Analysis Israel's options don't look good - but a full-scale military campaign in the near future is inevitable

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, Toolong said:

'Israel's Options'....?

 

It's narrowed down to one now: Israel's 75 year immoral and horribly unjust occupation of the land on which the indigenous Palestinians rightfully call their homeland......is over. 

 

Not over now, of course. But it will be, even in my lifetime.....and I'm old! 🇰🇼

What will happen to all the Israelis in Israel when Israel finishes ?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Toolong said:

'Israel's Options'....?

 

It's narrowed down to one now: Israel's 75 year immoral and horribly unjust occupation of the land on which the indigenous Palestinians rightfully call their homeland......is over. 

 

Not over now, of course. But it will be, even in my lifetime.....and I'm old! 🇰🇼

The Jews are indigenous there.

The Arabs are the Johnny come latelies.

When you say over do you mean River to the sea genocide?

Edited October 18, 2023 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

What will happen to all the Israelis in Israel when Israel finishes ?

There lies the rub with the genocidal River to the sea brigades.

[Morch]

Just now, Toolong said:

'Israel's Options'....?

 

It's narrowed down to one now: Israel's 75 year immoral and horribly unjust occupation of the land on which the indigenous Palestinians rightfully call their homeland......is over. 

 

Not over now, of course. But it will be, even in my lifetime.....and I'm old! 🇰🇼

75 years references Israel's creation. If you are in the position that Israel should close shop and cancel itself, I guess that's not much of an option, and not even much of discussion point.

 

To put some facts into it, post the 1949 cease fire agreements, the West Bank was occupied (and later annexed) by Jordan, while Egypt had it's own de-facto occupation in the Gaza Strip (with a short stint of a Palestinian puppet government). These lasted until 1967 - which is usually what people refer to with regard to the Israeli occupation. Should be noted that the Palestinians did not have as many issues being occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and there was no serious attempt to claim independence, freedom or sovereignty.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Let's hope that weapons are not stored in any hospital, much less that a hospital is a base for firing missiles. Legitimate? It would have to be a severe immediate threat to justify attacking a functioning hospital, I think, besides the issue of proportionality.

Translation of proportionality to Israel demonizers  Not enough dead Jews.

[Toolong]

23 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

What will happen to all the Israelis in Israel when Israel finishes ?

Well, it won't 'finish'. It may, I hope, go through an unpleasant (but wholly deserved) decade or two of 'adjustment'....forced upon it by outside world power & influence......whereby the cause for this long-time & present tragedy is ended......and sorted out according to 'Queensbury Rules'.

[Toolong]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The Jews are indigenous there.

The Arabs are the Johnny come latelies.

When you say over do you mean River to the sea genocide?

Apart from being partially right, Jingthing .....which always helps to dubiously  support one's point (imho), you're suggesting that I support genocide of the Israeli people from 'River to the sea'? Did I get that right? It's a bit ambiguous.

 

If I'm wrong and I misconstrued that last point I do apologise.

[Nick Carter icp]

Just now, Toolong said:

Well, it won't 'finish'. It may, I hope, go through an unpleasant (but wholly deserved) decade or two of 'adjustment'....forced upon it by outside world power & influence......whereby the cause for this long-time & present tragedy is ended......and sorted out according to 'Queensbury Rules'.

Israel will emerge from this episode even stronger with USA, UK, Japan and other Western Countries standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel , along with other Countries that have experienced Islamic Terrorism .

   The Countries that oppose Israel will have noticed that Hamas is in the process of being wiped out and will soon be non existent ,.

   The Iranian regime will bare that in mind when they consider attacking Israel and if Iran don't join in with current war, its highly unlikely that will wage war in the future .

   This current conflict will make Israel's position stronger , with the Palestinians  losing support from people who oppose terrorism 

[Toolong]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

75 years references Israel's creation. If you are in the position that Israel should close shop and cancel itself, I guess that's not much of an option, and not even much of discussion point.

 

To put some facts into it, post the 1949 cease fire agreements, the West Bank was occupied (and later annexed) by Jordan, while Egypt had it's own de-facto occupation in the Gaza Strip (with a short stint of a Palestinian puppet government). These lasted until 1967 - which is usually what people refer to with regard to the Israeli occupation. Should be noted that the Palestinians did not have as many issues being occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and there was no serious attempt to claim independence, freedom or sovereignty.

1949 cease-fire agreement? Can we go back a year, 1948? It is undisputably chronicled on record as being the year during which the displaced Palestinians have ever since called 'The Naqba'........the brutal expulsion of their people from countless towns and villages to allow the usurpation of that land by the incoming jewish settlers, themselves victims of their own tragic diaspora and persecution.

