Isreal/Palastine conflict

I think you all will find that in any conflict, there is right and wrong on both sides… especially when you’re there to see it first hand. There are good and decent people on both ends of the rifle, fighting for what they believe in….but only at first. Let me explain the best I can.

Reasons, beliefs, excuses, sides, and groups often go right out the window when the bullets start flying. All too often these conflicts, regardless of why they started, end up being about survival. I vividly remember The first firefight I was involved with in Iraq, and I went into it as a proud American soldier, there to do what’s right and save a persecuted people. My last firefight, I spent over 600 rounds of ammo and hit nothing but sand, because I just didn’t care about the “why” anymore. They were shooting at me, so I shot back. My personal reasons shifted the longer I was in that hell to the point that all I cared about was getting myself and my soldiers home. In more organized conflicts, you see the same thing on both sides. In Ww2, when The war was ending it wasn’t uncommon to see German POWS are playing cards with their American captors, or even having a drink together. The why we were at war didn’t matter, and we were all feeling the same way on both sides.

This conflict in Israel has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years, this is just the latest iteration. It makes me wonder as a jedi how much of the “why” has been lost to time? How much of that conflict in engraved into the culture itself? How many children are taught to hate the other side no matter what from birth? Whose reason was right and who’s reason was wrong prolly doesn't come as much into play now as it did 500 years ago.

That all said….the current issue at hand we should be concerned with isn’t the why, but the how. How this conflict will be fought by either side will have consequences. Targeting civilians, kidnapping women and children, targeting hospitals…..those things will change it from an Israel Gaza conflict to a global conflict with a quickness. The US, england, Canada, France, Germany, and many other countries will only let that go so far before we put our foot in it. If and when we do, it will be quick and dramatic, and no matter what, we will be viewed as the bad guy. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If we show up all shock and awe, (which is the only way it’s done now) we will bee seen as bullies, and world police, and so on. If we stay out of it, then we “allowed” it to happen and are just as guilty as anyone else. No matter what, we lose.

This has been another 2am rant from a very sleepy Zero. Hopefully this one is a bit coherent and makes an ounce of sense when you all read it. It did in my head when I wrote it.

I disagree that this is a problem created by the fallout of WW2. The region known by different groups as Israel or Palestine has been inhabited by both groups for around 4000 years, and both have deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the area, particularly the area of the old city in East Jerusalem. The Western Wall or Wailing wall is the remnant of a Jewish Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. It was itself a rebuilding an older temple built around 3000 years ago. The Dome of the Rock (significant to Palestinians) was built around 1300 years ago nearby. To what extent each occupied that area throughout the different centuries of that time and who should have claim to the land seems to be the subject of extensive debate full of partial histories that make an armchair historian like myself dizzy trying to follow the details (and sift through unbiased fact versus revisionist history). On some level, I also don't know that it matters. At this point both groups have deep cultural and historical ties to the area and to the monuments within it and would feel like they've lost one of the core parts of their identity if that was taken away.

ZealotX wrote:

So I would say the Jedi response would be advocating first for a cease-fire, and then to address atrocities on both sides.

 

I think this is an interesting observation, and I'm not sure if it's an accurate one. (I'm also not sure it's an inaccurate one). There are certainly a lot of people who consider a cease-fire to be the inhumane response at this juncture. I think I remember seeing in the doctrine somewhere something along the lines of it being important to know when action or inaction is most appropriate. The argument for cease-fire seems to revolve around the idea that attacking Gaza puts a lot of civilians in harm's way, civilians that in many cases have no way to escape and nowhere to escape to even if they could. On the other hand those arguing against a cease-fire seem to be mainly focused on the idea that Hamas (the political group running Gaza, which will likely remain in power until removed by some force internal or external) will continue to commit atrocities and intentionally hurt civilians until they are stopped, and that a cease-fire is effectively putting innocent civilians in harm's way through inaction. The argument is that Hamas is hell bent on hurting people and will continue to do so until forcibly stopped. The unfortunate reality is that there's probably truth to both sides of that debate. Continued attacks on Gaza will almost certainly means more civilian deaths, but as far as I can tell Hamas whole identity and goal seems to be taken back the entire land by force and seems to prefer the more inhumane strategies for doing so.

I think there is a lot of reason to be concerned about the conditions that civilians in Gaza have been living in under the Israeli blockade and I think that needs to be addressed, but I also see that as a closely related but separate issue. It wasn't really the people of Gaza that staged the terrorist attacks a few weeks ago, it was Hamas, and while Hamas is among the people of Gaza and holds control of Gaza that doesn't mean they are interchangeable or that they are acting out of the interest of the people of Gaza. Of course mixed up in all of this is the right to self determination. Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza (about 15 years ago, with no elections since, and was not elected to a majority but simply the largest percentage among multiple groups, but still seem to hold wide support among the people of Gaza), and by going in and effectively eliminating the political movement that the people of Gaza have elected does raise some ethical questions as well. I think those questions are a lot smaller (especially considering the lack of elections since they came into power), but it's worth at least pondering how that fits in. I'm not sure where exactly I was going with this paragraph, just that there are deeper issues that still need to be resolved but those may need to come after addressing the most immediate conflict.

Rex wrote:

I have 3 strong dislikes that all have been invoked by this:
(I) Devil's advocacy. It usually ends up on a trajectory for going pro se with extra steps.
 

