Israel And The Palestinians: A Nightmare In Desperate Search Of A Solution

[PeterRS]

12 hours ago, vinapu said:

You not only member here who visited country and while I agree that it's people are highly cultured, sophisticated and well behaved , in short you can sense that that are supported by thousands years of history,  I found pockets of fanaticism surprisingly spacious and reaching  intellectually higher levels of society as well.

Unsolicited lecture about sunni-shia schism in 8th century I was given by very polished university professor  while visiting poet's Hafez mausoleum in Shiraz was so intense that it bordered on outright scary. Think about witnessing Dr. Jelkyll / Mr. Hyde transformation yourself. 

I am aware from earlier threads that you have also visited Iran and been charmed by its beauty and its peoples. I am also aware that the Sunni/Shia'a schism continues to dog the world in an even worse manner that the Great Schism between the Christian and Orthodox Churches centuries ago. Indeed, on the week-end I arrived in Tehran it happened to be the most important Festival of Ashura when Shia's commemorate the death of the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. I watched from my hotel processions of men of all ages, the younger ones engaged in self-flagellation by beating their backs with what looked like ugly chains.

Yet, on the day after when all cafes and restaurants - indeed all shops - were closed, I encountered a kindness I found both bewildering and tremendously uplifting. Walking through the bazaar, virtually every stall holder offered me coffee or tea. Walking along a street mercifully empty of traffic, restaurants had tables outside with meals which they handed out to almost anyone who passed. This included me, even though I was from a country which had imposed crippling sanctions on their country. Iran has by far the largest Shia's population of any country in the world. Had I been a Sunni Muslim, I am certain the hospitality would still have been extended to me. Refreshments were always handed over with a smile.

I mention this because I do fervently believe that only a tiny minority of Iranians are fanatics. Take away the 300,000 or so who are in the hated Revolutionary Guard under the thumb of the clerics, and you will not find many fanatics. Like you, I spoke to quite a number of Iranians, including ordinary men on the street whom we stopped to find a particular mosque. I talked with one group of young men and women at the same Tomb of Hafez. Many were keen to practise their English. 

In Shiraz, my guide's father made wine - a strict no-no in Iran with severe punishment. In a vegetable juice bottle, he gave me some of the wine. It was passable and a nice prelude to a dinner served with the uniquitous pomegranite juice. In Yazd we stopped an elderly man making his way to prayers. He answered our question and then started on about his loathing of the regime and how it was ruining his country. Walking in the evening along the bank of the dry river in Esfahan, many of the young people out to enjoy themselves eating and chatting with friends, waved and said "hello" or "welcome". I fear that some of these young ladies may have been caught up in the more recent violent crackdown on the wearing of headscarves.

My guide was alarmed only once. That was when after visiting the tomb of Cyrus The Great he saw a group of the Revolutionary guard stopping cars. He quickly turned around!

No one knows what will happen in the Middle East conflicts presently underway, including the long running war in the Yemen in which iran has also been involved. My belief is that if Iranians had an effective say in the running of their country, the religious elite would be out in a flash. But that is just my view.

[reader]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I'm sorry - and with all respect for all your many valuable contributions to this Board - that is a complete cop out. To state unequivocally on the one hand "no autocratic regime has more to lose than Iran if it miscalculates the consequence of future actions" and on the other give not one clue as to what these consequences might be suggests the original statement is probably incorrect. Had it been made about quite a number of other countries inthe world, I would absolutely have agreed with you. About Iran, sorry I can not.

I chose not to pre-empt the Defense Department announcement today of military actions by US ground and naval forces against attacks from terrorist organizations. It is likely we will see more of this activity going forward. It should come as no surprise since the US is Israel’s staunchest alley in the region.

i doubt that you—or any observer—needed me to tell you that the US wouldn’t sit on its hands in the face of aggression against its assets or its ally.

From CNN

A US Navy warship operating in the Middle East intercepted multiple projectiles near the coast of Yemen on Thursday, two US officials told CNN. 

One of the officials said the missiles were fired by Iranian-backed Houthi militants, who are engaged in an ongoing conflict in Yemen. Approximately 2-3 missiles were intercepted, according to the second official.

Later Thursday Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder confirmed that the USS Carney shot down three land attack missiles as well as several drones that were launched by Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen.

The incident was one of a series in recent days with US bases being targeted by drones in Syria and Iraq amid increasing tensions in the region as the war between Israel and Hamas continues. 

The drone attacks targeting the base in Syria resulted in “minor injuries,” Ryder said.

