None of that means that Netanyahu is not a colossally immoral and dishonest leader whose actions have greatly reduced the chances for peace, and none of that means there are no lessons we can learn from his and his government’s mistakes.
Israel will never have security without peace. And peace will require partners who want peace on both sides.
It is true that Abbas wrote the book on holocaust denial and that his government financially rewards terrorism.
It is also true that despite this, and despite Abbas’ fiery speeches condemning Israel and asserting that Palestinians are justified in "defending"themselves after the Oct 7 massacres, Abbas has not actually joined Hamas in their war against Israel.
I recognize that we have offered the Palestinians peace settlements that were more than reasonable and that their leadership spat in our face. Despite this, we need to continue working towards a two state solution. We need to keep offering peace, and if militant groups attack us, we need to deal with them by whatever means are necessary, including decisive military action, before continuing to work towards that two state solution.
By aligning himself with far right fanatics like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, Netanyahu is working against that goal.
hey, at least we agree on one thing!
Netanayahu is an immoral and dishonest leader.
But speaking of peace is absolutely impossible.
The best we can hope for is that the massive destruction in Gaza will force them to restrain their war-like culture. The previous 8 wars had taught them that the amount of damage Israel would do in response to missile attacks from Gaza was a price they were happy to pay.
Now in this war, the price is higher.
And Israelis are determined that if they try to start yet another war they price they pay in the future will be much,much higher. That is the only language they understand. The language of peace is for western academics sitting in ivory towers. (and internet forums 
)
]
More right wing propaganda. The Palestinians aren’t special. They’re just people. “Warlike culture” is just ridiculous, and little different than the massive anti Semitic slanders we see across the world every day.
But it’s good to know that this is how you feel. I’ll definitely remember this for future discussions.
do you even hear yourself? You will never, ever, ever bomb someone into having a less “war-like culture”, whatever that phrase means. It doesn’t happen.
The best we can hope for is that IDF engages in more substantial actions that distinguish between civilians and terrorists – things like providing incubators to Shifa, which they’re apparently doing, and which is an unmitigated good – and show the people of Gaza that there’s a way forward that’s not total war.
Every incubator makes that easier, every nurse shot through a hospital window makes that harder.
Forget about academics in ivory towers. I very much understand that Israel and the IDF are going to do what they are going to do. And thousands of civilians are going to die, and probably not a whole lot else will change. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, and yes Israel has the right to defend itself, and Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. And I also fully understand that nations sometimes have to make horrible choices to make the best of a bad situation.
But explain to me, an American citizen and taxpayer, why I should be cheering Israel on? And paying for our 6th Fleet to sit off the coast to cover your asses? There are plenty of wars going on around the world that the US isn’t involved in - why should they get involved this particular one? And just let me be perfectly clear, I’m not cheering on Hamas either.
You say that speaking of peace is absolutely impossible. Well, it is absolutely impossible for me to support your endless war. And I find it utterly hypocritical when I see quotes like the one in the article linked to above “David Ben-Gurion said that it doesn’t matter what the gentiles say, only what the Jews do” and then hear complaints about the West not being 100% behind Israel’s actions. Nations don’t get to be realpolitik and sanctimonious at the same time.
Well no, you CAN bomb a country into submission. The house to house was the last stage of a prolonged attack. Toward the end the Nazis were shooting their own who tried to surrender while their leader was committing suicide.
The lesson that was learned from WW-II is that you have to fight until unconditional surrender is achieved so that the enemy doesn’t reconstitute into the same warring cesspool it started out as.
Honestly. Once “unconditional surrender” is achieved what is the plan? What is in store for Gazans? The aftermath is where peace is truly won… So what happens?
Israel isn’t talking about unconditional surrender. They’re talking about annihilation of the opposing government. If Hamas is destroyed, who will be able to offer an unconditional surrender?
What’s being discussed here isn’t exactly analogous to WWII.
Israel is absolutely willing to accept an unconditional surrender from Hamas, the talk of annihilation is that that’s what they will do barring a surrender. If they didn’t mention that option, that’s probably because they don’t expect it to happen.
That said, even if the IDF kills every Hamas member in Gaza, the leadership in Qatar would be capable of offering a formal surrender.
What about the Japanese empire? They were threatened by Russian joining the war as well as being bombed, but they are Nice Guys and allies now.
That makes sense. It’s the reason I don’t usually mention the option of Hamas laying down its weapons and releasing all hostages, so I can hardly blame IDF for not mentioning that option.
Logistically capable? Sure. Psychologically capable? I’m just not clear why they would do so. I can understand why Hamas leaders in Gaza would offer a surrender much better than why the leaders in Qatar would. Were it possible to assassinate the Qatar leaders such that leadership devolved to people on (or under) the ground in Gaza, it would seem much likelier for surrender to follow.
Something like the Marshal Plan.
It could not be more analogous to WWII.
The fact that Israel is fighting non-state actors seems to be more than a small difference.
This is an odd comment, when by far the worst two bombs ever dropped in history had precisely this effect.
When a violent power attacks you, the first objective must be to defeat them and remove them from power. And history does not tell us that the people of that nation will respond with eternal violent resentment. History tells us that (a) you must win and (b) what’s important is what you do after you win.
…all of this talk of “bombing them into submission” is making me rather ill. Because what we are actually talking about is mostly bombing innocent people.
Whoops, not the response that reporter expected I guess!
…what is it, about this particular video, would you like to discuss?
Because I’ve got SO many that I won’t be sharing here, that highlight the sheer brutality of the IDF. Video after video of dead children. Terrified men, women and children.
I watched one last night that will haunt me. Those premature babies at Al Shifa. We’ve seen the still photos. But the video. The crying. Those kids. All at the same time. A high-pitched wail, all desperate, gasping for air. Dying. One by one.
So I don’t find this video particularly amusing.
I wish there were a translation. The journalist seems to be ignoring him.