War in Israel (2 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

From the son of a general in the IDF

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Thank you.

 

[General Malaise]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

non-religious group, Democratic Socialists of America, holding a pro-hamas rally.

Hundreds fill Times Square for rival protests over violence in Israel

Violence in the Middle East reverberated Sunday in Times Square, where pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protesters came face to face during heated demonstrations.

www.nydailynews.com

using AAA logic, all socialists are pro-murder. socialism should die in America.

No comment on socialists as that's way too close to the political line.

But I will say, as individuals, these organizers are evil and should be shunned in polite society. I don't see how you plan a rally to cheer killing 250 kids.

I work with people exactly like this. I've typed up like six or seven posts along these lines and had to delete all of them for an assortment of reasons, but people should start listening seriously to people who use terms like "decolonization." This is not a fringe ideology in my world.

Do you think “your world“ is representative of US society as a whole?

I’m certainly no expert, but concepts like decolonization seem pretty out there to me. And it doesn’t surprise me when nutty concepts are embraced on college campuses, but that’ s a far cry from mainstream thought.

Been thinking a lot about how to respond to this, and I apologize if it comes across as if I was blowing you off. I want to respect the "no politics" rule as much as possible.

My experience is definitely not representative of US society as a whole. 20 years ago, people in my world were telling everyone who would listen that "racism is prejudice plus power." Ten years ago, those exact same people (not the same type of person, but literally some of the same individual human beings) started with "trans women are women." Those ideas originated in my world and migrated into yours. Today, those same people (again, literally in some cases) are reminding us that "decolonization is not a metaphor." Remember that phrase. Put a pin in it. You will be hearing it again. It's the name of an article I'm going to link to, but it is also one of those incantations.

I've been blessed* with the opportunity to be in the passenger seat for this stuff. What happens over and over again is that people write it off as dumb college kids being dumb, when (a) it's faculty, not kids and (b) this is all being institutionalized as we speak. I understand that you don't pay careful attention to politics, and that's good. Most people shouldn't spend much time worrying about politics, and I commend you on your life choices in that regard, seriously. You probably figure that the adults are keeping an eye on this stuff. You are wrong about that part.

Read this article.

I had to do a deep dive into this topic about a year and a half ago, and I think this is more or less the most famous, widely-cited article on this topic. It is referenced constantly in this particular community. Understand that these people** mean it. They are telling you what they believe in a straightforward manner. When these people talk about removing settlers from their land, they are talking about you. I mean, especially you, because you are a settler on land that properly belongs to indigenous Hawaiians. A non-insignificant number of decolonization activists will tell you openly that you deserve to have your home and everything you own confiscated from you and given to indigenous people, by violence if necessary. They will not tell you openly what happens to you and your family in that scenario -- that is always left to the imagination.

Read the article if you don't believe me. Listen to what the brightest lights in this movement have to say. Read the people who they cite. These are people who do not care a whit about property rights, except when it comes to very specific ethnic groups inhabiting very specific plots of land. Then it's blood and soil. You should start noticing that.

* If you read that with a tinge of sarcasm, you're on the right track.
** Most of these people are cosplayers and grifters, but some of them aren't. The cosplayers provide cover -- intentionally in most cases -- for the true believers.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is 7 years old but was helpful.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

 

[Navin Johnson]

This is 7 years old but was helpful.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Probably older than 100 years. In 1895 Theodor Herzl wrote
"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country... expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

 

[Spartans Rule]

Egypt doesn't want Palestinians because Hamas is backed by Iran -- and both are Shia Muslim. Egypt (and Saudi Arabia) are both Sunni and have their own problems with both terrorists and Iran already.

I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that's a piece of it anyhow.

Hamas is Sunni. Egypt's issue with Hamas is that it has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that briefly took power in Egypt during the Arab Spring and was then ousted by the military.

 

[unckeyherb]

Egypt doesn't want Palestinians because Hamas is backed by Iran -- and both are Shia Muslim. Egypt (and Saudi Arabia) are both Sunni and have their own problems with both terrorists and Iran already.

I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that's a piece of it anyhow.

Hamas is Sunni. Egypt's issue with Hamas is that it has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that briefly took power in Egypt during the Arab Spring and was then ousted by the military.

This was my understanding as well.

 

[General Malaise]

There are some smart smart pluckers that post in here and take that to the bank bromigo.

 

[gianmarco]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the land that is now Israel the home of the Palestinains before it was taken from them? Been a minute since I studied this but both sides strongly believe the land is theirs.

I think you have this backwards. That land was "Israel" almost 1000 years before "Palestine" was there. It's just that the Jews left that area and it became inhabited by mostly Arabs for another millennium. They each have legit reasons for claiming it as theirs.

But Israel was there first.

