6 ms·

I understand that Israeli politics is complex, but ultimately it’s a democracy, and Netanyahu is who was chosen, repeatedly. All of those far right parties tha

I understand that Israeli politics is complex, but ultimately it’s a democracy, and Netanyahu is who was chosen, repeatedly. All of those far right parties that make up Netanyahu’s coalition got real votes and they represent a real slice of Israeli opinion. If Israelis want something different they just have to vote differently in the next election. The U.S. cannot just pretend Rabin is still in power and send money and weapons with the idea that Israel desires peace at the end of the day, because that faction is (as you say, for many reasons) no longer a majority in Israel. As for Hamas, yes they were elected, and that does have significance, but also that was 18 years ago, and most of what would be the current electorate wasn’t even old enough to vote back then. Ultimately as it stands though I believe both sides of the conflict wish to conquer the other, and the U.S. should just decline to support either side.

invalidname 2y ago
> If Israelis want something different they just have to vote differently in the next election. So 54% of Americans (which includes a lot of Democrats) support deporting millions of Mexicans. These are law abiding non-citizens who are contributing to the economy, yet most Americans want them gone. Is it surprising that a Trump like demagogue is successful when the people in question actually do commit mass murder and want to destroy the country? The reaction to violence is never, OK I was wrong... Let's settle. It's always violence in response and the weaker side always suffers. > The U.S. cannot just pretend Rabin is still in power and send money and weapons with the idea that Israel desires peace at the end of the day, because that faction is (as you say, for many reasons) no longer a majority in Israel. The first part is 100% true. Things changed. The problem is that your base assumption is completely wrong. You need to understand why the US sends weapons to Israel and that has a complex and long history. First, it sends weapons because it gives jobs to Americans. Israel demonstrates the quality of the weapons and improves them. Back in the day, Israel was completely embargoed. In the 60s it would buy French weapons and collect money to afford that. It developed its own industry but on the eve of war the French cut off Israel. Despite that Israel won, big time. It then started making the best weapons on earth. Guns like Uzi became the hot tool for everyone. Even its planes started selling everywhere and were pretty good. The US started selling weapons to Israel both to eliminate the competition and to improve its own. When Israel got its early shipments of US made planes it would rip out all the avionics and push in its own. US made avionics and weapons systems at the time were crap. They no longer are, guess who made that happen? But Israel is also a powerful ally. E.g. Sadam Husain would have a Nuclear weapon were it not for Israel. So would Assad. Israel killed quite a few terrorists on the US most wanted lists and provided a lot of support in the middle east on things where the US would rather stay neutral. It enabled keeping countries like Egypt and Jordan on the western side of the fence and serves as a balancing tool/lightning rod in the region. That has value. The more interesting thing is what would happen if the US would stop weapon shipments. This would be very bad for everyone. Most Israelis would see it as proof that they are alone again. This would mean Israel would need to show deterrence. It still has a massive security industry and still makes some of the best weapons around, it still has stocks of weapons but would now need to make them all count. It would mean a massive aggressive attack. Why? Without US support Israel would be concerned that this would serve as a signal for Iran or even Jordan that Israel is now "fair game". That can quickly deteriorate to nuclear war to keep deterrence clear. Finally, look at countries like Turkey which just bombed many civilian Kurds. They are a member of Nato and no one is even talking about it... Obviously no one cares just like no one cares about Sudan, China etc. None of those causes have TikToks or advocates since they have no sponsors. Both Turkey and Israel have similar problems. Authoritarian leaning leaders who are slowly dismantling democracy. The solution in both cases is difficult, most aggressive action can accelerate this process and make things worse for everyone. There aren't any good answers here. > As for Hamas, yes they were elected, and that does have significance, but also that was 18 years ago, and most of what would be the current electorate wasn’t even old enough to vote back then. As I said, I think it's a silly argument but don't expect a different result prior to the war. Hamas controlled UNRWA completely and was teaching pretty horrific stuff. If anything I'm afraid the situation is worse. See Egypt, given democracy they instantly picked the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fanatic organization. The education in these countries is mostly comprised around religion and a pretty extreme perception of said religion. > Ultimately as it stands though I believe both sides of the conflict wish to conquer the other, and the U.S. should just decline to support either side. It isn't a "both sides" scenario. Israel has a law that disallows settlements in Gaza, signed by Netanyahu. The IDF specifically stopped settlement attempts there. Yes, there are extremists in the government who want to revert that law. But they don't have the votes for that. Biden has drawn a red line related to that and to violations of Leahy. There is a status quo, it might seem more extreme than in the past and Bibi is indeed stretching the boundaries but there is a line.