Personally, I agree with your reasoning, but disagree with the sentiment as a whole. I can appreciate that sometimes "playing devil's advocate" is cover for sharing a controversial opinion without having to take ownership of it. On the other hand, it's also kind of the core of the Socratic method if I understand it correctly: question and challenge everything, look at the opposite point of view and verify that the original view was valid by basically arguing against it as much as possible.


Zero, your 2AM rant was indeed coherent, and insightful as well. It was also a little light in the "hope" department, but that seems to just be a reality of this entire situation. Pretty much every angle we can look at it from is tragic and worrying. That seems to be the one thing that just about everyone agrees on.

Unfortunately with this conflict there is an enduring belligerency in various Muslim groups going on now over 100 years - that have seemingly wanted to keep those lands under Islamic control ever since they lost them to the Brits in WW1. My concerns is as long as major elements within disputing parties wants nothing less than the destruction of the other, then nothing anyone can do will satisfy them short of meeting their demand.... and so when it's an untenable demand it just perpetuates ongoing conflict. That is the first and main problem IMO, the rest seem to have more to do with Palestine being unable or unwilling to manage their own security be it internally (stopping their people attacking Israel) and externally (reaching stable border agreements with Israel) - with so many super wealthy Muslim countries in the region I've never known why they can't sort it out - not withstanding the first aforementioned problem (which be extension falls within the solution to the second problem!?).

It might be of note to remember Jews have lived there continuously for thousands of years, even during Islamic rule post 7th century, for example in 1914 while still under Ottoman Turk rule they numbered nearly 100,000 or 1/5th of the population, apparently. But according to Wikipedia lots of Jews left Palestine (after the Muslim armies invaded) in the 8th and 9th century because of discrimination by the recently invading Islamic armies.

So going back to when this started more recently, the Brits having control and authority over those lands post 1917/1922 saw them start progress on building a Jewish homeland - not instead of Muslims living there but alongside until an enduring solution could be created. Despite effectively (roughly speaking) being ruled by the Brits between 1917 and 1947, conflicts ensued. Some Muslim groups even sided with Nazi Germany in WW2 to that same end. When the UN proposed the two state solution under their Partition Plan in 1947 the Jews accepted it but the Arabs rejected it and started decades long string of campaigns to destroy Israel.

Today the issue is the same, but a bit different, but the same at its root drivers IMO. So to me it seems more like a religious conflict than a political one.... certainly it's dressed up as a political one seemingly. AFAIK Hamas's stated reason for existence is the destruction of Israel and creation of an Islamic State over those lands... but I think its inaccurate to view it in a political context as per their narrative. Which is another point, I think its worthwhile trying to avoid either sides narrative as gospel.

But a conflict going on this long will have plenty of problems on both sides, as population increases, technology changes, and histories become bloodier. It's easy for both sides to find reasons to fight, whats hard is finding solutions. I think when in complex situations sometimes ya have to step away from the emotion as much as possible, step away from the tit for tat, and instead start looking for compromises by both sides.

Not only coherent and insightful but pointedly quick in cutting to the bone of the issue. Which I think is that a lot of conflicts are played out on different levels. There is a political level of mostly theater where there "idea" of the conflict is planted, germinates, and is fueled by rhetoric. On this level, the conflict still exists but is fought with words. If this fight happens in temples and mosques without the other side represented, that side almost cannot lose and therefore it is easy to commit hearts and minds and eventually recruit actual bodies. Therefore, every wrong done by one side to the other serves as a recruiting tool and it is often the religious leaders, using the idea of God and of divine justice, to not only justify the taking of land but then also revenge against those trying to take it or retake it.

But on the physical/military level, it boils down to survival and warm bodies are smashed into warm bodies until so many are cold that the two sides are too tired or weak to continue. The reasons at this level don't necessarily matter because it's simply kill or be killed.

I think that is why a cease fire is necessary. Because both sides have a lot of bodies as well as resources/energy to exhaust. Both want to prove they have the will to win but often people don't necessarily care about winning or what winning means or looks like. Survival IS winning. Therefore, the way both can win is to stop fighting and instead of fighting in different rooms with verbal ammunition, they need to fight with words in the same room where both sides can be fairly represented, express their fears, hurts, and anger, and find solutions that don't involve the utter annihilation of the other party. Then they need to negotiate peace.

What one party seems to think is that if they can cut the head off then they can simply use their own head to rule (force into submission) the other people and keep them from gaining enough strength to fight them again. However, it depends on the source of a conflict. If the source of the conflict is the desire of one man (a king) then you can kill the conflict by killing the king. The people's desire may not be the same. If the source of the conflict is a prophet, then there are other prophets that can rise or carry the same influence. The head can keep regrowing because the head was never connected to the body in the first place (like the all-seeing eye on the capstone). In this case, the people feel obligated because of their beliefs.  That's why these are the conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years. It may sound impossible and terrible but sometimes gods need to be killed in order to bring real salvation to their people.