 

[gianmarco]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

Try this

 

[Ben & Jerry's]

It's certainly time to ween Ukraine off the American teet.

 

[gianmarco]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the land that is now Israel the home of the Palestinains before it was taken from them? Been a minute since I studied this but both sides strongly believe the land is theirs.

I think you have this backwards. That land was "Israel" almost 1000 years before "Palestine" was there. It's just that the Jews left that area and it became inhabited by mostly Arabs for another millennium. They each have legit reasons for claiming it as theirs.

But Israel was there first.

Here you go


‘Israel’
“Israel” first appears near the end of the 13th century BC within the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, referring apparently to a people (rather than a place) inhabiting what was then “Canaan.” A few centuries later in that region, we find two sister kingdoms: Israel and Judah (the origin of the term “Jew”). According to the Bible, there had first been a monarchy comprising both, apparently also called “Israel.”

In about 722 BC, the kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian empire, centred in what’s now Iraq. As an ancient geographic term, “Israel” was no more.

Judah alone
Less than a century and half later, Judah was overthrown. Its capital Jerusalem was sacked, the Jewish Temple destroyed and many of Judah’s inhabitants were exiled to Babylonia.

Following the exile’s end a little under 50 years later, the territory of the former kingdom of Judah served as the heart of Judaism for almost seven centuries (although the rebuilt Temple was again destroyed in AD 70, by the Romans).

‘Palestine’
In AD 135, following a failed Jewish revolt, Roman Emperor Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and decreed that the city and surrounding territory be part of a larger entity called “Syria-Palestina.” “Palestina” took its name from the coastal territory of the ancient Philistines, enemies of the Israelites (ancestors of the Jews).

Subsequent to the Islamic conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century, Arab peoples began to settle in the former “Palestina.” Apart from about 90 years of Crusader domination, the land fell under Muslim control for just under 1,200 years. Although Jewish habitation never ceased, the population was overwhelmingly Arab.

 

[General Malaise]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the land that is now Israel the home of the Palestinains before it was taken from them? Been a minute since I studied this but both sides strongly believe the land is theirs.

I think you have this backwards. That land was "Israel" almost 1000 years before "Palestine" was there. It's just that the Jews left that area and it became inhabited by mostly Arabs for another millennium. They each have legit reasons for claiming it as theirs.

But Israel was there first.

I do believe the Palestinians have a claim to the land under the "Finders Keepers" act of 867 AD.....

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The Gaza strip has been intentionally built up to this point by Iran backed groups. Seems odd that the region crying "genocide" and "apartheid" is one of the fastest growing and most densely populated regions in the world. Don't most people try to flee such places? Look at Yemen and Syria for places where life is truly difficult and there is an actual mass exodus of citizens. Yet life is good enough in Gaza that people are reproducing and not moving and have been for decades now. They know what is around them, they elected Hamas and they have had decades to choose another home, yet almost none have.

The entire goal is to create chaos in Israel, to push into Israel, to make Israel look bad on the world stage and to ultimately take over Israel and expel the Jews. That, is was and always has been the goal of Palestine.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. This is a very complex issue with a lot of history, obviously. It’s almost impossible to reduce it to a few paragraphs. And there are tons of contradictions that exist.

For example, do you know why the people of Gaza elected Hamas? Because Hamas, in addition to being savage, murderous terrorists, also run all welfare organizations in Gaza. They quite literally feed the hungry, take care of orphans, provide charity to the sick. Unlike the Palestinian Authority (in control of the West Bank) Hamas is regarded to be incorruptible and the money given to them for charity really does reach the poor people it’s supposed to. And yet- they are certainly evil cold blooded killers. If this seems to make no sense, welcome to the murky world of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which nothing is as it appears.

Like Tim said, the situation is incredibly complex, but I'll just say that I don't think it's accurate to assume that Gaza's dense population indicates that it's not a bad place to live. For one thing, Palestinians can't simply up and move like they're Americans moving to a different state because they're upset with Covid restrictions. They are surrounded by two countries (Israel and Egypt) who are very keen to prevent people from crossing into their countries. Gaza is also incredibly poor, so many of them don't have the means to leave.

That said, ever since 1948 there have been millions of Palestinian refugees all around the world. But at a macro level, there are both cynical and understandable reasons, neither of which are mutually exclusive, as to why they would stay there. The cynical reason is that the Arab countries wanted Palestinian refugees to remain close to Israel in order to maintain the myth that Israel would soon be wiped off the map and they would all be able to return home. (They also probably worried that large numbers of Palestinian refugees in their own countries could prove destabilizing, as was demonstrated in Jordan in 1970).