- throwaway9917 2y ago
  The idea that sending weapons to Israel is some sort of economic or military advantage to the U.S. is sophistry. We could simply take those same weapons and add them to our own inventory and use them in ways that actually benefit the U.S. The actual reason the U.S. sends weapons to Israel is two fold. One is as a carrot to continue the peace process. The permanent allocation to Israel started when Camp David I was signed. The second reason is that a lot of people that support Israel live in the U.S. and they vote. If Israel no longer desires peace, the first reason doesn't exist. The second reason still does which is why it continues, despite being against the interests of the U.S. Yes, Netanyahu stopped the settlements in Gaza, but again, sophistry. While the settlements in Gaza were dismantled, the settlements in the West Bank were being expanded, as they continue to be. Netanyahu has always been about creating physical conditions that cause a two state solution to be politically impossible, regardless of changes in the Israeli government. It very much is a "both sides" scenario. I'm not going to argue about exactly which side is more unreasonable, but ultimately so much water has gone under the bridge that I don't think a settlement is possible, and I'm not interested in paying taxes to supply weapons to fuel an unresolvable conflict. If Israel wants to turn Gaza into rubble, leave millions of people homeless, and year after year take more land in the West Bank, I suppose we can't practically stop this, but personally I don't want want any part of it.
  - invalidname 2y ago
    > The idea that sending weapons to Israel is some sort of economic or military advantage to the U.S. is sophistry. We could simply take those same weapons and add them to our own inventory and use them in ways that actually benefit the U.S. A huge number of US politicians disagree. It's fashionable to claim that they are all stupid but the fact is that this just isn't true. Looking at Israels success in missile defense and similar technologies it shows where the R&D collaboration with the US has made both more successful. If the US won't send weapons Israel would just make its own and in the past made fantastic weapons. Including great fighter jets that were approaching F16 level in the 80s. > One is as a carrot to continue the peace process. That is true too. > The second reason is that a lot of people that support Israel live in the U.S. and they vote. That is also true. Today that's mostly the evangelicals though. > If Israel no longer desires peace, the first reason doesn't exist. This isn't true. First it assumes Israel doesn't want peace which is detached from reality. Peace exists with Egypt, Jordan etc. Israel returned territory it captured at war and signed a peace deal. All sides abide and this works well. It can very well be argued that the current war is because of peace pressure against Israel. Israel left Gaza under US pressure to do so with no deal. Despite repeated attacks from Hamas it didn't go back in and maintained status quo. US pressure worked but created a powder-keg in Gaza that blew up eventually. US pressure using the weapons as incentive worked very well, but you can't just wish peace to happen and force it on some people. > Yes, Netanyahu stopped the settlements in Gaza, but again, sophistry. Netanyahu has one ideal: Netanyahu. He has no morals, no backbone and no principals. > While the settlements in Gaza were dismantled, the settlements in the West Bank were being expanded, as they continue to be. As you can see from my other answers here I 100% agree that this is indeed a huge problem. The right-wing used the violence of Hamas as a means to attack the Palestinian authority for the past 3 decades. To be fair the Palestinian authority isn't great (e.g. lynching Israelis by tearing them limb from limb) but I agree that this is awful. The only way to solve this is to remove the two zero-sum entities: Hamas and the current government of Israel. The latter might not be removed in the next election, but the pendulum will eventually swing back... Without Hamas things would hopefully calm down for a while. > It very much is a "both sides" scenario. No. The fact that there are bad people on both sides is true. But that simplifies the situation. Israel wants a Palestinian state and tries to achieve that. Yes, it has some lunatics but unlike Hamas even in the current government they can't do anything. Hamas just wants to kill all Israelis. No law other than Sharia law. No civilian differentiation. But the real horrible thing about Hamas is that they don't care how many Palestinians die as part of their Jihad. They consider the death of their own children as a bonus, they would go to heaven as they die heroes. Israel has never been like that. If Hamas had the firepower of Israel there would be no Israeli left. The reverse isn't true despite everything. > If Israel wants to turn Gaza into rubble, leave millions of people homeless, and year after year take more land in the West Bank, I suppose we can't practically stop this, but personally I don't want want any part of it. The thing is that Israel can do it and doesn't. Furthermore, once the war is over it will help rebuild Gaza as it did in the past. The war isn't against the people of Gaza, it's against Hamas whose an enemy of the people of Gaza. It's a terrible organization that murders gays, believes domestic violence isn't a crime and brainwashes children to commit suicide bombings. Yes, the war is terrible and violent. But what's the alternative? Leaving the hostages to die? Letting Hamas regain power and do another round of the same thing? Violence is terrible. Always. But sometimes the avoidance of violence doesn't work. It just shoves it into a pressure cooker; it will be worse later on. We saw that with the 2005 deal. Israel left Gaza and tried to mostly ignore Hamas, that didn't work out well for anyone.