On Wednesday, two drones targeted the al-Tanf garrison in Syria, where US and anti-ISIS coalition forces are based, Ryder said. One drone was engaged and destroyed, and another drone impacted the base resulting in minor injuries to coalition forces, Ryder said.

That same morning, in Iraq, early warning systems indicated a possible threat approaching the al-Asad airbase where US personnel are stationed. No attack occurred, but personnel sheltered in place and an American civilian contractor suffered a cardiac episode and died shortly thereafter, Ryder said. 

On Tuesday, US forces defended against three drones near US and coalition forces in Iraq, Ryder said. Two of the drones targeted the al-Asad airbase, which resulted in minor injuries to coalition forces. And in northern Iraq near Bashur airbase, US forces engaged and destroyed a drone, resulting in no injuries or damage, Ryder said. 

“While I’m not going to forecast any potential response to these attacks, I will say that we will take all necessary actions to defend US and coalition forces against any threat,” he said. “Any response, should one occur, will come at a time and a manner of our choosing.”

 

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, reader said:

I chose not to pre-empt the Defense Department announcement today of military actions by US ground and naval forces against attacks from terrorist organizations.

That is not the question I have asked in response to your earlier statement. You were very clear in stating "no autocratic regime has more to lose than Iran if it miscalculates the consequence of future actions." All I have asked is very simple given the simplicity of your statement. What will Iran lose? Lose from which nation? Or of it is easier, what in your own view will Iran lose?

The USA declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism way back in 1984 - nearly 40 years ago. In the Department of State 2021 Country Reports on Terrorism there is a very long list of Iran's terrorist actions. Even in the section dealing with Programs and initiatives, there is absolutely nothing about what specifically the USA has done to mitigate or even stop Iran during that time! Arguably that's because it has done very little.

I have been clear in stating there is likely to be virtually no come back on Iran that it is not presently suffering - providing of course it does not directly strike America or American targets. I wish there was, but I can see nothing barring a nuclear strike. And the Lord only knows how that would escalate worldwide! Sanctions? They have been very tight for years. Military action? From which nation? I accept that ten years ago wiping out part of Iran might not have been too difficult. Now the whole scenario is very, very different.

For years Iran has operated virtually with impunity as a bad actor in several Middle Eastern countries. The US has done virtually nothing. The EU has done virtually nothing. Israel has done virtually nothing. Russia and China are now its allies. No western government is going to take on Iran, least of all the USA with all its other military commitments and possible future commitments around the world. Iranian missiles and drones can be shot down day after day, but that does virtually zero harm to Iran.

I would still appreciate an answer to your very specific question made in response to my earlier post.

[reader]

Go back read what I said about Israel making good on its vow to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It’s understood that if Iran persists in developing one, that would constitute a grave miscalculation of the consequences.

If you’re curious what the US might do, this is as clear a statement as you’re going to get:

”While I’m not going to forecast any potential response to these attacks, I will say that we will take all necessary actions to defend US and coalition forces against any threat,” he said. “Any response, should one occur, will come at a time and a manner of our choosing.”

Couldn’t have—and won’t—make it any clearer than that. If British assets were attacked, I’m confident we’d see a very similar statement out of Downing Street. 

Patience is a virtue, Peter, and the Buddha tells us that the future is inexplicable.

[PeterRS]

So your specific answer to your spectific statement is you have no answer. Fine. Your prerogative.

[reader]

42 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

So your specific answer to your spectific statement is you have no answer. Fine. Your prerogative.

No, just not the answer you desire.🙂

[caeron]

 

>> The US has done virtually nothing. <<

 

I don't consider sabotage, assassination and who knows what else we don't hear about, "nothing." If you don't know about these events, then you haven't been following the news on Iran for the last decade or so.

Shooting missiles at Iran and dropping bombs on them are hardly the only responses the US has. The fact that  you haven't heard about all the US actions doesn't mean they haven't happened. 

The Hamas attack may well give Israel the cover it needs to actually escalate attacks  on Iran that to date have been mostly in the shadows. The US shies away from "regime change", but I doubt Israel has those same qualms.

Yes, it can get a lot uglier for Iran. It can also get a lot uglier for Israel, Hamas and a host of others. As long as a lot of people are more invested in the conflict than in its resolution, the killings will continue on both sides.

[Moses]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Israel has done virtually nothing.

Hm... Just killing few Iranian scientists, high rank officers...

[vinapu]

18 hours ago, reader said:

since the US is Israel’s staunchest ally in the region.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be but that my be reason why Palestinian  problem is never even close to solving and results in US hating in big parts of Muslim world. 