The more understandable explanation is that if all the Palestinians left Israel, the Israelis would face even less pressure to reconcile with Palestinian nationalism. This is not remotely intended as an excuse for the horrific slaughter committed this weekend, but if you're having trouble understanding what Hamas was trying to accomplish, IMO it's pretty clear: they wanted to deliver a message to the Israelis that the presence of millions of Palestinans on their border, some of whom are willing to murder innocent civilians in cold blood, means the Israelis will never be able to enjoy peace.

 

[massraider]

But on the other hand our way of life, our economic prosperity, is tied to the flow of world goods. There’s no way around that. We live in a global economy. We are not self sufficient and we will never be again. We depend on international trade. Any disruption to that trade, particularly energy supply, is vital to us and we have to be involved

Then business will have to suffer.

US trade with a few million people is not any reason to get involved in this---there's not even an appropriately crappy word for this mess---halfway around the world.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

There was a time in my life where I spent a lot of time debating the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I don't really do it anymore (even when I spent four years working for an Israeli organization, I did just about everything I could to stay out of political debates). Mostly that was because I found the whole debate to be exhausting, particularly since nothing ever seemed to change. But also, what I ultimately realized is that the situation is a Prisoner's Dilemma where the Nash equilibrium is that it's not in anyone's interest to negotiate a settlement. Any concessions by one side are seen as admissions of weakness, which incentivizes hardliners on the other side to push for even more maximalist demands. The Oslo Accords were an attempt to reverse that equilibrium by building up enough trust on each side that a negotiated settlement became the best solution for both sides. But for many many reasons, that trust was never achieved, and the Oslo approach ultimately collapsed

 

[timschochet]

But on the other hand our way of life, our economic prosperity, is tied to the flow of world goods. There’s no way around that. We live in a global economy. We are not self sufficient and we will never be again. We depend on international trade. Any disruption to that trade, particularly energy supply, is vital to us and we have to be involved

Then business will have to suffer.

US trade with a few million people is not any reason to get involved in this---there's not even an appropriately crappy word for this mess---halfway around the world.

The word “involved” has a variety of meanings: diplomatic pressure, direct aid to the parties, military involvement, etc. I’m certainly not in favor of military involvement but I do think we have a leadership role to play.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's certainly time to ween Ukraine off the American teet.

I understand the sentiment. Also, we're all old enough that we tend to view Israel-Palestinian issues through a 1980s lens. I'm probably just as guilty of that as anyone and I should police my own views on this stuff for assumptions that are no longer valid.

Try to forget everything you know about the cold war, or the post-cold war 1990-2010-ish era of US hegemony. Others in this thread have noted this, and I think they're probably right. It seems like we're seeing an alliance of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea making increasingly bold moves against "the west." I'm growing a little tired of Ukraine as well, but I'm inclined to think that Israel and Ukraine and Taiwan and South Korea are connected. We also live in a world where India is or is becoming a major power and I think a lot of us don't know quite what to make of that, me included. Anyway, I wouldn't toss Ukraine overboard quite yet.

 

[The Commish]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

There's a ton of "history" and "complexity" around it because it's dragged on, as you say, for literally centuries. It all comes back to what I initially said....land dispute. I had a similar class and then ended up doing a two-semester study/thesis on the topic after having taken that class. As I was forming my beliefs, I thought it would be an incredibly enlightening thought experiment and study, but it wasn't. This "dispute" will not ever end.

 

[The Commish]

It's certainly time to ween Ukraine off the American teet.

I understand the sentiment. Also, we're all old enough that we tend to view Israel-Palestinian issues through a 1980s lens. I'm probably just as guilty of that as anyone and I should police my own views on this stuff for assumptions that are no longer valid.

Try to forget everything you know about the cold war, or the post-cold war 1990-2010-ish era of US hegemony. Others in this thread have noted this, and I think they're probably right. It seems like we're seeing an alliance of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea making increasingly bold moves against "the west." I'm growing a little tired of Ukraine as well, but I'm inclined to think that Israel and Ukraine and Taiwan and South Korea are connected. We also live in a world where India is or is becoming a major power and I think a lot of us don't know quite what to make of that, me included. Anyway, I wouldn't toss Ukraine overboard quite yet.

They are especially as issues of "democracy" and sovereignty. As a thought experiment, consistency seems to tell us that if you're for one of them, you're for all of them as a matter of principled support, though I'd say Israel is likely the one of the four that you could justify approaching differently than the others. Without going too far, that belief is based on doing what you suggest and looking at current day Israel for what it is and not what it was in the 1980s. Israel has changed a good bit politically between then and now.

 

[dickey moe]

The Gaza strip has been intentionally built up to this point by Iran backed groups. Seems odd that the region crying "genocide" and "apartheid" is one of the fastest growing and most densely populated regions in the world. Don't most people try to flee such places? Look at Yemen and Syria for places where life is truly difficult and there is an actual mass exodus of citizens. Yet life is good enough in Gaza that people are reproducing and not moving and have been for decades now. They know what is around them, they elected Hamas and they have had decades to choose another home, yet almost none have.