 

Egypt's and Jordan's role historically? That's 'smokescreen' stuff. Please, stick to the firmly-rooted fundamental issue of how Israel not only stole the Palestinian land, but committed atrocities to do so....with the support of the west.

[Toolong]

18 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Israel will emerge from this episode even stronger with USA, UK, Japan and other Western Countries standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel , along with other Countries that have experienced Islamic Terrorism .

   The Countries that oppose Israel will have noticed that Hamas is in the process of being wiped out and will soon be non existent ,.

   The Iranian regime will bare that in mind when they consider attacking Israel and if Iran don't join in with current war, its highly unlikely that will wage war in the future .

   This current conflict will make Israel's position stronger , with the Palestinians  losing support from people who oppose terrorism 

'Islamic terrorism' was the clue to where you're coming from, Nick. 

 

I don't mean that disparagingly, but it does allow me to respond. 

 

About Hamas.....are you aware, Nick, that Israel created Hamas? To offset the popularity of Arafat's PLO movement? And who was instrumental in that? Surprise, surprise....Netanyahu. Who btw was key to Rabin's assassination after the Oslo peace accords in early 90's.

 

It's murky, Nick. You have to go deeper into this. Otherwise, the mainstream media in the west and the govt BS they get paid to support.......pulls a fast-one on ya.........and then you're hooked. 

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, Toolong said:

'Islamic terrorism' was the clue to where you're coming from, Nick. 

 

I don't mean that disparagingly, but it does allow me to respond. 

 

About Hamas.....are you aware, Nick, that Israel created Hamas? To offset the popularity of Arafat's PLO movement? And who was instrumental in that? Surprise, surprise....Netanyahu. Who btw was key to Rabin's assassination after the Oslo peace accords in early 90's.

 

It's murky, Nick. You have to go deeper into this. Otherwise, the mainstream media in the west and the govt BS they get paid to support.......pulls a fast-one on ya.........and then you're hooked. 

The attack on Gaza was Terrorism and it was carried out by Muslims , the attack on Gaza was indeed Islamic terrorism .

   Numerous other Countries have also been attacked by Muslims participating in terrorism 

   That is not my opinion or "where I'm coming from", that is a fact .

Hamas was indeed 

   Israel didn't create Hamas , Hamas were formed in 1987 by Palestinian activist and Iman Ahmed Yassin , but Israel did favour them over the PLO , who were the dominant Palestinian group at the time , 

[Morch]

50 minutes ago, Toolong said:

1949 cease-fire agreement? Can we go back a year, 1948? It is undisputably chronicled on record as being the year during which the displaced Palestinians have ever since called 'The Naqba'........the brutal expulsion of their people from countless towns and villages to allow the usurpation of that land by the incoming jewish settlers, themselves victims of their own tragic diaspora and persecution.

 

Egypt's and Jordan's role historically? That's 'smokescreen' stuff. Please, stick to the firmly-rooted fundamental issue of how Israel not only stole the Palestinian land, but committed atrocities to do so....with the support of the west.

You can go to whichever year you like, won't change a thing. If one references 75 years of Israeli occupation, then one essentially disagrees with Israel's very existence. Not too complicated. Referencing 1967 is another matter, and no real issues with that.

 

Egypt and Jordan did not give the Palestinians control over their territory after the 1948 war. The Palestinians made no serious attempt to change that. If you think that's irrelevant, guess you're the one deflecting.

 

But anyway, the topic and the 'issue' not the history of the conflict, but unfolding current events.

[placnx]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

You can go to whichever year you like, won't change a thing. If one references 75 years of Israeli occupation, then one essentially disagrees with Israel's very existence. Not too complicated. Referencing 1967 is another matter, and no real issues with that.

 

Egypt and Jordan did not give the Palestinians control over their territory after the 1948 war. The Palestinians made no serious attempt to change that. If you think that's irrelevant, guess you're the one deflecting.

 

But anyway, the topic and the 'issue' not the history of the conflict, but unfolding current events.

It would be better put as 75 years of dispossession. They should have at least received compensation if not allowed to return to their homes.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, freeworld said:

Amazing how quickly the ICC worked and convicted the Russian president but no action for several years by the ICC against perpetrators of war crimes against Palestinians and Israelis.