[reader]

The decision to go to war in Ukraine was made by the attacker and not the attacked. Likewise was the case in Israel. At that stage, there can only be one response: defend and retaliate. 

Trying to trace this all back half-a-century ago to whether the US had appropriate diplomats in place is absurd. Iran, like so many Mideast nations, would end up radicalized one way or the other. The momentum was already in place.

When the Arab Spring made its first appearance, many thought it was signaling the beginning of the end of Mideast tensions. That was then and this is now. History rarely takes a chartered course. 

We can claim, as Peter had, that inaction by the international community that’s permitted Iran to pursue enrichment activities. And it’s a point worth debating. But once the first missiles dropped on Israel, it became academic. 

 

[caeron]

 

Characterizing Israel as the attacked is overly simplistic to me. The Israeli military has been killing civilians in fairly large numbers for years. I suspect their families and communities are not at all comforted to hear the Israelis say they were trying to kill terrorists.

I think a state of war has existed for quite some time with a fair amount of killing on both sides, though the Israelis win the body count battle.

I don't think the chance for peace is much helped when people around the world pick sides in this conflict and thereby effectively egg the parties on to continue it.

The conflict is unwinnable by either side.  Israel can't kill an idea, and Hamas and those like it aren't going to make the state of Israel go away.

But, they're both going to keep trying because at the moment they're both more invested in the problem than a solution.

[Moses]

3 hours ago, reader said:

Trying to trace this all back half-a-century ago to whether the US had appropriate diplomats in place is absurd

Everything started in 1948. Israel and US played significant role, and now Israel has what has been unavoidable - if you will push spring, you will get reaction soon or late.

[KeepItReal]

39 minutes ago, Moses said:

Everything started in 1948. Israel and US played significant role, and now Israel has what has been unavoidable - if you will push spring, you will get reaction soon or late.

Actually, it goes back to 1917 when the British government by means of Arthur Balfour established a policy to create a Jewish state. In 1947 the Russian government also supported the creation of a Jewish state at the UN. 

I am not blind to the USA's faults, but we cant be blamed for everything! 

[Moses]

1 hour ago, KeepItReal said:

In 1947 the Russian government also supported the creation of a Jewish state at the UN. 

I'm more than OK with creating Jewish state. I'm talking about ignorance of creating Palestinian state simultaneously with creating Jewish state as it is decided by UN. 

[vinapu]

6 hours ago, Moses said:

I'm more than OK with creating Jewish state. I'm talking about ignorance of creating Palestinian state simultaneously with creating Jewish state as it is decided by UN. 

Christmas continues , I agree again. Palestinians were dumped on Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank ) both countries who did not want them and were glad to get rid of them , dumping problem again on occupying Israel. 

 So yes, international community is to be blamed.  And so is Israel as their occupation is brutal and taken hostage by settler's movement. And so are Palestinians as their squabbling prevented them from creating  effective leadership able to explain that Nakhba (spelling? , catastrophe )of 1948 can't and wont be reversed. 

But that was then, now reader is right, Israel got attacked and has every right to defend itself and making sure such war won't repeat itself any time soon. That's unfortunate 

but it's long held wisdom , known to Neanderthals already  - don't start war without hope of winning and clear aims of what you want to achieve. 

Refusal to settle with reality on both sides will be inflaming point until finally they sober up. Israel must learn how to accommodate Palestinians and they must realize Israel is to stay there.

Too bad they don't take look at history of Central Europe after II world war. Germany lost 1/4 of territory to Poland and USSR, Poland lost 40% to USSR , Czechoslovakia and Romania also lost sizable chunks to USSR. Millions were forced to resettle from those territories.

Catherine the Great is spinning in her grave that her hometown is now in Poland (Szczecin, former Stettin) , country she helped to destroy and carve , Immanuel Kant never left Koenigsberg and is wondering why he is buried in Russia and yet those nations learned to live first and then prosper with and within new reality, shaking hands and co-operating , crossing borders the same way Londoners are crossing Thames and Parisians Seine. 

[Latbear4blk]

19 minutes ago, vinapu said:

Christmas continues , I agree again. Palestinians were dumped on Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank ) both countries who did not want them and were glad to get rid of them , dumping problem again on occupying Israel. 

 So yes, international community is to be blamed.  And so is Israel as their occupation is brutal and taken hostage by settler's movement. And so are Palestinians as their squabbling prevented them from creating  effective leadership able to explain that Nakhba (spelling? , catastrophe )of 1948 can't and wont be reversed. 

But that was then, now reader is right, Israel got attacked and has every right to defend itself and making sure such war won't repeat itself any time soon. That's unfortunate 

but it's long held wisdom , known to Neanderthals already  - don't start war without hope of winning and clear aims of what you want to achieve. 

