not do trade with you ever, you are not gonna do very well depending on your buddies thousands miles away in the long run.

If Israel want to survive, it has to integrate itself economically in the Middle East in the long run. And they know it.

 

[Lool]

Natenyahu may actually be the one who kay start the destructive cascade of Israel's annihilation
It may take a day, a week, a month a year, or even 10 years.... but without a doubt future historians will point to Natenyahu's era as the starting point for the demise

That guy started a war in which many innocent civilians from both Israel and Gaza will die just so that one corrupt man can escape his impending trial and pass the presidency onto his son in the future

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716726791006503335

 

[Relic]

Such holy war is a pipe dream.
And Israel launching nukes would be death sentence to almost every jews on earth.

Also, Israel's nuclear deterrence is more vulnerable than any others. Thanks to its lack of strategic depth, If you put ABM systems in Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon amd protect it, you can almost shoot down Israeli nuclear missiles in their boost phase. Of course, they have submarine based deterrence, but it is similarly weak as Pakistani and North Korean one.
I am not saying taking even a few nuclear hit would be walk in the park, but it is an unrealistic scenario. And even if it happnens, it would be more consequential for jews than Muslims.



Muslim/Arab countries will gladly back down if Israel go back to its 1967 border. Anything less than that, in which Israel continue to hold east Jerusalem is not gonna work, not in the long run.

Also, I simply don't think a war would be necessary to make Israel accept 1967 border. (Internationally recognised one)

When Western aids dries out, if Israel's neighbors decides that, you know what? You may not use our straits and canals for trade. If countries block Suez Canal and Bab-el-Mandeb, which they can easily do, it will be a blow to Israeli economy. If your neighbour decides not do trade with you ever, you are not gonna do very well depending on your buddies thousands miles away in the long run.

If Israel want to survive, it has to integrate itself economically in the Middle East in the long run. And they know it.

You say that Muslim / Arab countries will easily "back down" if Israel goes back to the 1967 borders, but do you have any tangible proof of that? It seems to me that there is a deep hatred for the existence of the Jewish state of of Israel among the Arab / Muslim countries in the region and a long term, coordinated effort to destroy it. Do you think that's an unfair statement? It seems obvious to me that Arabs and Muslims in the region would allow Jews to live in a non-Jewish state, as somewhat second class citizens, but aren't willing to accept a state for Jews, run by Jews, on their borders.

 

[Ravager]

T

You say that Muslim / Arab countries will easily "back down" if Israel goes back to the 1967 borders, but do you have any tangible proof of that? It seems to me that there is a deep hatred for the existence of the Jewish state of of Israel among the Arab / Muslim countries in the region and a long term, coordinated effort to destroy it. Do you think that's an unfair statement? It seems obvious to me that Arabs and Muslims in the region would allow Jews to live in a non-Jewish state, as somewhat second class citizens, but aren't willing to accept a state for Jews, run by Jews, on their borders.

67 border is the minimum threshold the moslem world would willing to accept for Israel recognization in the moslem world . Until today Indonesia never acknowledged them and we are the benchmark for the rest . Yeah , we are nobody today . But , someday we are ... Not for long to be honest . We are simply too lazy and reluctance to throw our weight around .

 

[Ryder]

You say that Muslim / Arab countries will easily "back down" if Israel goes back to the 1967 borders, but do you have any tangible proof of that? It seems to me that there is a deep hatred for the existence of the Jewish state of of Israel among the Arab / Muslim countries in the region and a long term, coordinated effort to destroy it. Do you think that's an unfair statement? It seems obvious to me that Arabs and Muslims in the region would allow Jews to live in a non-Jewish state, as somewhat second class citizens, but aren't willing to accept a state for Jews, run by Jews, on their borders.

They can go back to Europe where they belong.

The lands belong to the Turks not to the Arabs or the Jews.

 

[Afif]

You say that Muslim / Arab countries will easily "back down" if Israel goes back to the 1967 borders, but do you have any tangible proof of that? It seems to me that there is a deep hatred for the existence of the Jewish state of of Israel among the Arab / Muslim countries in the region and a long term, coordinated effort to destroy it. Do you think that's an unfair statement?

