Israel Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Idaho:

What is desired "end-state" in this?

To convince people that Israel is no better morally than those it blames for its own misfortune?

To convince people that Israel is the sole bad actor in this drama and that support for them should cease?

To convince people that Israel is functionally an equivalent to the Nazis or the commonly accepted views on Serbian ethnic cleansing, and that Israel therefore should be leagued against and broken in the same manner as the Serbs or perhaps Nazi Germany?

What would you see as the necessary level of "victory" in your "good fight."

[Pannonian]

There are other research pieces that take on these issues -- and this pdf is out of date by an edition or two, hence available on copyright grounds. I point you toward the values pieces beginning with Hofstede's work on p. 198.

Arab countries score distinctly differently in terms of collectivism (not individualistic as is the West, but not collectivist/communal as is common in East Asian cultures), uncertainty avoidance (Arab countries are moderate risk takers, not willing to put things to chance as are many Western cultures [though there is much more variance among the West on this]), and power distance (Arab countries tend to prefer/accept authoritarian power structures more readily than most Western cultures, which trend toward equality or less permanent positions of power). Arab cultures tend to be focused less on future generations so much as on the traditional power of the family and tribal groups. Being outcast from your clan would be huge among them, whereas in the West we view anything aside from being disowned by your nuclear family as of little import.

In terms of military effectiveness, the general rules for success to develop a soldiery as opposed to a collection of brave warriors, are at least as old as Rome. Create conditions wherein the individuals retain their individuality but choose to suborn themselves to a group of peers whose experiences they share and whose respect and affection they covet. Basic training, the building of esprit de corps, the acceptance of discipline, etc. are well known parts of the military "recipe."

Such things could certainly be done with any Arab on an individual basis -- but among a group of Arabs their cultural trend is NOT for the individual to find their place in the group but for the extant social -- not military -- group to serve as the locus of action for the individual. How could a rational Arab in the military trust the person next to them who hails from a different tribe when that other Arab MUST maintain their first loyalty to the clan and not to their fellow soldier. This culturally derived disconnect undercuts the kind of esprit de corps that is the basis for military effectiveness in most if not all of the top-tier militaries. And if you keep a clan group together so that clan authority and military authority coincide, you will have an effective unit of force that is crippled by it's inability to cope with casualties -- since ALL of the casualties come from the same clan and diminish it as the "damage" is not spread.

Tom Kratman has some interesting essays tacked on to the end of his first few Carrera-series novels that discuss these issues, drawing on his own and other associates military experience.

There's also the strong cultural influences of Islamism, whereby you have people competing to show their devotion to the religion. Whatever discipline there is is trumped by ever stricter interpretations of religion, which justifies violent action against those deemed less devout, including authority figures up to and including their supposed rulers. Pakistan is probably the militarily strongest Muslim country in the world, and a couple of their ministers have been killed for attempting to enforce secular rule of law, with their murderers celebrated as martyrs (even here in the UK).

[Idaho]

@Idaho:

What is desired "end-state" in this?

To convince people that Israel is no better morally than those it blames for its own misfortune?

To convince people that Israel is the sole bad actor in this drama and that support for them should cease?

To convince people that Israel is functionally an equivalent to the Nazis or the commonly accepted views on Serbian ethnic cleansing, and that Israel therefore should be leagued against and broken in the same manner as the Serbs or perhaps Nazi Germany?

What would you see as the necessary level of "victory" in your "good fight."

You have that American tendency to go into binary thinking. This person is the 'bad guy' therefore this one is the 'good guy'. This person should win therefore this one must lose.

The Palestinians need to be given full citizen rights +passports. They need to have title to their land. They need compensation for land seized in both Israel and the occupied territory.

[Pannonian]

You have that American tendency to go into binary thinking. This person is the 'bad guy' therefore this one is the 'good guy'. This person should win therefore this one must lose.

The Palestinians need to be given full citizen rights +passports. They need to have title to their land. They need compensation for land seized in both Israel and the occupied territory.

And you have the tendency to think that your side is right in all things and thus must come to pass. What if those in power don't want to give in to your demands? What's going to change their mind towards your objective?