No, he's not right. This conflict didn't start with the latest Hamas attack.

Anyway, it's interesting to see how this is evolving. It doesn't make sense to me that Hamas would massacre so many innocent Israeli civilians. They outsmarted Israel's defense and could have claimed an astonishing victory if they had destroyed Israeli military installations and killed or captured their soldiers. Instead, they murdered and kidnapped innocent people. They aren't dumb. This might be a provocation to lure Israeli deployment into Gaza and surprise the Israelis again with unexpected tactics and weapons.

I doubt Israel isn't entering the territory to avoid innocent Palestinian deaths. History shows that Palestinian lives are undervalued to them. They are probably gathering intelligence because they have the same suspicions I do: Hamas is planning something else.

[vinapu]

10 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

they have the same suspicions I do: Hamas is planning something else.

you better be wrong

[reader]

We’ve pretty much exhausted how it came about and what root causes we perceive that could be responsible. And as a few have opined, we’re heavy on the blame but light on solutions. Two American presidents—Carter and later Clinton—expended much high-level energy on bringing about a peace. Conditions conspired to undo those efforts. So what else remains to be tried?

The other gnawing question that has yet to be addressed is why did the Israeli government fail to benefit from advance US intelligence that Hamas was preparing for some type of action in the near term. 

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, reader said:

........, we’re heavy on the blame but light on solutions. Two American presidents—Carter and later Clinton—expended much high-level energy on bringing about a peace. Conditions conspired to undo those efforts. So what else remains to be tried?

 

I can see two solutions:

one is logic but pipe dream for now, two states

second one is cruel but most probable - loss of blood on both sides leading to exhaustion so big  they notice they need to accommodate each other without third party interference.

As for those noble presidents efforts, they are contaminated with original sin, there are very few Arabs or Muslims  and even less Palestinians who think USA is impartial referee in that conflict. 

When Tawan and Freshboys will be fighting for best location in Patpong they will not ask vinapu to come with fair solution as it's  known from at least 12th century vinapu will side with Tawan

[caeron]

2 hours ago, reader said:

We’ve pretty much exhausted how it came about and what root causes we perceive that could be responsible. And as a few have opined, we’re heavy on the blame but light on solutions. Two American presidents—Carter and later Clinton—expended much high-level energy on bringing about a peace. Conditions conspired to undo those efforts. So what else remains to be tried?

The other gnawing question that has yet to be addressed is why did the Israeli government fail to benefit from advance US intelligence that Hamas was preparing for some type of action in the near term. 

I suspect because Netanyahu was too busy trying to turn Israel into a fascist state to notice that the Boogey man he'd nurtured for all those years, to ensure he had a boogey man, finally was ready to bite him.

[PeterRS]

On 10/21/2023 at 10:40 AM, reader said:

Trying to trace this all back half-a-century ago to whether the US had appropriate diplomats in place is absurd. Iran, like so many Mideast nations, would end up radicalized one way or the other. The momentum was already in place.

Again I fail to understand your logic - but then logic can be different from one person to the next. I suppose anyone who knows Thais will be in the same boat for Thai logic almost defies understanding. That said of course it is essential to trace back half a century and more, for this present disaster (for both sides) - as in all conflicts - did not happen overnight. Had the Ottoman Turks and then the British had more spine and been prepared to hammer out an effective solution all those years ago, what we have seen in recent weeks and what is about to come would almost certainly not have happened. Had the US and the UK not interfered with Iran's elections and then backed the Shah to the hilt, Iran would not have turned so violently against the west. Of course momentum was building particularly in Iran. It was not only in place, it was becoming increasingly ugly and violent. Only the western powers decided to turn a blind eye. Historical context is in most cases vital in understanding the present.

12 hours ago, vinapu said:

So yes, international community is to be blamed.  And so is Israel as their occupation is brutal and taken hostage by settler's movement. And so are Palestinians as their squabbling prevented them from creating  effective leadership able to explain that Nakhba (spelling? , catastrophe )of 1948 can't and wont be reversed. 

But that was then, now reader is right, Israel got attacked and has every right to defend itself and making sure such war won't repeat itself any time soon. That's unfortunate

@vinapu seems to believe in the biblical eye for an eye doctrine. Do you equate how Israel has treated the Palestinians over many decades with the reactions taken by Israel as "an eye for an eye"? If the latter is an eye, the former is shooting half a head off. I condemn in the strongest possible terms what Hamas has done especially in the outright murder of civilians. I condemn what Hamas stands for. But how Israel is responding is a far worse massacre mostly of civilians, many women and children. Was the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 retaliation on an "eye for an eye" basis"? Of course not. Eye for an eye presupposes proportionality of response.