The entire goal is to create chaos in Israel, to push into Israel, to make Israel look bad on the world stage and to ultimately take over Israel and expel the Jews. That, is was and always has been the goal of Palestine.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. This is a very complex issue with a lot of history, obviously. It’s almost impossible to reduce it to a few paragraphs. And there are tons of contradictions that exist.

For example, do you know why the people of Gaza elected Hamas? Because Hamas, in addition to being savage, murderous terrorists, also run all welfare organizations in Gaza. They quite literally feed the hungry, take care of orphans, provide charity to the sick. Unlike the Palestinian Authority (in control of the West Bank) Hamas is regarded to be incorruptible and the money given to them for charity really does reach the poor people it’s supposed to. And yet- they are certainly evil cold blooded killers. If this seems to make no sense, welcome to the murky world of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which nothing is as it appears.

Like Tim said, the situation is incredibly complex, but I'll just say that I don't think it's accurate to assume that Gaza's dense population indicates that it's not a bad place to live. For one thing, Palestinians can't simply up and move like they're Americans moving to a different state because they're upset with Covid restrictions. They are surrounded by two countries (Israel and Egypt) who are very keen to prevent people from crossing into their countries. Gaza is also incredibly poor, so many of them don't have the means to leave.

That said, ever since 1948 there have been millions of Palestinian refugees all around the world. But at a macro level, there are both cynical and understandable reasons, neither of which are mutually exclusive, as to why they would stay there. The cynical reason is that the Arab countries wanted Palestinian refugees to remain close to Israel in order to maintain the myth that Israel would soon be wiped off the map and they would all be able to return home. (They also probably worried that large numbers of Palestinian refugees in their own countries could prove destabilizing, as was demonstrated in Jordan in 1970).

The more understandable explanation is that if all the Palestinians left Israel, the Israelis would face even less pressure to reconcile with Palestinian nationalism. This is not remotely intended as an excuse for the horrific slaughter committed this weekend, but if you're having trouble understanding what Hamas was trying to accomplish, IMO it's pretty clear: they wanted to deliver a message to the Israelis that the presence of millions of Palestinans on their border, some of whom are willing to murder innocent civilians in cold blood, means the Israelis will never be able to enjoy peace.

All of which leads to an indication that this will probably never end until one "side" in effect eliminates the other. It's a horrific human tragedy.

 

[facook]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

 

[Sand]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

Sure. There is a reason Jerusalem is the center of both religions. Islam purposefully coopted the same location.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The Gaza strip has been intentionally built up to this point by Iran backed groups. Seems odd that the region crying "genocide" and "apartheid" is one of the fastest growing and most densely populated regions in the world. Don't most people try to flee such places? Look at Yemen and Syria for places where life is truly difficult and there is an actual mass exodus of citizens. Yet life is good enough in Gaza that people are reproducing and not moving and have been for decades now. They know what is around them, they elected Hamas and they have had decades to choose another home, yet almost none have.

The entire goal is to create chaos in Israel, to push into Israel, to make Israel look bad on the world stage and to ultimately take over Israel and expel the Jews. That, is was and always has been the goal of Palestine.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. This is a very complex issue with a lot of history, obviously. It’s almost impossible to reduce it to a few paragraphs. And there are tons of contradictions that exist.

For example, do you know why the people of Gaza elected Hamas? Because Hamas, in addition to being savage, murderous terrorists, also run all welfare organizations in Gaza. They quite literally feed the hungry, take care of orphans, provide charity to the sick. Unlike the Palestinian Authority (in control of the West Bank) Hamas is regarded to be incorruptible and the money given to them for charity really does reach the poor people it’s supposed to. And yet- they are certainly evil cold blooded killers. If this seems to make no sense, welcome to the murky world of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which nothing is as it appears.

Like Tim said, the situation is incredibly complex, but I'll just say that I don't think it's accurate to assume that Gaza's dense population indicates that it's not a bad place to live. For one thing, Palestinians can't simply up and move like they're Americans moving to a different state because they're upset with Covid restrictions. They are surrounded by two countries (Israel and Egypt) who are very keen to prevent people from crossing into their countries. Gaza is also incredibly poor, so many of them don't have the means to leave.

That said, ever since 1948 there have been millions of Palestinian refugees all around the world. But at a macro level, there are both cynical and understandable reasons, neither of which are mutually exclusive, as to why they would stay there. The cynical reason is that the Arab countries wanted Palestinian refugees to remain close to Israel in order to maintain the myth that Israel would soon be wiped off the map and they would all be able to return home. (They also probably worried that large numbers of Palestinian refugees in their own countries could prove destabilizing, as was demonstrated in Jordan in 1970).