invalidname 2y ago

> If Israelis want something different they just have to vote differently in the next election. So 54% of Americans (which includes a lot of Democrats) support deporting millions of Mexicans. These are law abiding non-citizens who are contributing to the economy, yet most Americans want them gone. Is it surprising that a Trump like demagogue is successful when the people in question actually do commit mass murder and want to destroy the country? The reaction to violence is never, OK I was wrong... Let's settle. It's always violence in response and the weaker side always suffers. > The U.S. cannot just pretend Rabin is still in power and send money and weapons with the idea that Israel desires peace at the end of the day, because that faction is (as you say, for many reasons) no longer a majority in Israel. The first part is 100% true. Things changed. The problem is that your base assumption is completely wrong. You need to understand why the US sends weapons to Israel and that has a complex and long history. First, it sends weapons because it gives jobs to Americans. Israel demonstrates the quality of the weapons and improves them. Back in the day, Israel was completely embargoed. In the 60s it would buy French weapons and collect money to afford that. It developed its own industry but on the eve of war the French cut off Israel. Despite that Israel won, big time. It then started making the best weapons on earth. Guns like Uzi became the hot tool for everyone. Even its planes started selling everywhere and were pretty good. The US started selling weapons to Israel both to eliminate the competition and to improve its own. When Israel got its early shipments of US made planes it would rip out all the avionics and push in its own. US made avionics and weapons systems at the time were crap. They no longer are, guess who made that happen? But Israel is also a powerful ally. E.g. Sadam Husain would have a Nuclear weapon were it not for Israel. So would Assad. Israel killed quite a few terrorists on the US most wanted lists and provided a lot of support in the middle east on things where the US would rather stay neutral. It enabled keeping countries like Egypt and Jordan on the western side of the fence and serves as a balancing tool/lightning rod in the region. That has value. The more interesting thing is what would happen if the US would stop weapon shipments. This would be very bad for everyone. Most Israelis would see it as proof that they are alone again. This would mean Israel would need to show deterrence. It still has a massive security industry and still makes some of the best weapons around, it still has stocks of weapons but would now need to make them all count. It would mean a massive aggressive attack. Why? Without US support Israel would be concerned that this would serve as a signal for Iran or even Jordan that Israel is now "fair game". That can quickly deteriorate to nuclear war to keep deterrence clear. Finally, look at countries like Turkey which just bombed many civilian Kurds. They are a member of Nato and no one is even talking about it... Obviously no one cares just like no one cares about Sudan, China etc. None of those causes have TikToks or advocates since they have no sponsors. Both Turkey and Israel have similar problems. Authoritarian leaning leaders who are slowly dismantling democracy. The solution in both cases is difficult, most aggressive action can accelerate this process and make things worse for everyone. There aren't any good answers here. > As for Hamas, yes they were elected, and that does have significance, but also that was 18 years ago, and most of what would be the current electorate wasn’t even old enough to vote back then. As I said, I think it's a silly argument but don't expect a different result prior to the war. Hamas controlled UNRWA completely and was teaching pretty horrific stuff. If anything I'm afraid the situation is worse. See Egypt, given democracy they instantly picked the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fanatic organization. The education in these countries is mostly comprised around religion and a pretty extreme perception of said religion. > Ultimately as it stands though I believe both sides of the conflict wish to conquer the other, and the U.S. should just decline to support either side. It isn't a "both sides" scenario. Israel has a law that disallows settlements in Gaza, signed by Netanyahu. The IDF specifically stopped settlement attempts there. Yes, there are extremists in the government who want to revert that law. But they don't have the votes for that. Biden has drawn a red line related to that and to violations of Leahy. There is a status quo, it might seem more extreme than in the past and Bibi is indeed stretching the boundaries but there is a line.