Master Adder, I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the insights. I do disagree with the idea that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is an issue of a border agreement as it is far more than the Gaza/Israel border that Israel controls. They also control the airspace and coastline as well. Even the border between Gaza and Egypt was established via a treaty between Israel and Egypt and has had a significant amount of influence exerted on it by Israel even after they officially withdrew from Gaza, orchestrating the closing of that border in 2008, and controlling who can and can't cross there through it's Palestinian registry since then. It does seem that part of the issue with the Egypt/Gaza border also stems from Egypt's dislike for Hamas leadership which is in part of the internal/external security issues you mentioned, but that wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if Israel wasn't already exerting some control over the border with Egypt and total control over the airspace and coastline. It really is a blockade more than a border agreement issue at that point. Of course even in all of this, it does still come back to the militant/combative nature of Hamas and the fact that they have had control internally within the borders since first elected, and there has been no mechanism for them to be ousted by the people of Gaza even if they wanted to, which all flows into the other point I found interesting:

ZealotX wrote:

What one party seems to think is that if they can cut the head off then they can simply use their own head to rule (force into submission) the other people and keep them from gaining enough strength to fight them again. However, it depends on the source of a conflict. If the source of the conflict is the desire of one man (a king) then you can kill the conflict by killing the king. The people's desire may not be the same. If the source of the conflict is a prophet, then there are other prophets that can rise or carry the same influence. The head can keep regrowing because the head was never connected to the body in the first place (like the all-seeing eye on the capstone). In this case, the people feel obligated because of their beliefs.  That's why these are the conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years. It may sound impossible and terrible but sometimes gods need to be killed in order to bring real salvation to their people.
 

This seems hit the core of the cease-fire debate. Is the source of the conflict the desire of a king (or party that is in power) who has, as previously mentioned, stated their core reason for being as the total destruction of Israel? If that head is cut off will the conflict die down enough that cooler heads and diplomatic efforts have a chance? Are the people's desire sufficiently different that the removal of the head would remove much of the conflict? Or is this just a natural and inevitable manifestation of the deeper desires of the people and culture and cutting off the head will only at best temporarily delay the conflict? The argument against the cease-fire seems to be that it is Hamas that is the big issue, and that peace cannot happen so long as Hamas remains, and once Hamas is gone there is hope for peace. On the other hand, the argument for a cease-fire seems to be exactly what you've been proposing: this is a deeper conflict that won't be resolved simply by cutting off the head of the latest manifestation of the conflict and the only way to resolve it is by getting to that deeper conflict and resolving that first. In this argument, the sentiment seems to be that eliminating Hamas itself won't really make a big difference and is going to cost far too many civilian lives in the process of accomplishing very little in the bigger picture.

The question then perhaps becomes: what would things look like if Hamas were successfully eliminated? Who would take power in the region? Would it be the unpopular but more diplomatically favorable Fatah, or would one of the other smaller parties rise from the ashes of Hamas to take power? If so, how antagonistic or diplomatic would that new group be? What would change with the economic/border situation following the elimination of Hamas? Would the people of Gaza finally have the freedom they desire or would Israel continue to blockade the territory and limit its economic potential, and if so will that just foster new parties to rise and repeat the cycle of violence once again?

Two interesting observations I've made in this conversation (and more accurately my own side research throughout it) is that of Egypt's relationship with Hamas, and that of Hamas and Fatah's relationship with current public opinion. One of the reasons why Egypt has been stingy with opening its border over the last several years is disagreements with Hamas and not wanting anyone from Hamas at the border. Egypt in general is more allied with Palestinians than Israel, but Hamas control has shifted them toward policies that are more favorable to Israel. On some level that suggests that Hamas really is the problem, and if they were removed some of the other issues would themselves at least be reduced considerably. On the other hand, it isn't Hamas that has stopped a new election from happening. In fact they are very critical of the Palestinian Authority's president for not holding new elections, which is largely because Fatah who currently holds the majority in the PA has lost a lot of popularity, and a new election would likely hand more power to Hamas, probably giving them control of the West Bank as well. That seems to suggest that Hamas is not the problem but a manifestation of the people being fed up with the iron fist they feel they are under and are eager to have leaders who will fight back and do whatever it takes to win their freedom. That indicates that it is not Hamas and eliminating Hamas will not fix the issues and the underlying issues must themselves be fixed first. I think this also puts the video previously shared by Master Adder in an especially interesting light as it cuts to the core of what Hamas really want and what things might look like if a cease-fire does happen. What isn't as clear to me is what would happen if a cease-fire doesn't happen and Hamas is eliminated. Who would fill that void created?

Cornilion Seadragon wrote:

Master Adder, I agree with most of what you said and appreciate the insights. I do disagree with the idea that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is an issue of a border agreement as it is far more than the Gaza/Israel border that Israel controls. They also control the airspace and coastline as well. Even the border between Gaza and Egypt was established via a treaty between Israel and Egypt and has had a significant amount of influence exerted on it by Israel even after they officially withdrew from Gaza, orchestrating the closing of that border in 2008, and controlling who can and can't cross there through it's Palestinian registry since then. 


 

Didn't Israeli control of the Gaza border with Egypt effectively stop in 2011?

Israel's direct control of that crossing ceased, yes, but they have continued to exert influence on the crossing indirectly through a number of means.

The first is that Israel still controls the Palestinian population registry, and many Palestinians in Gaza have been unable to get IDs or passports which are issued by Israel and necessary in order to leave regardless of which border they are crossing, and even necessary in some cases to move from town to town across internal military checkpoints.

The second is the multiple attacks they have carried out on Rafah, the town the border crossing is in. Israel bombed this town in 2014 shutting down the border crossing (Israel said they were destroying the tunnel system in the town), and again just a couple days ago did a large strike on Rafah complicating any passage through the Rafah border crossing.