The more understandable explanation is that if all the Palestinians left Israel, the Israelis would face even less pressure to reconcile with Palestinian nationalism. This is not remotely intended as an excuse for the horrific slaughter committed this weekend, but if you're having trouble understanding what Hamas was trying to accomplish, IMO it's pretty clear: they wanted to deliver a message to the Israelis that the presence of millions of Palestinans on their border, some of whom are willing to murder innocent civilians in cold blood, means the Israelis will never be able to enjoy peace.

All of which leads to an indication that this will probably never end until one "side" in effect eliminates the other. It's a horrific human tragedy.

I fear you may be correct. Oslo represented an attempt to resolve the conflict through a peaceful negotiated settlement. You can regard that as noble or naive, but either way it pretty decisively failed. Over the past 20 years, the de facto Israeli policy has effectively been "out of sight, out of mind." Israel mostly just ignored the Palestinians and focused on building a "normal", Westernized society. One could certainly argue that this weekend's attacks represent the failure of that strategy.

I worry that these events will ultimately push Israelis to conclude that their only alternative is to annex the West Bank and Gaza and drive the Palestinians out completely. I'm not sure that will ultimately be any more successful than the previous strategies

 

[dkp993]

I will make a political but not partisan statement.….

It‘s situations exactly like this why we need to elect much better leadership both in the White House and Congress. I literally shudder at the thought of anybody in current (or future possible) leadership having to make such highly volatile world altering decisions.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

I have a pet theory on this: I don't claim any great scholarly insight, just something I've noticed listening to both sides describe their positions:

My theory is that one of the root causes of the conflict is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are operating from fundamentally different paradigms. Israel was founded by European immigrants (although that is no longer true of the country's demographics), and Europeans think of a nation as an idea. Nations like Poland existed for centuries not on any map, but in the minds of people who shared an identity.

Meanwhile, there has essentially never been a nation called Palestine. What the Palestinians had was not a shared identity, but land. I had a geometry teacher in high school who was Palestinian American, and he told me once that his family still had the deed to their home, which they had been driven out of by Israeli forces.

These differing approaches can be seen in how each side reacted to the idea of compromise. When the 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed an Israeli territory far smaller than what the Zionists were hoping for, they nonetheless accepted it because the most important thing was to have a state of Israel for the first time in centuries. But when Arafat was similarly offered half a loaf at Camp David in 2000, he turned it down because having a sliver of land -- and agreeing to foreswear any claims on the land that was taken from them -- wasn't enough for the Palestinian aspirations. (Arafat also probably knew that, because such a deal would be viewed unfavorably by the Palestinian public, agreeing to it would likely cost him his life)

 

[belljr]

Just seeing some of the videos of the young women that were kidnapped...... terrifying

 

[Orange&Blue]

Egypt doesn't want Palestinians because Hamas is backed by Iran -- and both are Shia Muslim. Egypt (and Saudi Arabia) are both Sunni and have their own problems with both terrorists and Iran already.

I'm sure there's more to it than that, but that's a piece of it anyhow.

i wrote this for something else, but pasting here as well.

After the 1967 6 day war between israel and basically ever arab country, israel took control of the west bank. consequently, a large number of Palestinians migrated to Jordan and consolidated around the PLO (Palestine liberation organization) . However, they didn't assimilate and wanted their own rulers/laws/etc which eventually resulted in "black September" in 1970 (i.e. jordan civil war after PLO assassinated jordan pm and tried to kill king Hussein as well).

Jordan was successful and kicked PLO out who went to Lebanon although large number of Palestinians remain (3 million as of 2017). There the PLO would become more radical (see 1972 Olympic attack in Munich). Additionally, they, and other groups, would start to fight against the Lebanon government with the Lebanon civil war starting in 1975 and finally ending in 1990. during this the US would become more involved (see 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombing killing 240 us soldiers) and Israel having to invade twice. the Lebanon civil war basically destroyed Beirut which was once considered the paris of the middle east and resulting in concrete divisions between jews, arabs, and christians.

eventually Lebanon government won and kicked out the PLO to Tunisia. With PLO defeated again, Palestinians became fractured and internal fighting was frequent and bloody. fast forward a bit to today where they are still fractured. now with the gaza and israel at war, Egypt has already come out, after seeing what happened to jordan/Lebanon, warning that no Palestinians should not be pushed into their territory.

 

[The Commish]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

I have a pet theory on this: I don't claim any great scholarly insight, just something I've noticed listening to both sides describe their positions:

My theory is that one of the root causes of the conflict is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are operating from fundamentally different paradigms. Israel was founded by European immigrants (although that is no longer true of the country's demographics), and Europeans think of a nation as an idea. Nations like Poland existed for centuries not on any map, but in the minds of people who shared an identity.