I doubt the ICC is immune to political pressure from a certain country.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Toolong said:

Well, it won't 'finish'. It may, I hope, go through an unpleasant (but wholly deserved) decade or two of 'adjustment'....forced upon it by outside world power & influence......whereby the cause for this long-time & present tragedy is ended......and sorted out according to 'Queensbury Rules'.

Seems to me that israel may win the "battle" ( it's not really a battle as that implies 2 sides able to fight but this is a one sided conflict where the israelis bomb Gaza with impunity, so it's just a slaughter ), but will lose the war. The longer it goes on, the more people all around the world will turn against israel, and if the israelis don't let aid in and thousands die of starvation, or wounds, they won't just be talking, like that useless mob in the UN, they will be taking action.

 

It's ironic that for decades most of the world has ignored the israeli/ Palestinian conflict, and allowed israel to oppress a people, but by this slaughter they are waking the world up to the injustice of it all, and they don't like it one little bit.

netanyahu thinks he's winning, but he's only looking in the mirror.

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems to me that israel may win the "battle" ( it's not really a battle as that implies 2 sides able to fight but this is a one sided conflict where the israelis bomb Gaza with impunity, so it's just a slaughter ), but will lose the war. The longer it goes on, the more people all around the world will turn against israel, and if the israelis don't let aid in and thousands die of starvation, or wounds, they won't just be talking, like that useless mob in the UN, they will be taking action.

 

It's ironic that for decades most of the world has ignored the israeli/ Palestinian conflict, and allowed israel to oppress a people, but by this slaughter they are waking the world up to the injustice of it all, and they don't like it one little bit.

netanyahu thinks he's winning, but he's only looking in the mirror.

Was it a battle or slaughter when Palestinians were killing and raping kids at a concert? 

 

 

[Toolong]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems to me that israel may win the "battle" ( it's not really a battle as that implies 2 sides able to fight but this is a one sided conflict where the israelis bomb Gaza with impunity, so it's just a slaughter ), but will lose the war. The longer it goes on, the more people all around the world will turn against israel, and if the israelis don't let aid in and thousands die of starvation, or wounds, they won't just be talking, like that useless mob in the UN, they will be taking action.

 

It's ironic that for decades most of the world has ignored the israeli/ Palestinian conflict, and allowed israel to oppress a people, but by this slaughter they are waking the world up to the injustice of it all, and they don't like it one little bit.

netanyahu thinks he's winning, but he's only looking in the mirror.

Fully agree with your comment & opinion. 👍

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, placnx said:

I answered the question already. As I said, it depends.

No, "it depends" is not an answer.

 

I stated: To my way of thinking, if rockets are being fired from a hospital, or school, or mosque or apartment building or private villa, it is an immediate threat. 

 

And asked you (again) Do you, or do you not agree that if rockets/missiles are being fired from a hospital, that the hospital would be a legitimate military target, and that the people firing the rockets/missiles from the hospital would be war criminals?

 

It's a simple question, yet you say "it depends". What does it depend on? 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Was it a battle or slaughter when Palestinians were killing and raping kids at a concert? 

 

 

The price for that has been paid by over 1,000 dead Palestinian children. Move on or get ignored.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, "it depends" is not an answer.

 

I stated: To my way of thinking, if rockets are being fired from a hospital, or school, or mosque or apartment building or private villa, it is an immediate threat. 

 

And asked you (again) Do you, or do you not agree that if rockets/missiles are being fired from a hospital, that the hospital would be a legitimate military target, and that the people firing the rockets/missiles from the hospital would be war criminals?

 

It's a simple question, yet you say "it depends". What does it depend on? 

International law does not allow hospitals to be attacked under any circumstances. It is a war crime, so your question is pointless.

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against “hospitals and places where the sick and the wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives” and against “medical units … using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[6]

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

International law does not allow hospitals to be attacked under any circumstances. It is a war crime, so your question is pointless.

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against “hospitals and places where the sick and the wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives” and against “medical units … using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[6]

Reading is FUNdamental 

[Yellowtail]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The price for that has been paid by over 1,000 dead Palestinian children. Move on or get ignored.

If that's all you have, please ignore me. 

 

Weak

[Morch]

11 hours ago, placnx said:

It would be better put as 75 years of dispossession. They should have at least received compensation if not allowed to return to their homes.

The Palestinian leadership chose a path focused on rejectionism and 'struggle'. Maybe take it up with them?

Also, I doubt the Arab World would have been thrilled, as this opens the way for counter-claims by Jews formerly living in Arab countries (nowadays, almost non-existent). The population figures on that are comparable.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems to me that israel may win the "battle" ( it's not really a battle as that implies 2 sides able to fight but this is a one sided conflict where the israelis bomb Gaza with impunity, so it's just a slaughter ), but will lose the war. The longer it goes on, the more people all around the world will turn against israel, and if the israelis don't let aid in and thousands die of starvation, or wounds, they won't just be talking, like that useless mob in the UN, they will be taking action.