Yes, it is unfair. While I don't want look down on you in the old fashion 'oh look, another typical Westerner doesn't understand how Middle East actually works' but this is a gross oversimplification a best.

First and foremost, if there was an actual persistence coordinated effort to destroy Israel, the small country would have been much more trouble then it already is. The only country in the Middle East that has an active state policy to destroy the Israeli as nation state is Iran. Arabs states doesn't have such state goal. (Most people forget 1956 anf 1967 Arab-Israeli war was initiated by Israel attacks. and then 1973 was initiated by Egypt and Syria to take back the territories that Arab countries lost in Israeli invasion of 1967)


It is unwise to derive geopolitical Conclusion from how masses think and react in these oppressive Arab dictatorships.
They are not literate enough to understand how things actually works in the modern world. And everything they see, is through the lense of preconceived/indoctrinated (Mostly religious) point of view. But intellectuals and statemens are thankfully not like that.

Any rational Arab or Muslim mind today does not outright refuse the Israel's right to exist. Historically, it is already too late and any attempt fundementally change it, is not practical anymore.

Our porblem is the way Israel is existing, by continously expanding and illegally annexing legitimate Palestinian territories. (And in the process killing Palestinians and demolishing their ancestral homes) In a nutshell, Israel's Apertheid policy toward Palestinians and complete unwillingness to go back to their internationally recognised border of 1967 is the root cause of all problem. Hamas is just a scapegoat here for Israel.

Bassem Yousu Summerized it very well in his recent interview. (There is no Hamas in West Bank)

Arabs genuinely did try to make peace with Israeli in accord with the International law and consensus, but Israel refused to go back to its 1967 territory. Arab peace initiative was a golden Opportunity for Israel to normalize its relations not only with the Arab world but also with broader Muslim world. But they threw it away thinking they can just have it all for themselves.

Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Arab peace initiative: full text | Israel | The Guardian

This is the full text of an agreement reached at the Arab League summit in Beirut.

amp.theguardian.com

Israel deliberately made it an existential confrontation. And no amount of rationality and modernity is gonna make us give up on Alqsa and Jerusalem.

 

[Relic]

They can go back to Europe where they belong.

The lands belong to the Turks not to the Arabs or the Jews.

The Turks lost those lands when they got their asses handed to them in WWI. That's how life goes. Turks chose the wrong side of a war, got their shit pushed in and lost territory as a result of taking an L in legitimate war. Do the Lebanese want to give Lebanon back to the Christians, who they took it from via war? I highly doubt it.

This silly idea that anyone deserves anything simply because it's "theirs" historically, is comical. The story of human existence is warring tribes, exerting their will on their neighbour and conquering their lands. Turks are no different than the rest of us. The Ottomans had a great run as an empire, but it came to an end when 300,000 were killed in WWI at the hands of European and Trans-Atlantic alliance. 172,000 of my countrymen were killed and wounded fighting against the Central Powers and helping assure their defeat.

Sometimes you have to take your L like a man. Had you folks won the war, you'd still have control of the lands you claim to be "yours".

Israel was created in completely legal fashion, by the winners of war and subsequent "owners" of territory. At this point, the Jewish State has every legal right to exist. If people want them to go back to Europe they can feel free to invade Israel and force that outcome. Fare play!

 

[Relic]

Yes, it is unfair. While I don't want look down on you in the old fashion 'oh look, another typical Westerner doesn't understand how Middle East actually works' but this is a gross oversimplification a best.

First and foremost, if there was an actual persistence coordinated effort to destroy Israel, the small country would have been much more trouble then it already is. The only country in the Middle East that has an active state policy to destroy the Israeli as nation state is Iran. Arabs states doesn't have such state goal. (Most people forget 1956 anf 1967 Arab-Israeli war was initiated by Israel attacks. and then 1973 was initiated by Egypt and Syria to take back the territories that Arab countries lost in Israeli invasion of 1967)


It is unwise to derive geopolitical Conclusion from how masses think and react in these oppressive Arab dictatorships.
They are not literate enough to understand how things actually works in the modern world. And everything they see, is through the lense of preconceived/indoctrinated (Mostly religious) point of view. But intellectuals and statemens are thankfully not like that.