Meanwhile, there has essentially never been a nation called Palestine. What the Palestinians had was not a shared identity, but land. I had a geometry teacher in high school who was Palestinian American, and he told me once that his family still had the deed to their home, which they had been driven out of by Israeli forces.

These differing approaches can be seen in how each side reacted to the idea of compromise. When the 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed an Israeli territory far smaller than what the Zionists were hoping for, they nonetheless accepted it because the most important thing was to have a state of Israel for the first time in centuries. But when Arafat was similarly offered half a loaf at Camp David in 2000, he turned it down because having a sliver of land -- and agreeing to foreswear any claims on the land that was taken from them -- wasn't enough for the Palestinian aspirations. (Arafat also probably knew that, because such a deal would be viewed unfavorably by the Palestinian public, agreeing to it would likely cost him his life)

There seems to be a HUGE sense of entitlement on Israel's part too which ties into the identity element you were talking about. Palestine really doesnt have anything like that to hang on to other than their belief system. Thats different than the experience of ownership thats taken.

 

[the moops]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

Sure. There is a reason Jerusalem is the center of both religions. Islam purposefully coopted the same location.

Jerusalem isn't the center of the Muslim faith. That's Mecca, right?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

I have a pet theory on this: I don't claim any great scholarly insight, just something I've noticed listening to both sides describe their positions:

My theory is that one of the root causes of the conflict is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are operating from fundamentally different paradigms. Israel was founded by European immigrants (although that is no longer true of the country's demographics), and Europeans think of a nation as an idea. Nations like Poland existed for centuries not on any map, but in the minds of people who shared an identity.

Meanwhile, there has essentially never been a nation called Palestine. What the Palestinians had was not a shared identity, but land. I had a geometry teacher in high school who was Palestinian American, and he told me once that his family still had the deed to their home, which they had been driven out of by Israeli forces.

These differing approaches can be seen in how each side reacted to the idea of compromise. When the 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed an Israeli territory far smaller than what the Zionists were hoping for, they nonetheless accepted it because the most important thing was to have a state of Israel for the first time in centuries. But when Arafat was similarly offered half a loaf at Camp David in 2000, he turned it down because having a sliver of land -- and agreeing to foreswear any claims on the land that was taken from them -- wasn't enough for the Palestinian aspirations. (Arafat also probably knew that, because such a deal would be viewed unfavorably by the Palestinian public, agreeing to it would likely cost him his life)

There seems to be a HUGE sense of entitlement on Israel's part too which ties into the identity element you were talking about. Israel really doesnt have anything like that to hang on to other than their belief system. Thats different than the experience of ownership thats taken.

Not sure what you mean by a sense of entitlement.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is a hell of a story from someone who's village was attacked.

 

[rockaction]

Jerusalem isn't the center of the Muslim faith. That's Mecca, right?

Mecca is the holiest of lands, at least that's what I was led to believe.

Medina is the birthplace of Mohammed.

 

[rockaction]

20 years ago, people in my world were telling everyone who would listen that "racism is prejudice plus power." Ten years ago, those exact same people (not the same type of person, but literally some of the same individual human beings) started with "trans women are women." Those ideas originated in my world and migrated into yours. Today, those same people (again, literally in some cases) are reminding us that "decolonization is not a metaphor." Remember that phrase. Put a pin in it. You will be hearing it again. It's the name of an article I'm going to link to, but it is also one of those incantations.

I love your post, but you forgot one thing, and I hope you'll indulge me, because we're talking about how it will filter into the mainstream. There's an important component to that, and "filter" is indeed the appropriate word.

When those slogans begin to occur in mainstream rhetoric and they're discussed within the policy context to which they are assigned, there will inevitably be people who say "they don't really mean that" while advocating for policies that are incremental steps toward accomplishing the slogans' goals. That will happen every step of the way, and did with "trans women are women," "defund the police," and "racism is prejudice plus power." That will give the advocates plausible deniability about the ends of the policy aims.

Just thought you'd like to see the playbook of the activists in policy and on the ground. That will be the backbone of their thought -- those articles and resultant slogans -- but they will be denied by their policy advocates. Almost like Judas.

 

[dkp993]

So many unbelievable stories coming out of that region right now. This is another mind blower….

Tragic story of an Israeli couple who killed 7 Hamas militants to save their children

An Israeli couple has killed seven Hamas militants to save their children after the Hamas fighters came to their home. The woman and her husband were killed too. Oleh Vyshniakov, Israel's consul in Ukraine's Western Region, shared the couple's story.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Sand]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

Sure. There is a reason Jerusalem is the center of both religions. Islam purposefully coopted the same location.

Jerusalem isn't the center of the Muslim faith. That's Mecca, right?