[Idaho]

I am not in dialogue with the Israeli state. Seems a strange question to ask me.

[Pannonian]

I am not in dialogue with the Israeli state. Seems a strange question to ask me.

Then what's the likelihood of what you're demanding coming to pass? Who's going to do it? Or is it just a pie in the sky wishlist?

"Israel are the oppressors, and therefore I would like some magic beans, etc."

[Montmorency]

You should think in smaller and more achievable terms. Like an administrative/security UN Mandate over the Gaza Strip.

[Gilrandir]

Pakistan is probably the militarily strongest Muslim country in the world

What about Turkey?

[AE Bravo]

If Turkey was officially a Muslim country, it would still be second place. Pakistan has a very sophisticated military.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have that American tendency to go into binary thinking. This person is the 'bad guy' therefore this one is the 'good guy'. This person should win therefore this one must lose.

The Palestinians need to be given full citizen rights +passports. They need to have title to their land. They need compensation for land seized in both Israel and the occupied territory.

Clear enough. Do you see this as a one-state or two-state option? Or perhaps that is immaterial to you.

And you are uncharitable in your assessment of me. I laid out a number of levels of potential end state to prompt your response -- fully aware you would pick none of the options bruited. Yet I see far too many argue against something without a sense of what a desired end state should be -- and those arguments, however elegant, are ultimately pointless. You, by contrast, at least can articulate a desired result that is not out of all rational possibility.

As an aside, the binary thinking you label as "American" is certainly a trait we possess, at least en masse, but it is hardly rare in your own nation nor in Western thinking in general.

[Idaho]

Apologies for being impolite Seamus.

I think it needs to be a one state solution.

Israel will cease to exist in its current form. And as an apartheid state based on protecting the chosen people, that won't happen easily. May be not at all. But there are many things we strive for that are unlikely.

[Fragony]

A one-state solution is what everybody who is reasonable should want, but it's not going to happen. Palestinians don't want to be a target themselve, can you blame them, they will be. Discussed it with a mate who is from there, he insists it's way too complicated and I believe him

[Montmorency]

Apologies for being impolite Seamus.

I think it needs to be a one state solution.

Israel will cease to exist in its current form. And as an apartheid state based on protecting the chosen people, that won't happen easily. May be not at all. But there are many things we strive for that are unlikely.

My impression is that Israel is not an apartheid state right now, and that the conclusion will entail either an apartheid state, or ethnic cleansing. Either way, this is a "one-state" outcome.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My impression is that Israel is not an apartheid state right now, and that the conclusion will entail either an apartheid state, or ethnic cleansing. Either way, this is a "one-state" outcome.

While I fear you are correct, I actually do hope for Idaho's end state -- a single state which guarantees a homeland to any Jew but affords truly equal citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs who have also lived there for millennia. The combination would, over time, result in an incredibly productive hybrid culture that could possess the strengths of both and put the rest of the Middle East in the dust.

Sadly, I don't see that as likely.

[AE Bravo]

This is the end state:


Simply put, if Israel does not become a post-Zionist Israel in the future it will be forcefully reformed for them. As it is becoming almost a certainty that Iran is the future hegemon of the region rivalled only by a Sunni state in Turkey, the two powers along with Muslim Brotherhood, its offspring, and the Hezbollah ministate will do as they please with that territory just as the west has in its establishment. It's an inevitability in the region, and this is why this conflict is a ticking time bomb that the west has been playing with for a century now without realizing that greater Palestine is the only thing the regional powers unanimously agree on.

[Montmorency]

greater Palestine is the only thing the regional powers unanimously agree on.

That's rather naive, on top of missing Egypt.

[Strike For The South]

How is it an inevitability? I'm genuinely curious.

Any serious threat to the core of the Isreali state will result in a nuclear retaliation from submarines.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How is it an inevitability? I'm genuinely curious.

Any serious threat to the core of the Isreali state will result in a nuclear retaliation from submarines.

But they have a fairly small arsenal according to best guesses. Even if though go counter value the Israelis cannot reverse the numbers game entirely.

