Israeli defence officials and former senior intelligence officers have said they expect fighting in Gaza to continue for at least a year, raising the prospect of thousands more civilian casualties, a deepening humanitarian crisis and a continuing grave threat to regional stability.
In a briefing, R Adm Daniel Hagari, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said the centre and south of Gaza, where military efforts are now focused, was “dense and saturated with terrorists” with “an underground city of branching tunnels”.
Three months would be needed to clear the area and fighting would “continue during the year 2024”, Hagari said.
He said scattered fighting was to be expected in northern Gaza, along with rockets sporadically being launched from there toward Israel, but that Hamas militants were “without a framework and without commanders”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
There’s a whole section for you on the disagreements between historians on Plan Dalet. With references, if you want to read something that doesn’t support confirmation bias.
There’s no innocent parties in this conflict. That’s always a point I’m clear on. This is why portraying the Palestinians as poor angelic victims and Israel as (most commonly on worldnews) genocidal nazis is stupid.
I can list many, many Israeli war crimes. I’d love to see Bibi and many Likud members tried at the ICJ or ICC and convicted of war crimes. But I can also list the same thing for the Palestinian Arabs and their descendents who are now stateless.
Both groups have a long history of war crimes. Unlike Lemmy users who had an underdog fantasy boner slathered in anti-israeli and anti-Jewish hatred.
Most of my reading right now is trying to understand when an actual Palestinian identity arose. With respect to the fact that in the Ottoman empire, things were mostly tribal and family, and that type of nationalism wasn’t a thing.
PS: I think much could have been avoided if the Palestinian Arabs had not rejected 2 state solution like 4 or 5 times. (Pre and post 48)
Stop strawman-ing me, dude. I’m for a one-state solution with equal rights for all. I’d rather you look at my comment history instead of straight up fabricating what I believe. It’s clear you don’t understand the full context of the peace talks both pre and post 48 if that’s how you see it. Check the intercept link to learn more.
Don’t confuse bias for credibility. Pappe is biased towards Palestinian emancipation. He explains his position and why in his introductions instead of hiding his bias like some Historians such as Benny Morris.
Here’s Pappe’s response to Benny Morris, where he debunks Morris’ claims:
https://electronicintifada.net/content/response-benny-morris-politics-other-means-new-republic/5040
CAMERA criticisms are easily debunked as seen here:
https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/42571
https://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/we-must-expel-arabs-and-take-their-place-institute-for-palestine-studies-publishes-1937-ben-gurion-letter-advocating-the-expulsion-of-palestinians/
“Ben-Gurion’s 5 October 1937 letter thoroughly vindicates Ilan Pappé’s reading; indeed, the Pappé quotes to which CAMERA objects seem almost mild when compared to the actual words Ben-Gurion penned to his son. The more literal translation of the Ben-Gurion direct quote (“We must expel Arabs and take their place”) is actually stronger than Pappé’s freer rendering (“The Arabs must go”), although the meaning is basically the same. As for Pappé’s paraphrase, it is as accurate and comprehensive as any so succinct a sentence could possibly be.”
There’s plenty of reputable historians praising Pappe’s work and credibility. You can find links to them in his wiki page.
If you’re reading up on the subject, you might as well add one of his books to your list. The third book I referenced has a detailed account of the Palestinian people since around the 1920s if you want to learn more about them.
My point to you is there’s plenty of disagreement among historians. In the context of this original thread we’re so far from it that debating what academics can’t agree on after decades isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Nobody is straw maning you. And at this point we can agree to disagree, a one state solution will never ever happen. There’s too many war crimes on both sides, and too much radicalization of the populations, too much history.
The only one state solution is going to be the existing Palistinian Arabs who became Israeli citizens (is it still at 20% of Israel’s population, I haven’t looked in a long time)? And we probably compeltely agree that the way they’re treated as second class citizens is a crime, and still a fight that needs to be won. First step, get rid of fucking Likud. ;)
I personally think 2 state is the best bet. If I had my idea…. we’d evacuate and seal off Jerusalm forever. Nobody can live together in peace, nobody gets the prize. Fuck all that religious nonsense. The dammed place causes nothing but awful anyway, it’s a shitty evil piece of dirt.
Gotta run, so don’t have time to proof read or spell check… my apologies.
PS: I will check out the books. Thanks for the recommenation.
I’m aware of the disagreement of historians on whether plan dalet was defensive or offensive. To me, after learning about what was said in the minutes of the Yishuv meetings, remarks in the diary of Ben-Gurion and other officials during the operations, and the extent of the on-the-ground operations; it’s clear to me that it was offensive and planned. After Learning about the extent of the settlements in the west bank, it’s also clear to me that a 2 state solution just isn’t possible. There’s no way to forcibly remove over 800k settlers, even if it was technically possible it still wouldn’t be moral to me.
But hey, I’m glad you’re open to checking out those books.
They have much more information and context from a much larger variety of sources than I could ever personally collect and summarize.
FWIW, I think one state with equal rights is the best solution. I’m with you there. I just think it’s impossible.
A lot of these radical Israeli settlers should be relocated, even as I completely agree that it feels impossible to do so. The aggressive and illegal Israeli settlements designed to interrupt and impact the Oslo accords have always been a huge problem I have with Israel.
Israel has a right to exist and defend themselves. But fuck their war crimes of collective punishment (specificly pre oct.) and more.
The Arabs who used to live in Palestine and their descendents have a right to exist and defend themselves, just like the Jews who lived in Palestine. And even though every single tocket fired by Gaza was a war crime, the current response by Israel I would have viewed as war crimes also. But for me, October 7th changed the equation significantly. No country in the entire world would tolerate Hamas next door, even if they are the government of Gaza. Their infrastructure and logistics has the be wiped out.
I really wish we could just forbid everyone from Jerusalem. LOL, everything would be 1000x easier if we did. No temple mount, no mosque, no nothing.
And I’ve done reading on the Nakba and the many crimes of the Palestinian Jews. One thing I always reflect on is who some of these radical Palestinian Jews were… people who fled during or at the end of WWII, and people who had endured Russian and Slavic pogroms, etc.
Knowing that fact makes it to me, very believable that disputed crimes at the LEAST were possible, if not likely. They remind me of the population of Gaza. They were so radicalized and traumatized, and so on… In the same way that nobody wants Gaza residents in their country (Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, etc). At this point, I think maybe only Yemen would take the Gaza population.
Sorry, I rambled and probably said much of nothing. It’s been a long day. Good talk.