 

It's ironic that for decades most of the world has ignored the israeli/ Palestinian conflict, and allowed israel to oppress a people, but by this slaughter they are waking the world up to the injustice of it all, and they don't like it one little bit.

netanyahu thinks he's winning, but he's only looking in the mirror.

 

One not familiar with your posting history might think that's the first time you claimed this.

You make the same sort of comments on these topics for years, they fail to materialize.

But this time is different, sure....

 

So far, condemnation by foreign governments seem to be more muted, nuanced and slow to appear compared to previous occasions. Maybe that's got something to do with the barbarism exhibited by the Hamas, or the fact that a large number of international casualties and abductees is involved.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The price for that has been paid by over 1,000 dead Palestinian children. Move on or get ignored.

A price which you routinely attribute to Israel, while ignoring Hamas's responsibility.

Your 'ignore' promises don't hold very long anyway......

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

International law does not allow hospitals to be attacked under any circumstances. It is a war crime, so your question is pointless.

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against “hospitals and places where the sick and the wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives” and against “medical units … using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[6]

Don't recall you caring that much when Hamas rockets hit Israeli hospitals, schools etc.

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

You can go to whichever year you like, won't change a thing. If one references 75 years of Israeli occupation, then one essentially disagrees with Israel's very existence. Not too complicated. Referencing 1967 is another matter, and no real issues with that.

 

Egypt and Jordan did not give the Palestinians control over their territory after the 1948 war. The Palestinians made no serious attempt to change that. If you think that's irrelevant, guess you're the one deflecting.

 

But anyway, the topic and the 'issue' not the history of the conflict, but unfolding current events.

Nor did the Palestinians revolt when Jordan demolished their villages, expropriated their land, governed Palestinians under  highly restrictive laws and Jordanians under Jordanian law, discriminate against them in use of water, etc. Because that never happened. Essentially Jordan and Egypt were inheritors of the status quo. Israel took that status quo and trashed it.

[placnx]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

The Palestinian leadership chose a path focused on rejectionism and 'struggle'. Maybe take it up with them?

Also, I doubt the Arab World would have been thrilled, as this opens the way for counter-claims by Jews formerly living in Arab countries (nowadays, almost non-existent). The population figures on that are comparable.

If there could be an analysis, most Jewish immigrants from Arab countries were poor Sephardis, while wealthy ones were predominantly recent arrivals with European colonialism. If that's the case, such disposessed transplants should take it up with their colonial sponsors.

 

As for the number of immigrants, the total from all countries in the period 1948-51, the mass migration years, is 687,624.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-immigration-to-israel-by-year

[Morch]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Nor did the Palestinians revolt when Jordan demolished their villages, expropriated their land, governed Palestinians under  highly restrictive laws and Jordanians under Jordanian law, discriminate against them in use of water, etc. Because that never happened. Essentially Jordan and Egypt were inheritors of the status quo. Israel took that status quo and trashed it.

Status Quo?

 

Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Egyptians at one point incorporated the Gaza Strip as part of the UAR. They also propped up a puppet Palestinian government, then tossed it aside. Later on, with the formation of the PLO, Egypt promised to give over control of the Gaza Strip. Never happened. As for the Egyptian military rule of the Gaza Strip being benign - amusing.

 

The main point remains - people on here go on and on about decades of Palestinians yearning for independence, freedom and sovereignty. In effect, they have exhibited less enthusiasm toward these things than could have been expected.

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, placnx said:

If there could be an analysis, most Jewish immigrants from Arab countries were poor Sephardis, while wealthy ones were predominantly recent arrivals with European colonialism. If that's the case, such disposessed transplants should take it up with their colonial sponsors.

 

As for the number of immigrants, the total from all countries in the period 1948-51, the mass migration years, is 687,624.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-immigration-to-israel-by-year

Your main point was about that Palestinian should be offered compensation. It was answered. You chose to address a related side issue mentioned instead.

 

Your generalization is cute, but not necessarily correct or germane. There were wealthy Jews living in Arab countries and there were poor ones. Given that they had to let go of property and possessions meant that they generally arrived poor. I don't think that the Palestinian refugees were overall richer, many were poor farmers.

 

If you want to push that 'colonial sponsors' nonsense, you'll have to find someone else to discuss this with.