Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[vimothy]

No, but it might behave differently if it knew there was a serious possibility of that aid being reduced, or cut off altogether. It may not be acting in the way that the most hard-line members of either the government, the military or the general public would like - which is to say, to give every square metre of Gaza the Tokyo '45 treatment - so yes, in that extremely bare sense, the response has been 'moderated'. But I think it's fair to say Israel has only been able to behave in the way that it has because it's benefited from the USA's apparently unconditional support since the country's inception.

I agree to some extent. what the biden admin is doing is trying to thread the needle of moderating israel whilst also not alienating them. go too far in he wrong direction and you loose your legitimacy with its public and they no longer care what you think.

 

[version]

I think the problem is a bit more prosaic. israel has nukes - what will it take for them to use them? war with iran, where it considers itself to be threatened existential? who is actually in charge of the nukes? Israel is obvs at a point of high pressure in which it's easy to imagine mistakes being made. mistakes are being made, in fact, right now. perhaps this is one explanation for the presence of all of these us air craft carriers in the media - to prevent *israeli* nuclear escalation.

This interview's from a few years back, but still alarming / interesting,

After evacuating Gaza, a lonely general of faith struggles for Israel's salvation - The Times of Israel

God-fearing and 'unenlightened,' Maj. Gen. (res) Gershon Hacohen hasn't lost trust in the 'holy' army, but believes an Iranian nuke on Tel Aviv is preferable to a two-state solution

www.timesofisrael.com

A former general, Gershon Hacohen, who commanded the army’s 2005 Gaza withdrawal and oversaw the forced removal of the 8,000 settlers living among 1.5 million Palestinians in the territory, remains haunted by the choice he was forced to make between his conscience and his uniform — between the rule of law and an army he calls “holy” on one hand, and, on the other, the historic imperative he sees in retaining every inch of land he believes God gave to the Jews.

He asserted, in fact, that any further territorial concession would be more harmful to Israel than an Iranian nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv.

“Any two-state solution equals the expulsion of more than 100,000 Jews and that is impossible,” the newly retired Maj. Gen. (res) Hacohen said. “It is a catastrophe.”

“It is worse than the Iranian threat, because I know how to live with an Iranian bomb on Tel Aviv, God forbid, I don’t want it to happen, but it is war. And I know how to live with the horrible cost of war. I pray it won’t happen, but I don’t know how to live with destruction of dozens of settlements and study halls and synagogues and the exiling of Jews from the Land of Israel.”

 

[vimothy]

Oh good, that is reassuring at least. If you were Iran, you might think they were on your doorstep, not Israels’s.

Maybe we'll get a USS Liberty rerun, history has that nasty habit.

they're obviously on Irans door step, and on russias. china too. it's a major cluster fuck of world historical proportions

 

[vimothy]

it's easy to see how this could lead to WWIII, but for real this time

 

[Mr. Tea]

I agree to some extent. what the biden admin is doing is trying to thread the needle of moderating israel whilst also not alienating them. go too far in he wrong direction and you loose your legitimacy with its public and they no longer care what you think.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if the US were serious about lasting peace and a two-state solution that isn't totally unfair on the Palestinians, maybe caring a bit less about what Israel thinks, and giving serious consideration to what Israel could effectively be forced to do (or stop doing) through a reduction or cessation of aid, would be the way forward. Israel would call it blackmail, of course, but then we're back to the problem of foregrounding what Israel thinks or says, rather than what they're actually doing.

The huge problem there is not so much Israeli popular opinion as American opinion, because it's only really radicals (or progressives, at the very least) in the US who'd support this. They're growing in number but they're very, very far from a plurality of the electorate, and both conservatives and liberals alike (albeit to different degrees) in general support Israel.

 

[vimothy]

In response to the US moving its "carrier strike groups" to the med, russia has started patrols over the black sea of jets armed with hypersonic missiles: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-black-sea/articleshow/104532007.cms?from=mdr

 

[vimothy]

I suppose what I'm saying is that if the US were serious about lasting peace and a two-state solution that isn't totally unfair on the Palestinians, maybe caring a bit less about what Israel thinks, and giving serious consideration to what Israel could effectively be forced to do (or stop doing) through a reduction or cessation of aid, would be the way forward. Israel would call it blackmail, of course, but then we're back to the problem of foregrounding what Israel thinks or says, rather than what they're actually doing.