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

I can see two solutions:

one is logic but pipe dream for now, two states . . .

 there are very few Arabs or Muslims  and even less Palestinians who think USA is impartial referee in that conflict. 

I agree completely. Two states is presently not on the table, sadly. And even if magically it were to happen, given the history of the last few decades, neither state is going to have any trust in the other. Unless, of course, there is some sort of buffer between them and a truly international force guarding it. And that isn't going to happen either in my view.

As for the USA, sadly I again agree with @vinapu. When its stated goal almost since the founding of israel has been to back it up with billions and billions of dollars in cash and the latest military equipment, no Arab country let alone the Palestinians will accept the USA as an impartial referee. If all the Arab states were to set aside their many differences and come up with a common solution, just perhaps there could be some kind of peace. But then how can there be trust when israel possesses nuclear weapons and, as far as we know, other Middle Eastern countries do not? Peace can only come about along with trust - a commodity totally lacking on both sides.

[reader]

Peter, will you ever come close to exhausting blame and moving beyond it? Please offer something constructive.

If the US was wrong in supporting Israel then perhaps it was likewise wrong in supporting England in WWII?  I don’t think so.

You pick your friends and don’t look back. 

Many thought the UN would eliminate the need for NATO and other alliances. Hasn’t quite panned out that way. Nations still find that they require allies in this world. And the more the better. 
 

 

[reader]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

When Tawan and Freshboys will be fighting for best location in Patpong they will not ask vinapu to come with fair solution as it's  known from at least 12th century vinapu will side with Tawan

You’d win that faceoff because you’ve been to Tawan far more times than I’ve been to Freshboy. But I If it came down to the battle of massage shops we’d be on more even ground.

[forky123]

It's really easy to bitch about decisions made decades ago. It's much harder to know how decisions will play out over time and give the best final result.

[PeterRS]

40 minutes ago, reader said:

Peter, will you ever come close to exhausting blame and moving beyond it? Please offer something constructive.

I attach "blame" only because I believe, as it seems you (and no doubt others) do not agree that the history behind present events has to be understood, the more so if solutions to problems in the world have to be found. Nothing - absolutely nothing - will change my view. As for a solution, I have already proposed one, even though the chance of either side accepting it is zero.

42 minutes ago, reader said:

If the US was wrong in supporting Israel then perhaps it was likewise wrong in supporting England in WWII?  I don’t think so.

You do have a tendency to compare like with unlike, with respect! The support for the UK (not merely England) early in WWII has been proven in dozens of sources to be in an effort to keep the Nazis and their ghastly ideology in Europe and away from the USA. If Hitler had succeeded, Roosevelt knew perfectly well that the USA would be the next target. Helping the UK in Europe was far easier and vastly less expensive than having US troops cross the Atlantic to fight in Europe, the more so considering much of the cost was in loans. After Hitler quickly declared war on the US, the costs of US military actions in Europe rose humungously by comparison.

US support for israel has nothing to do with stopping Arab nations from invading the USA or making it more secure. Apart from obvious sympathy with the plight of the Jews following the Holoicaust, the USA has a very sizeable and influential Jewish community of approximately 6 million. Politicians have zero desire to upset them, whereas the Palestinian community is tiny in comparison with approx. 255,000. Few votes there! In March this year, the Congressional Research Service reported that between 1946 and 2023, the US has provided an estimated total of US$260 billion in various forms to Israel (in 2021 inflation adjusted dollars). Besides, the US purports to support democracy around the world. In the US eyes, Israel is a democracy whereas neighbouring countries are not - at least if they have elections they are rigged. 

A Paper by the same Congressional Service shows that aid routed via UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency devoted to Palestinian refugee assistance, came to US$6 billion by 2017. $260 billion against $6 billion. That fact speaks for itself.

You might consider arguing that 9/11 was an attack at least on behalf of Arab nations on the USA, another ghastly terror event. Yet the root cause of that attack was once again US State Department actions. By arming and financing the mujahideen during the near-decade-long Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the USA allowed Osama bin Laden to found, finance and equip Al Qaeda with both weapons (many American weapons) and a fierce anti-US dogma because it was perceived to be extremely anti-Islam. This led to planning for a violent struggle against the USA. The rest we know. 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the general Arab world.

Incidentally, look up Osama bin Laden on wikipedia. You will see an entry marked Department of Justice - Federal Bureau of Investigation. Open it and what do you find? "Access Denied"!