The third is that Egypt, not wanting to see relations with Israel sour any more than necessary, have largely been following Israel's lead on what good and population can cross the border. The only goods that cross are construction materials and food, and on multiple occasions specific demographics (like men younger than 40) have been barred from crossing. Most recently Egypt blamed Israel for the closing of the Rafah crossing during the current conflict as well. Because Egypt has been trying to act as a mediator between Israel and Palestine, they have been cautious of any activity that might piss off Israel.

The fourth influence is through the pressure that Israel puts on that crossing by cutting off all other potential ports of entry. Israel controls any other way in or out of Gaza by land via Israel, by air, and by sea. This means any refugees trying to leave Gaza would pour into Egypt (which Egypt doesn't really want) since they can't leave any other way. Being the sole port of entry not directly controlled by Israel also means that any activity permitted there that Israel itself wouldn't permit would quickly earn Israel's ire. If there were multiple ports of entry it would put a lot less political pressure on that one crossing, but since there aren't it becomes a political firestorm causing an extraordinary amount of caution by Egypt.

All of these issues just compound the fact that Egypt itself has some political instability and change in regime in Egypt has led to temporary border closures in the past, and the fact that Egypt itself doesn't like or trust Hamas has meant that even when Israel isn't interfering with people crossing this border it can be unpredictable with it only seeming to be open about half the time from what I can tell. Since Gaza doesn't control any of its own ports of entry (including air or sea ports) and all other ports of entry are controlled by Israel who is very restrictive, the largely unstable Rafah crossing becomes the only way in or out and the unpredictability with that port makes it difficult for people to be able to reliably come and go as needed.

Because of all of this, Israel may not be directly controlling that crossing anymore, but they are still exerting a lot of indirect influence on who, what, and when people/goods can cross and still gets in the way of Gaza having a predictable port of entry/exit. There are certainly both internal and external security issues and those are no small part of why the Rafah crossing is complicated and unpredictable (Egypt, for example, won't accept Hamas forces manning the border, only Palestinian Authority, because they don't trust Hamas, and some of the restrictions at the border are out of concern for security in the Egyptian controlled Sinai peninsula), but the larger issue restricting passage in and out of the the Gaza territory is still Israel's blockade and influence on Gaza, which would remain a significant hurdle even if the security concerns were removed. The fact that Palestinians are reliant on Israel to get IDs and other paperwork needed to cross and that there have been significant issues for a lot of people trying to get IDs itself is a huge way that Israel continues to control all border crossings even as they officially withdrew from controlling the crossing into Egypt.

Is there a way to rescue Palestinian LGBTQ couples from the Isreal-Hamas war? Many Palestinians fled to Isreal to escape persecution over the years just for being gay?
Because the Gay Palestinian refugees already have a strong community in Isreal, I find the “open air prison” argument rather sus. 

https://www.jta.org/2023/10/25/ideas/the-abandonment-of-israel-by-lgbt-groups-is-hypocritical-and-cruel

https://www.haaretz.com/life/2022-09-22/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-tragedy-of-queer-palestinians-now-on-stage/00000183-65d3-db87-a18f-67ff48420000

I haven't seen anything about specifically LGBT+ persecution in this conflict. Also from demographic data I was able to find, Palestine and Israel have ~0 and 8.5% LGBT+ populations respectively, so I don't see this as a conflict with high risks in general. Israel has a very interesting pluralistic approach to these issues predating this which leads to certain centers (e.g. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya) being more LGBT-friendly; these areas aren't too proximate to the conflict either.
I also would caution reading those articles as gospel given that Haaretz is a fun mix of socially liberal but hawkish on Israel's FP.
I think also relevant to this conflict is that it took place right when Saudi-Israel normalization had viability. I'd highly recommend listening to War on the Rocks' recent pair of podcast episodes if you want a tactical deep dive into the context and facts undergirding this conflict.

Thanks, I’ll totally check Haaretz out.
Fog of war is pretty daunting to say the least.

wrote:

Fog of war is pretty daunting to say the least.
 

I think this is the most certain thing about this conflict: the uncertainty of it all. So many more questions than answers, and I'm not even sure which questions to ask. There's so many different nuances to this conflict that escape most of us (or at least escape me). The tragedy that has befallen civilians on both sides of it is the other clear reality. No matter where blame lands or how blame is being divided, a lot of innocent people are suffering in the middle of this.

Yeah... so I have a thought as to who would fill the void. And I think this is key because the US already tried to get involved in the Middle East after 9/11 and that didn't go so well. Hopefully this time no one is silly enough to think that there wont be far-reaching consequences. I feel like Americans are a little spoiled when it comes to our democracy. We're not used to being under a religious government. That's why I said sometimes you have to kill a god to save the people because humans end up as slaves to the will of other humans who claim to speak for the gods. These atrocities are basically the foundation of the Old Testament.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Moses was a genocidal dictator. If anyone were to do what he did in 2023 they would be talked about like Hitler or Kim Jung Un. However, how the story of Moses sounds depends on your beliefs. It's funny, if not crazy, how this actually works. If you're a strong believer then you see Moses as a heroic savior who was chosen by God to free his people after hundreds of years of brutal slavery. And of course, if he were overseeing his own story why would he make himself out to be the bad guy? So we have to understand that having control over the pen of history is huge. The pen is mightier than the sword. On the flip side, if you're not a believer and therefore you're not secretly afraid of Moses's invented god, YHWH, then you may read the story very differently. And you may not see the same justification for why he ordered the deaths of his own people for the crime of not believing. And of course, if the only people who get to survive are those who accept or those who have to fake acceptance to survive, then it will always look like they were all willing participants. In reality, if you had the choice... "believe or die" you'd probably lie and decide that it's not worth dying for. We see the exact same thing in North Korea. Do the North Koreans like all the restrictions and Kim-approved haircuts? You'll never know because they're not allowed to speak freely unless they defect and we saw how hard that was to do.