Yeah, you're right. There is also Medina and a host of other places. When one realizes that Islam is a pretty practical religion you can see why they did this - it allows them to lay claim to huge swaths of land to be protected against infidels at all costs.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

Sure. There is a reason Jerusalem is the center of both religions. Islam purposefully coopted the same location.

Jerusalem isn't the center of the Muslim faith. That's Mecca, right?

Yeah, you're right. There is also Medina and a host of other places. When one realizes that Islam is a pretty practical religion you can see why they did this - it allows them to lay claim to huge swaths of land to be protected against infidels at all costs.

I remember the first time I ever toured the Temple Mount, the guide kept commenting on how amazing it was that, over centuries, all of these religions kept picking the same locations for their holy places, as if it was divinely inspired. And I was thinking, "Um, I'm pretty sure it was done very deliberately by humans for political reasons."

 

[Andy Dufresne]

This is a hell of a story from someone who's village was attacked.

"Saba higea”—“grandfather is here.

That is the most bad *** thing I have ever heard of.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

Sure. There is a reason Jerusalem is the center of both religions. Islam purposefully coopted the same location.

Jerusalem isn't the center of the Muslim faith. That's Mecca, right?

Yeah, you're right. There is also Medina and a host of other places. When one realizes that Islam is a pretty practical religion you can see why they did this - it allows them to lay claim to huge swaths of land to be protected against infidels at all costs.

Jerusalem is where Mohammed ascended to heaven with the Angel Micheal. I believe. It is a hugely important site in Islam.

 

[facook]

This is a hell of a story from someone who's village was attacked.

"Saba higea”—“grandfather is here.

That is the most bad *** thing I have ever heard of.

Agree, amazing story. I had chills through most of it.

"There is the issue of the Israelis who are kidnapped, some of whom are dual citizens of other countries. And on this, as someone who covers diplomacy, I think the language really matters. You can say, “Hamas is responsible for their fate.” That’s, you know, the usual diplo-speak. But the sentence I hope to hear from countries, including the United States but also others, is: “We expect their immediate release.”

These are citizens, okay? The majority of them are not soldiers. There are many women there. There are children; there are elderly people. And I think the international position should be that they must be immediately released. This is what I hope to hear."

This is the end of the story and I'm frustrated because if I'm the terrorists, my response is "Or what?" US isn't sending in special forces. They already know they are dead. They welcome that because they are "martyrs" and going to sex up 72 virgins. You can hear that "demand" but it changes nothing, and the end game for Israel in this war for sure won't change.

 

[facook]

Apologies if honda. I'm not knowledgeable about this situation.

Is there a good and concise link to an article summarizing what the main points of conflict are? I know it's long running and complex. But trying to get a basic understanding.

Palestine has land Israel believes is theirs.

Thanks. Is there a summary-type article you can link to that is a good summary with more information?

I took a history class called the Arab Israeli Conflict which required a lot of heavy reading (including quite a bit of the Old Testament). I'd love to point you to some Cliff's notes but this is a very complex, incredibly historical conflict that dates back centuries and has many layers. I bet some of our power lifters in here could recommend some quick summaries but even after spending a semester studying it, I'm not sure how to sum it up any better than there's a small piece of land that different religions view as not only holy, but theirs and theirs alone. Sharing it hasn't been a peaceful solution. And I don't know what a viable solution would be that satisfies everybody and ends the violence.

Yep. It seems easy as a Westerner to think they should be able to peacefully coexist and share the land. Neither side wants that. They think it should only be "theirs." And they'll do what it takes to make it so.

Sure. There is a reason Jerusalem is the center of both religions. Islam purposefully coopted the same location.

Jerusalem isn't the center of the Muslim faith. That's Mecca, right?

Yeah, you're right. There is also Medina and a host of other places. When one realizes that Islam is a pretty practical religion you can see why they did this - it allows them to lay claim to huge swaths of land to be protected against infidels at all costs.

Jerusalem is where Mohammed ascended to heaven with the Angel Micheal. I believe. It is a hugely important site in Islam.

And according to many Bible scholars, Golgotha (where Jesus was crucified) and Mt Moriah (where Abraham was instructed to - and then released from - sacrificing Isaac) are the same general hill in the middle of Jerusalem. Where most likely Muslims would say Mohammed also ascended. So yeah, pretty critical.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I realize there's no way to answer this accurately, but if we had to guess what percentage of people living in the Gaza strip would we say support these attacks?