The huge problem there is not so much Israeli popular opinion as American opinion, because it's only really radicals (or progressives, at the very least) in the US who'd support this. They're growing in number but they're very, very far from a plurality of the electorate, and both conservatives and liberals alike (albeit to different degrees) in general support Israel.

true, but, it's not the case that the us can simply dictate terms. the extent to which it can influence israel depends on aid, for sure, but also a perceived alignment of aims. in the absence of us influence are you sure that israel would be more rather than less moderate? doesnt seem obvious to me. what the international community needs is something which has buy-in from both sides, and that is not easy to acheive.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

firstly, not overreacting and bombing the gaza strip to smithereens, killing huge numbers of innocent civilians. that would *maintain* israeli legitimacy.
secondly, moving through or creating international institutions in response. that would *extend* israeli legitimacy.

Due respect, this entire line of reasoning exists in a fantasy world that has Israeli leadership acting exactly opposite from the way it always has previously. It also supposes the countries care about international institutions in and of themselves rather than as lip service (which is still better than nothing, tbc).

They've set the bar so high for disproportionate response to previous enormously - literally orders of magnitude - lesser attacks that they're now forced to threaten everything short of nuclear annihilation. Calling up 300k reservists, flattening Gaza, a medieval siege that could kill who knows how many people of thirst, these are all terrible decisions, but they're completely in line with the Israeli policy of deterrence thru hugely disproportionate response and collective punishment. The Israeli govt is impaled on the horns of its own rhetoric. It's the same vise that Arab leaders repeatedly got stuck in pre-Camp David.

And no one who has to respects international law or institutions. It's just a fact. The U.S., China, Russia, etc do basically what they want. That's especially true of Israel, which has a deep mistrust of the UN etc, and only needs the continued backing of the American govt. Netanyahu and his far-right govt are especially uninterested. Olmert wanted to disengage from over 90% of the West Bank as the basis for a lasting peace. Otoh religious Zionist parties, including extremely unsavory characters like Itamar Ben-Gvir and frothing homophobe Bezalel Smotrich, are a key part of Netanyahu's governing bloc. They don't give a single solitary fuck about international institutions.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

And it goes back well before Netanyahu tbc

Deterrence thru overwhelming reprisal and collective punishment have always been Israeli policy. Deir Yassin, Al-Dawayima, etc in 48 (which did have some Arab counter-massacres tho not nearly as as many). The attritional border raiding of the 50s and 60s. Sabra and Shatila. Cast Lead.

There's no room to maneuver here. It's always been you take one of ours we'll take ten of yours, and/or Shin Bet/Sayaret Makal etc will hunt down and extrajudicially kill the perpetrators.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

No offense here, just insane to expect an Israeli response directly counter to literally everything they've done ever

 

[vimothy]

haha well, due respect as welll, but I disagree. I'm very cynical about international law -- I'm a "realist". but I also recognise that international law exists and it exists for a reason. and that reason is legitimisation. and legitimisation is the basis of authority. maybe no one cares about this now, but the international system is in shreds and it's for the same reason: lack of legitimacy. might does not make right, and if you want to argue the contrary, on what basis are you going to do it?

 

[vimothy]

the hacienda must be built

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

might does not make right, and if you want to argue the contrary, on what basis are you going to do it?

Name me a single occasion when someone from a powerful country has been convicted of war crimes by an international criminal court

Name me a single occasion when international law and institutions have stopped a major power from going to war and/or oppressing its own citizens as it sees fit

 

[vimothy]

also, wrt to the bit of text you're responding to, I'm sketching out a hypothetical israeli response. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that it would make more sense based on what seem like their aims (ultimate survival of their state).

 

[vimothy]

Name me a single occasion when someone from a powerful country has been convicted of war crimes by an international criminal court

Name me a single occasion when international law and institutions have stopped a major power from going to war and/or oppressing its own citizens as it sees fit

maybe there are no examples

 

[version]

Henry Kissinger's been cursed to live forever for his crimes.

 

[vimothy]

so what do you want

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm not saying that it's likely, just that it would make more sense based on what seem like their aims (ultimate survival of their state).

That's more reasonable

The disconnect was saying "why didn't they do this instead? Their response seems crazy and/or counterproductive"

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

so what do you want

I obv don't think this is good btw

I'm just saying it's a fact and pretending otherwise is unrealistic

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Bc obv from Israeli leadership's POV their response makes sense, and there are clear potential historical reasons for that