What does this have to do with Hamas?

Let's say Moses calls a timeout and the coach (also Moses) sends in the second-string QB. This guy's name is HAMAS. Same team. And the fact that Moses is heading to the bench means that Hamas can take over his role without Moses standing in his way, saying he's not the chosen one. And as long as the role is vacant and there's no religious opposition, Hamas can speak for the same god and who is going to be brave enough to question when the role Hamas is stepping into has already created the precedent of silencing critics? Hamas has been around since 1987. That means that for almost 40 years there hasn't been anyone to dethrone it. Why not? Because imagine someone trying to dethrone Moses. Oh wait, we don't have to. An entire generation of people were, according to the story, tortured to death by starvation in the desert. This is no different from a massive gang. A lot of people are born into it and can't simply just leave.

This harsh reality is not limited to one culture or ethnic origin. This is simply the danger of combining church and state. The people are split. Some will believe out of love and others will believe out of fear. Those who believe out of fear may seek positions of power where they can in turn make others afraid. And any psychopathy can easily be masked behind righteous indignation. In Europe, we had the Inquisitions and the Crusades. It's self-regulating because anyone who opposes the power is attacked as opposing almighty God. And since God somehow cannot strike down individuals with bolts of lighting (what with not existing and all) it falls on other humans to punish and make examples out of those who they believe have offended God.

If there is a big enough split, as with Sunni and Shia, then you get Hamas and Hezbollah (1982). The US government labels these groups "terrorists" but that is strategically far from intelligent. They are only "terrorists" when operating inside the sovereignty of the US. When they're at home, they are the home team who is responsible for protecting their people and making sure the evil West with all of its sinful offenses to Allah... doesn't take over. And they will if those military forces weren't there. I'm not saying the US would have any such desires. I'm saying this would be the narrative on the ground in those countries. They're going to say whatever they have to in order to maintain support from the people. But once you understand how religions operate you see this is no different from the maintenance done on Christians who still wait for persecution and for Jesus to return. And so they pay billions (more than enough to maintain an army) to their churches.

How do we know that the support is there? Age. Operating a military isn't cheap. And they don't have a bunch of 60 year olds running around with sticks. So they have a recruitment pipeline that has allowed both groups to still be able to fight 40 years later. And never, in all that time, was a secular movement able to convince the people that these groups were no longer necessary. And when Saddam was alive the thing we hate to admit is that he maintained checks and balances in that region. By taking him out we destabilized it because we allowed local interests to not only fight over the remnants but also to see that the guy they feared could easily be defeated and pulled out of a hidey hole.

And these... the non-secular people, are brave. What if the Storm Troopers were such terrible shots because they were scared that if they got too close to actually hitting a Jedi their shots would be delivered right back to them? Sorry, that was random. However, fear makes people behave differently. I am absolutely convinced that "Jesus" was a pawn for a lot of people who wanted a strong leader to unite the 12 tribes in order to fight for their independence against Rome. And so the story is written in such a way that makes him sound like Moses. Because if he can do miracles then the people would think that God was with him. And that was the whole point. If the people could be deceived in that way then they might be willing to fight without fear of dying. That's why people in the Middle East aren't necessarily afraid of America. As long as they can see that we still bleed they will believe that they can win. All they have to do is convince themselves that it is a battle between good and evil that God/Allah will judge. The worse thing you can do to someone like that is back them into a corner.

So who would take over for Hamas? Hamas. It wouldn't die. As long as there's no reason to change the name it will keep coming back with new people because the people will not want to let it die. If the leadership has to hide in a hole they'll do that but they're fighting for more than just the name Hamas. They're fighting for faith and for justice. And as long as you cannot kill their faith, they will simply replace lost warriors and every casualty will be a recruitment tool.

The only way to handle these organizations is to address their concerns. If they expect you to be evil, be the opposite. In their minds, they are "resisting" Israel. That's the thing. Israel has not been this "righteous chosen people" like Christians may want to believe and therefore support unconditionally. And yes, some of that support is simply religious and falls into the same logic as a Hamas supporter. Israel takes advantage of this and exploits this chosen people belief as justification to do whatever they want in the region. It would be one thing if they were completely innocent. But they're not. And therefore, you have to consider the fact, that because we've been funding Israel forever, then just like how Tony Stark's weapons ended up in the hands of terrorists? Our money... our weapons... have been used to terrorize the Palestinians in their own lands. So what is their perception? What's their narrative? If I were in their shoes and under their indoctrination I would have to agree with the dark picture painted of Israel because if they were the chosen people of God wouldn't they treat people with love and righteousness? Therefore, they must be false (like a "false prophet") and so God would want us to destroy them and stop them from pretending to be his people, receiving endless blessings that should be "ours" similar to Jacob (Israel) stealing his brother Esau's birthright by pretending to be Esau.

I think it's interesting that the bible has poetically already set up Israel to be a pretender.