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I think the Palestinian cause is pretty much loss and has been for some time. The Peace between Israel and Egypt in the late 70s started the process and at this point Iran seems to be the only regional power intent on helping them, but they are geographically two countries away from being able to provide military support in the field. Add in the fact that Israel has a nuke and some of the current leadership in other Muslim countries aren't very keen on having another opposing Muslim power in the region, and I don't see a way Palestine will ever be resurrected. Maybe in another 1,000 years if they can maintain an identity like the Jews did.
I don't know much of anything about internal Israeli politics but after this I can't believe you could sell a two-state solution to the Israeli population. It is obvious the Palestinians live on their hate as they don't have much of anything else to hold on to. Just a nightmare.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I realize there's no way to answer this accurately, but if we had to guess what percentage of people living in the Gaza strip would we say support these attacks?

I'm positive almost 100% would say they are for it since saying you are not for it could have some pretty nasty ramifications for you and your family. I think 80 to 90 percent are at least sympathetic to the attacks.

 

[facook]

I realize there's no way to answer this accurately, but if we had to guess what percentage of people living in the Gaza strip would we say support these attacks?

At the time, I am wildly guessing 10%.

Today, I am wildly guessing 3%.

Guessing 1/10 thought it was justified at the time. But cut that by 2/3ish who wish the response was not happening. Totally uninformed guesses.

 

[Orange&Blue]

I think the Palestinian cause is pretty much loss and has been for some time. The Peace between Israel and Egypt in the late 70s started the process and at this point Iran seems to be the only regional power intent on helping them, but they are geographically two countries away from being able to provide military support in the field. Add in the fact that Israel has a nuke and some of the current leadership in other Muslim countries aren't very keen on having another opposing Muslim power in the region, and I don't see a way Palestine will ever be resurrected. Maybe in another 1,000 years if they can maintain an identity like the Jews did.
I don't know much of anything about internal Israeli politics but after this I can't believe you could sell a two-state solution to the Israeli population. It is obvious the Palestinians live on their hate as they don't have much of anything else to hold on to. Just a nightmare.

you wouldn't have been able to sell it. before the attacks only 32% supported a 2 party state.

On the Eve of the Jewish New Year: How Optimistic Are Israelis and What Are Their Opinions on Iran and the Two-State Solution?

Only 32% of Jewish Israelis support advancing a ‘two-state’ solution as a means for resolving the conflict with the Palestinians. When it comes to thwarting the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, half of the public thinks Israel can attack Iran’s nuclear facilities even without American agreement.

en.idi.org.il

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

This quote from the Washington Post highlights Israel's de facto Gaza strategy in recent years:

“The modus vivendi was that Hamas takes care of Gaza, Israel allows it to prosper, with the relatively small price that Israel paid every so often, with a round of violence in which Israel would kill thousands of Palestinians and Palestinians would kill dozens of Israelis — that was considered the best Israel could hope for,” said Eran Etzion, former deputy head of Israel’s national security council. “Now that strategic equation has been completely violated.”

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

Agree with fixing climate change; in addition to the benefits to the environment the geopolitical and long term economic advantages make it a no brainer.

Disagree with the "not our problem" take. If you think we have a refugee problem now, imagine the Middle East and North Africa in 50 years with hotter temps and no oil revenues.

Still not our problem. We're not the world police, and we're also not the world's social worker. I agree with you that the situation you describe is going to come to pass and it will be bad. Europe is right there. Let them deal with it. Until north Africans find a way to walk to the United States, I'm more interested in South America.

I don’t fully disagree with this. Yes we are not the world’s policeman. Our resources are limited and we need to be cautious. All that is true.

But on the other hand our way of life, our economic prosperity, is tied to the flow of world goods. There’s no way around that. We live in a global economy. We are not self sufficient and we will never be again. We depend on international trade. Any disruption to that trade, particularly energy supply, is vital to us and we have to be involved z

I think this line of thought is wrong. We are self-sufficient or could be very shortly. Especially if you add in Canada and Mexico as our partners in a North American partnership. America can feed itself many times over, has oil reserves that are capable of being tapped if need be. We are leaders in technology. Industry and manufacturing is in the process of returning to our country. 90% of our economy is not reliant on the global economy. China and Russia have locked themselves in demographic and political death spirals and in 50 years won't be in any sort of shape to offer anything like an alternative politically or economically to the U.S.A. We could get along nicely if we partnered with Japan, South Korea, Tawain, Canada, Mexico, and Vietnam, and let the rest of the world go hang.

 

[dickey moe]

I realize there's no way to answer this accurately, but if we had to guess what percentage of people living in the Gaza strip would we say support these attacks?

I have no idea. It's the monsters celebrating on video that get the clicks, while others go about their lives wondering how they're going to feed their children.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I realize there's no way to answer this accurately, but if we had to guess what percentage of people living in the Gaza strip would we say support these attacks?

Googling around, it seems like polls/surveys put Gaza support for Hamas at a little over 50%. Not sure how accurate polling can be in such a repressive state, but if I had to guess I’d probably start there.