Any rational Arab or Muslim mind today does not outright refuse the Israel's right to exist. Historically, it is already too late and any attempt fundementally change it, is not practical anymore.

Our porblem is the way Israel is existing, by continously expanding and illegally annexing legitimate Palestinian territories. (And in the process killing Palestinians and demolishing their ancestral homes) In a nutshell, Israel's Apertheid policy toward Palestinians and complete unwillingness to go back to their internationally recognised border of 1967 is the root cause of all problem. Hamas is just a scapegoat here for Israel.

Bassem Yousu Summerized it very well in his recent interview. (There is no Hamas in West Bank)

Arabs genuinely did try to make peace with Israeli in accord with the International law and consensus, but Israel refused to go back to its 1967 territory. Arab peace initiative was a golden Opportunity for Israel to normalize its relations not only with the Arab world but also with broader Muslim world. But they threw it away thinking they can just have it all for themselves.

Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Arab peace initiative: full text | Israel | The Guardian

This is the full text of an agreement reached at the Arab League summit in Beirut.

amp.theguardian.com

Israel deliberately made it an existential confrontation. And no amount of rationality and modernity is gonna make us give up on Alqsa and Jerusalem.

I watched this interview the other day. I genuinely appreciated Youssef's dark humor throughout the interview. It's not surprising given that he is actually a professional comedian and a legitimately funny guy!

His countrymen, the Egyptians teamed up with Syria and several expeditionary forces in 1973 to invade the Golan Heights and re-take the land from Israel and an outnumbered Israeli military. The Israelis systematically routed the joint Egyptian / Syrian / Arab army and held onto the land. What's wrong with that? A number of countries stepped up and tried to invade. It led to 2800 Israelis killed and another 8000 wounded. There were also 40,000-50,000 soldiers from the Arab coalition killed and wounded and another 8000 captured. They made a valid attempt and got smashed in conventional war. What's the problem?

 

[Afif]

I watched this interview the other day. I genuinely appreciated Youssef's dark humor throughout the interview. It's not surprising given that he is actually a professional comedian and a legitimately funny guy!

His countrymen, the Egyptians teamed up with Syria and several expeditionary forces in 1973 to invade the Golan Heights and re-take the land from Israel. The Israelis systematically routed the joint Egyptian / Syrian army and held onto the land. What's wrong with that? Two countries stepped up and tried to invade. It led to 2800 Israelis killed and another 8000 wounded. There were also 40,000-50,000 soldiers from the Arab coalition killed and wounded and another 8000 captured. They made a valid attempt and got smashed in conventional war. What's the problem?

Not a problem, Israel refusing to accept the Arab peace initiative is the problem.
They are deliberately making it existential confrontation. (Very unlikely it will end well for them)

 

[Relic]

Not a problem, Israel refusing to accept the Arab peace initiative is the problem.
They are deliberately making it existential confrontation. (Very unlikely it will end well for them)

Then regional players need to step up and stop them. Have values, believe in them and be ready to die for them.

I actually agree that it won't likely end well for them, but they're an independent country, with their own choices to make. They can choose to make peace with their neighbours, or they can choose to make war. The outcome / consequences of said war(s) is their cross to bare.

You're not going to find a sympathetic bone in my body towards Israel's expansionist agenda in the West Bank, nor am I going to applaud them for the control they exert over Gaza. They are perpetually kicking a hornet's nest and, eventually, as happened earlier this month, they're going to get stung. That said, I fully support their right, and the right of any other nation (Palestine included) to defend themselves when they are invaded.

And before you ask, no, I do not believe in proportional response as it has not been a tactic used by the the winning combatants of modern wars. The British didn't exercise proportional response in Dresden in WWII when they turned the entire population to soup, in order to make a point about the Nazis bombing London. The Americans didn't exercise proportional response in Japan in WWII when they dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to force Japan into bending the knee. Hell, the West isn't exercising proportional response now against Russia, as we use our combined 50+ Trillion usd of GDP to slowly bleed Putin's army dry of the great Soviet stockpile, essentially ending Russia's conventional military threat to Europe, while expanding and strenghening NATO with the additions of Finland and Sweden. Of course Israel is going to respond to Hamas' attack on the homeland with disproportional force. It's what winners do.