throwaway9917 2y ago
The idea that sending weapons to Israel is some sort of economic or military advantage to the U.S. is sophistry. We could simply take those same weapons and add them to our own inventory and use them in ways that actually benefit the U.S. The actual reason the U.S. sends weapons to Israel is two fold. One is as a carrot to continue the peace process. The permanent allocation to Israel started when Camp David I was signed. The second reason is that a lot of people that support Israel live in the U.S. and they vote. If Israel no longer desires peace, the first reason doesn't exist. The second reason still does which is why it continues, despite being against the interests of the U.S. Yes, Netanyahu stopped the settlements in Gaza, but again, sophistry. While the settlements in Gaza were dismantled, the settlements in the West Bank were being expanded, as they continue to be. Netanyahu has always been about creating physical conditions that cause a two state solution to be politically impossible, regardless of changes in the Israeli government. It very much is a "both sides" scenario. I'm not going to argue about exactly which side is more unreasonable, but ultimately so much water has gone under the bridge that I don't think a settlement is possible, and I'm not interested in paying taxes to supply weapons to fuel an unresolvable conflict. If Israel wants to turn Gaza into rubble, leave millions of people homeless, and year after year take more land in the West Bank, I suppose we can't practically stop this, but personally I don't want want any part of it.
- invalidname 2y ago
  > The idea that sending weapons to Israel is some sort of economic or military advantage to the U.S. is sophistry. We could simply take those same weapons and add them to our own inventory and use them in ways that actually benefit the U.S. A huge number of US politicians disagree. It's fashionable to claim that they are all stupid but the fact is that this just isn't true. Looking at Israels success in missile defense and similar technologies it shows where the R&D collaboration with the US has made both more successful. If the US won't send weapons Israel would just make its own and in the past made fantastic weapons. Including great fighter jets that were approaching F16 level in the 80s. > One is as a carrot to continue the peace process. That is true too. > The second reason is that a lot of people that support Israel live in the U.S. and they vote. That is also true. Today that's mostly the evangelicals though. > If Israel no longer desires peace, the first reason doesn't exist. This isn't true. First it assumes Israel doesn't want peace which is detached from reality. Peace exists with Egypt, Jordan etc. Israel returned territory it captured at war and signed a peace deal. All sides abide and this works well. It can very well be argued that the current war is because of peace pressure against Israel. Israel left Gaza under US pressure to do so with no deal. Despite repeated attacks from Hamas it didn't go back in and maintained status quo. US pressure worked but created a powder-keg in Gaza that blew up eventually. US pressure using the weapons as incentive worked very well, but you can't just wish peace to happen and force it on some people. > Yes, Netanyahu stopped the settlements in Gaza, but again, sophistry. Netanyahu has one ideal: Netanyahu. He has no morals, no backbone and no principals. > While the settlements in Gaza were dismantled, the settlements in the West Bank were being expanded, as they continue to be. As you can see from my other answers here I 100% agree that this is indeed a huge problem. The right-wing used the violence of Hamas as a means to attack the Palestinian authority for the past 3 decades. To be fair the Palestinian authority isn't great (e.g. lynching Israelis by tearing them limb from limb) but I agree that this is awful. The only way to solve this is to remove the two zero-sum entities: Hamas and the current government of Israel. The latter might not be removed in the next election, but the pendulum will eventually swing back... Without Hamas things would hopefully calm down for a while. > It very much is a "both sides" scenario. No. The fact that there are bad people on both sides is true. But that simplifies the situation. Israel wants a Palestinian state and tries to achieve that. Yes, it has some lunatics but unlike Hamas even in the current government they can't do anything. Hamas just wants to kill all Israelis. No law other than Sharia law. No civilian differentiation. But the real horrible thing about Hamas is that they don't care how many Palestinians die as part of their Jihad. They consider the death of their own children as a bonus, they would go to heaven as they die heroes. Israel has never been like that. If Hamas had the firepower of Israel there would be no Israeli left. The reverse isn't true despite everything. > If Israel wants to turn Gaza into rubble, leave millions of people homeless, and year after year take more land in the West Bank, I suppose we can't practically stop this, but personally I don't want want any part of it. The thing is that Israel can do it and doesn't. Furthermore, once the war is over it will help rebuild Gaza as it did in the past. The war isn't against the people of Gaza, it's against Hamas whose an enemy of the people of Gaza. It's a terrible organization that murders gays, believes domestic violence isn't a crime and brainwashes children to commit suicide bombings. Yes, the war is terrible and violent. But what's the alternative? Leaving the hostages to die? Letting Hamas regain power and do another round of the same thing? Violence is terrible. Always. But sometimes the avoidance of violence doesn't work. It just shoves it into a pressure cooker; it will be worse later on. We saw that with the 2005 deal. Israel left Gaza and tried to mostly ignore Hamas, that didn't work out well for anyone.