As long as they feel justified to fight back and they have the financial resources and willpower to do so, this isn't going to end unless Israel stops and the US jumps in to create a fair 2 State Solution. You have to let the Palestinians govern themselves because Israel will not do that fairly. Neither can be trusted to govern the other. Israel should have authority over Israelis. Palestinians should have authority over Palestinians and no more taking people's houses and land. Seems like they considered this back in 1947 but they ultimately failed to create the Arab state. What Israel has done would be acts of war except for the fact that it wasn't happening to a Palestinian-controlled state. Israel just said they had a right to do it because the land was theirs. 

But was it? I have sympathy for the original Jewish immigrants displaced by the Nazis. However, that should have taught them something about how not to treat the Palestinians. I think we should consider it almost miraculous this hasn't happened sooner.

From what I've seen, I feel like your assessment might be a bit off base. First, I don't know that Hamas is claiming religious authority, which is kind of the crux of your argument. Religion plays a role in that the contested territory, particularly East Jerusalem is home to some of the significant religious sites for both sides, but that's not the same as Hamas claiming their leader is some great prophet who is carrying out the will of God. Hamas may have been around for nearly 40 years, but that doesn't mean it's because people have been afraid to topple them for that long. The first half of that they weren't someone worth toppling. The second half of that they had the support of the people of Palestine, because the people of Palestine who are desperate to throw off the shackles of Israel view Hamas as the ones who will meet that objective.

Your football analogy could work, but needs some restructuring. Israel and Gaza are opposing teams. Essentially until a couple decades ago, though, both teams were manned with members of Israel's team whose job really was to make sure Israel wins. A couple decades ago Israel said Gaza could pick their own quarterback. Much of the team is still made of members of the Israel team who want to make sure Israel wins, but at least Gaza now gets their own quarterback and a few other members of their time (mostly chosen by the new quarterback). Hamas was chosen as that quarterback. This is a particularly problematic quarterback who likes to foul a lot and push the boundaries to see what they can get away with, but that's the sort of strategy that the people of Gaza thought would be needed to overcome the uneven teams. Now as long as Hamas remains the quarterback Hamas is going to continue to do what Hamas does, but even if that quarterback is removed the teams are still uneven which will prompt the people of Gaza to put someone else in the quarterback slot who is equally aggressive to overcome the uneven teams. There are two problems: the inhumane conditions imposed on the citizens of Gaza, and the Hamas leadership.

Now distilling Hamas actions down to "fouling" is way underselling the horror of their acts. At the same time attributing perceived divine authority to them is overselling their influence. They are put in power because the people have had enough and believe this is the group that will deliver them.

It's also worth noting again that this conflict massively predates WW2. It's a conflict that literally goes back to the time of Moses. This is now viewed as their ancestral land, the holy place, and the only home by both groups. They both have thousands of years of history here, dating back about 4000+ years.

I agree that a 2 state solution, where Palestine is truly free to govern themselves, is necessary (notably that is not a call for the entire land between Sinai and Jordan to be turned over to Palestine as some Zionist supporters interpret calls for a free Palestine to mean, but it does mean they are given enough land to function and total control of that land - including its airspace, coastline, and all government functions). I also agree that Hamas being destroyed could potentially just open the door for others to step in and don the same banner as a new Hamas that continues with the same goals and priorities of wiping out all of Israel.

All of this also overlooks one of the bigger complications that I don't think I've seen in this thread yet: access to fresh water. Fresh water is in short supply throughout the entire region and because of the geography. Israel is upstream from Gaza, so they can control how much water they take versus how much they leave for Gaza. Because water is in short supply for both groups, the temptation to take an unfair amount is very tempting. The West Bank has other water sources, but those living in Gaza do not have access to them.

Your criticism is fair. The reason why I paint Hamas as a religious authority is the following:

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

quote:
The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.

...

(again... this is not me saying this)

quote: Palestine is a land whose status has been elevated by Islam, a faith that holds it in high esteem, that breathes through it its spirit and just values and that lays the foundation for the doctrine of defending and protecting it.Palestine is the cause of a people who have been let down by a world that fails to secure their rights and restore to them what has been usurped from them, a people whose land continues to suffer one of the worst types of occupation in this world.Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity and on imposing a fait accompli by force.-end quote-

Hamas is Sunni Islam. Because this region doesn't separate religion from state like America does (at least for now) we don't need to see some declaration of "I am the messiah" to come from them to see how their religion influences their position. Even with Yeshua ("Jesus"), the "messiah" title wasn't a religious title. It was a national title of being king. And likewise, that movement sought freedom from Rome. However, it played upon religious beliefs in the people in order to do that. 

Hamas can't perform miracles or create such a story but the foundation, in my opinion, is the same. If a religious authority is not accepted as THE authority, it will typically be replaced by THE authority. For Sunnis, no other organization has stepped up to claim that position. For Shia no other organization has claimed it over Hezbollah. The negative connotations each have is mainly with us because of our opposition. But for them... they are not terrorists. They are liberators... heroes. The fact it seems more political than religious is simply due to the nature of their religion. Because as with Moses, religion and state were the same so they shared the same issues. Was the brutality of Moses religious? Or state? If Moses told them to attack Canaan, was it religious or state? See? That's why it doesn't make a difference. Hamas doesn't need to claim to be the religious authority because the role it's stepping into has no real distinction. So when you're fighting Hamas, to them, you're fighting sunni Islam. If you're fighting Hezbollah you're fighting Shia Islam. There is a difference to us but not to them. That's why as much as we'd like to get involved; especially in cases of abuse against women, it's hard because that's their religion that is also enforced on them by the state.