[Strike For The South]

But they have a fairly small arsenal according to best guesses. Even if though go counter value the Israelis cannot reverse the numbers game entirely.

A fairly small arsenal that would cripple Iran and kill millions of innocent civilians. A pretty high price to pay to get rid of the regions whipping boy.

[Montmorency]

The United States, Europe, Russia, China, and the regional Muslim powers unanimously agree on what they want from "Greater Palestine", namely that this piece of land not be under the control of any of the other parties.

[Strike For The South]

The United States, Europe, Russia, China, and the regional Muslim powers unanimously agree on what they want from "Greater Palestine", namely that this piece of land not be under the control of any of the other parties.

Except both governments are very heavily invested by all of those? Im not sure I understand

[Montmorency]

Except both governments are very heavily invested by all of those? Im not sure I understand

Europe and the US don't control Israel, but they provide financial and political support because it is a useful foothold in West Asia, at least on par with Turkish NATO membership which was altogether oriented toward blocking the Russian navy at the straits and the army at the mountains. They don't have much reason to be antagonistic toward Israel when there are clear advantages to maintaining its existence. For the Muslim neighbors of Israel, Israel is the chief 'neutral' power separating Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by land and averting Iranian control down to the Sinai. It's an essential buffer, geographically and politically, for all parties - as it was in ancient times. In the modern day an Arab Palestine wouldn't need to be directly administered by an imperial power, but it would still fall under the umbrella of one of the major powers as opposed to the others, and so a proximate cause of conflict between them.

[AE Bravo]

That's rather naive, on top of missing Egypt.

Why not? Always has been the best thing a state could champion for grandstanding. It’s more likely than a two-state solution, which is a fantasy given the facts on the ground and the map not being close to meeting what the Palestinians need thanks to the illegal expansion of settlements. Doubling down on mass thievery rendered that plan useless.

It’s either gonna be one-state solution (interstate freedom of movement + labor) at best, or one side wiping out the other at worst. Israel will not be able to do the latter. It’s political suicide. The problem with binationalism gives legitimacy to Zionism and it will have its domestic opposition, unlike the full-on Palestine solution. In a conflict of this nature, that factor will ensure success in the long term. Even if the Zionist project goes the squarely apartheid route, they will be outlasted by demographics alone.

[Montmorency]

Always has been the best thing a state could champion for grandstanding.

So lip service is useful. A dedicated war economy and at least tens of thousands of dead over months or years is less palatable, much less a coherent interstate alliance in service of that end (which will then collapse on itself once the mission is accomplished).

Someone out there always has an appetite for continuous civil war - this can't translate to offensive conventional war due to the scale of organization required.

Israel will not be able to do the latter. It’s political suicide.

They will if it turns out to be the path of least resistance among the others.

Even if the Zionist project goes the squarely apartheid route, they will be outlasted by demographics alone.

Those demographics aren't favorable for Palestinians though - just unfavorable for Israelis.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A fairly small arsenal that would cripple Iran and kill millions of innocent civilians. A pretty high price to pay to get rid of the regions whipping boy.

A fair counterpoint that.

[Montmorency]

[AE Bravo]

A fairly small arsenal that would cripple Iran and kill millions of innocent civilians. A pretty high price to pay to get rid of the regions whipping boy.

Iran's aim is to dismantle Israel, not engage. They have never initiated a war, unlike Israel's preemtive striking tendencies. I remember an Iranian foreign minister once saying that their foreign policy was like weaving a Persian carpet, in that they'll delicately envelope the region like they are now with the Revolutionary Guard's paramilitary lackeys spread across the Levant.

Those demographics aren't favorable for Palestinians though - just unfavorable for Israelis.

Palestinians would eventually outnumber them. This would be the unmaking of a Zionist Israel in a Greater Israel scenario.

[Fragony]

Numbers don't matter if you are your own worst enemy

[AE Bravo]

Only in your own world they're the only people who are their own worst enemy.

You don't have the ability to apply it to yourself, so don't preach what you don't practice.

[Fragony]

Oh noes, he puts on his wizard hat and casts predujicus, never saw that comming