Because Hamas's religion "determines its principles, objectives and means" unfortunately, these cannot be separated from the religion.

Now... note... It is true that there are tons of Muslims around the world that don't support these groups. Typically, the live in parts of the world that have secular governments which allows them to choose how much to adhere to their religion. However, they can't simply say "that's not in my religion" just like Christians cannot totally reject the Old Testament.

I agree that there is a religious component, and would even accept that Hamas is claiming to do the work of God, but there's still a big difference between being the people who stepped up to do God's work (or do what is seen as God's work anyway), and being appointed by God and specifically called to do it.

One of the stated goals of Hamas AFAIK is to create an Islamic state in what is now Israel and Palestinian territories. To me the whole conflict is primarily religious in nature, stemming from the loss of Islamic rule when the ruling Ottoman Empire was defeated in WW1.

Cornilion Seadragon wrote:

I agree that there is a religious component, and would even accept that Hamas is claiming to do the work of God, but there's still a big difference between being the people who stepped up to do God's work (or do what is seen as God's work anyway), and being appointed by God and specifically called to do it.

After studying religion, in my experience, there is no difference. The gods of these religions is a mental projection of what the people agree that god should be. Imagine an election where people elect new gods. The gods that people don't agree with they simply wouldn't "vote" for and those gods would fall out of use. Now when you have a single nation with a single god then that god is a reflection of the national interests of that people. In this case, their having a god is almost akin to having a national flag. Because their national identity is entangled with that God it becomes more difficult for them to deny the will of that God. Because, again, this god was established from the multitudes of people who believed and reinforced the belief in that god.

What you are suggesting is that there is a 2 way street; that people can step up or they can be called/appointed. These gods are not real. When a person declares that they were called/appointed by God they are simply listening to their ego speaking through their conscience. It's not like there are actual gods leading different nations. There are simply leaders of different nations establishing and reinforcing national gods because the authority of those gods can be summoned at any time to establish and reinforce their own authority. This is especially true of rules who claimed to be the offspring of different gods. And that's why there is such confusion between what "son of God" meant in the Hebrew sense vs what it meant to the Greeks and Romans.

Because NO ONE is "called/appointed" there is no check and balance on those claiming to be. It's kind of like how there is no one who can dispute life after death theories because there has never been anyone who has gone to some afterlife and came back. If such a thing did happen then that one experience could set the record straight. In the absence of that knowledge, the theories remain. So the same thing with different gods. There is no definitive "One true God" so therefore anyone who says they believe in the "One true God" can never be truly contradicted other than conflicts with the written stories, democratically accepted.

I'm suggesting the same applies to Islam. There is no true literal God of Islam. There is only that which humans claim to be the true God. Therefore, the people can always be left with the belief that this god is on their side. And that's exactly what they want to believe; because gods are more about the human desire to manipulate nature. That's why humans are constantly asking gods for favor(s). Therefore the intensity of the claims of Islamic states represents the power of said god to intervene. And this was always the case. If you go back to Moses, the bible was written such that once they had a military then God would simply aid their military rather than fighting battles for them. So first the "prophet"'s role is to try to convince the people that the god their claiming to be god is real. Then once they believe, then the people do the work,  under the direction of said prophetic leader and then the credit for success goes to that god.

It's basically a pyramid scheme.

Of course, we know that when you run out of people the pyramid scheme fails. The problem is that pyramid schemes survive by constant recruiting. And so if one side is oppressing/abusing the other side then it sets up a scenario like what Moses was able to use where the people, wanting to believe in a just and merciful god, are told that god will help to free them from an evil oppressive enemy. Therefore, as long as we continue to oppress or enable oppression, we will continue to create scenarios like this where an oppressed group will fight back and/or recruit until it's strong enough to fight.

Thank you for sharing that video. I think it's a very grounded perspective on the situation.

Regarding the distinction between claiming to "do God's work" and claiming to "be appointed by God" I disagree with you that there is no difference between them. While in practice, from an atheist or agnostic perspective, there is no distinction (it is two different variants of a self appointed person claiming a religious role), to those who believe in that religion these are entirely different topics. Both carry a religious fervor and can use religion to unite supporters behind them, but one has a special and unique authority themselves while the other is only an authority so long as they continue to do the work they are claiming to be devoted to. As far as I am aware Hamas has not claimed that higher level of authority. They haven't claimed that they are appointed by God to lead these people and that everything they do carries the authority of God. They may claim that what they are seeking to do is the will of God, but that still gives people the room to judge for themselves if they are really doing the will of God. Ultimately a lot of this is in the canopy of the forest when most people are concerned about what is going on down on the ground, but in terms of who can and can't replace them, it makes a huge difference.
In the end, though it may be mute. Israeli leadership seems to have answered the question of who replaces Hamas as leaders in Gaza: Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister expressed that he intends to maintain complete control of the region after they finish eliminating Hamas.

Of course this leads into a lot of what this video is saying, about how there are two classes of citizens: one who has the right to vote and one who doesn't, one group of citizens who has freedom of movement, and one group of citizens that is less free than even visiting foreigners. Hamas is pretty clearly a problem - any group whose purpose of being is to rid the world of a different group is problematic to put it lightly - but their rise to power is a reflection of the desperate situation created, people who hear someone say they'll deliver them from the inhumane conditions they're living in and decide "yeah, that person has my vote, enough is enough."

I think one of the problems with conversations about this conflict is that there's a lot of emotion tied to it, and a lot of connecting things in ways that are inaccurate - a lot of false equivocations. This video highlights a prime example of that: protests in support of Palestinian refugees being equated to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazis. One can offer sympathy and support to one group of people that is suffering without hating the other group. While it's important to know where the line is and not cross from supporting the citizens in Gaza and asking for peace and freedom for them into supporting the terrorist actions of Hamas, hating Jews, or calling for the entire region to be turned over the Palestinians, it is equally important not to assume that somebody taking a realistic and measured response in defense of someone is also taking an extreme view against someone else. I see that in other topics, like the war in Ukraine, as well. Someone expressing concern for the wellbeing of civilians in Russia isn't a statement against Ukraine or in support of the invasion of Ukraine. It's simply an acknowledgement that these actions taken by national leaders often cause a lot of suffering even to their own citizens who (especially in cases like Russia and Palestine where elections are complicated to say the least) are also innocent victims. That isn't a statement of opposition to the other group, just a recognition of everyone who might be suffering.

That is not to say I've seen that in this conversation. This conversation has been pretty level headed. In a lot of the headlines and news going around, however, taking extreme stands or assuming extreme stands when people aren't taking extreme stands seems to be pretty constant. I suppose that gets more to my original question of how a Jedi should approach topics like this. It seems the answer from what I'm seeing is: level-headed, recognizing that there are two sides to the story which are both important, but also recognizing that this doesn't mean that one (or both) side(s) isn't in the wrong at least partially. Also, with compassion for those who are suffering, regardless of the reason for their suffering, as well as perhaps a recognition that the first or loudest version of the story isn't always the full story or necessarily the most accurate version of events.

If I understand your point about the distinction between claims with one being
"God didn't tell me to do this but this is God's will and I'll do it" vs "God picked me to do this"

then I have to say you have convinced me with your sound reasoning. At first glance, there seems little difference or a difference so slight as to be inconsequential, but since you put it this way I have to agree with you.

As as you said, this does make a difference for who can replace Hamas.

The only push back (and I'm not even sure if this qualifies as such) I would offer is that, and it may sound somewhat cynical, but I don't think there is much of an appetite for the latter ("God picked me"). It would be different if there were a series of contiguous events where God (ver. Allah) was directing person after person, but when you're talking about the prophet Muhammad (the last guy who they would let go unquestioned for saying "God picked me") dying in 632... That has consequences. 

Imho, the consequence of that is that anyone who comes after is:
A: immediately compared to Muhammad
B: must explain the time gap
C: must dictate modern versions of religious policy, threatening to invalidate Muhammad to the same degree that Jesus invalidated Moses (I realize this is a matter of perspective and subject to interpretation) similar to how Christianity emerged out of what WAS a "Jewish" tradition

The more time passes the more difficult all of these things become and so a person would need to deeply disturbed mentally in a way that we don't already recognize and treat... in order to even make this attempt. I don't believe anyone could.

Everyone, in every religion where there is a belief in a literal god is basically acting as "pro-temp"... a place holder for "The real thing", all talking about ancient writings, ancient communications, and claiming to have some communication but nothing every rising to the level of being the next "chosen one".

Back then it was much easier to scam people. One of the last attempts to do this in the biblical tradition was Joseph Smith (which is a name so random it might as well be John Doe) and to a lesser degree, Ellen White. These people survive by downplaying their role because they don't want to be measured against the same yard stick.

So getting back to Hamas, I don't think its really possible for anyone to claim (save for undiagnosed mental illness) "God chose me" without attracting/creating so much negative inspection that it would negate any role or function that person might attempt to perform. The far smarter thing is to avoid the label and simply fulfill the role. Kind of why I think it is a distinction without a super real difference, in practicality, but I do accept that theoretically there is a difference. The more cynical part is that to a large degree I think everyone is somewhat conscious of this and therefore doesn't expect anyone to claim "God chose me". They are over that and more into the cherry-picking of what they like(d) from religion and they're working to maintain tradition and cultural norms.

However, if another society threatens that way of life by either by invocation of their own version of God or from the sheer desperation through great and tragic abuse those people have suffered, then that will awaken the religious fervor and zeal that is akin to patriotism and then a person who claims to be chosen will begin to become more of a possibility because there will be fewer questions when they appear simply because people are so abused that they don't really care if the person is crazy or not as long as they can do something.

I think the same could be said about Moses. The point in time he appears is perfect. Same with Jesus. It may be the case with other persons who claim some level of being chosen. I'm not sure one can even claim to be chosen without some great tragedy serving as the backdrop of their appearance.

Religious zeal is actually an extension of love which is why it is so often misunderstood. Passion towards one idea can be redirected against another idea that appears to threaten it. I think that's what you're seeing in conversations. But I have to give you credit. When a person, such as yourself, is as level-headed as you are, that can often form the baseline, making it more difficult for that established balance to be upset. Energy is always seeking balance but pushing it too hard one way makes it go the other. Like catalysts, we often infuse conversations with the very negativity we're hoping to combat. I have noticed your skill in conversation. You have the ability to use a soft/subtle force. This is very becoming of a Jedi and reminds me of an old favorite. I appreciate it.