[Grizzly]

Ali A. Rizvi on the subject, so really good you gotta read it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html

That is a much better piece from a factual perspective, and has the added bonus of mirroring my sentiments almost exactly.

Well well well.
I actually fully agree with the whole thing as well. I do feel that point 7 should have been brought up a bit more in this discussion.

[Lorric]

Ali A. Rizvi on the subject, so really good you gotta read it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/post_8056_b_5602701.html

That is a much better piece from a factual perspective, and has the added bonus of mirroring my sentiments almost exactly.

Well well well.
I actually fully agree with the whole thing as well. I do feel that point 7 should have been brought up a bit more in this discussion.

I like it too. I also encourage others to read it.

The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.

[karajorma]

I think I've been pretty clear in indicating that Hamas is the problem, that they do not have majority support in Gaza, and that they hold the territory purely by force of arms. My point of contention with you was the comparison to Western voters - because unlike Gaza, no Western country has ever voted for a government that wants to wipe another country or group off the map, regardless of their circumstances.

And my point is that is a rather silly point to make given that no Western country has ever been in the same position as Gaza.

However, a majority in Gaza knew what Hamas was all about before they gained power and voted them in anyway; those Gazans who did vote for them and especially those who continue to support them today (37% or so in the last scientific poll I saw) bear partial moral responsibility for the death toll in Gaza itself.

And I haven't denied that they bear partial responsibility for their stupid, stupid decision. As do Israel for putting them in that position in the first place.

[Grizzly]

The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.

Yeah well, what isn't all over the place in the longest lasting conflict in human memory?

[Lorric]

The comments section is all over the place. So many completely different reactions to the article.

Yeah well, what isn't all over the place in the longest lasting conflict in human memory?

Um...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War

But I do of course see your point.

[Grizzly]

I should have said "Living memory" shouldn't I? 

[Scotty]

Lorric, this particular fight has been going since literally biblical times.  I think it wins that contest.

[Aardwolf]

There has been conflict there, perhaps, but not the same conflict. Islam wasn't even around for another 600 years after Jebus.

Edit: inb4 "the races are older than the religions"

[Phantom Hoover]

Yeahsrsly, trying to frame this conflict as more than 60 years old at all is stupid enough but saying it goes back into prehistory is misrepresentative to an offensive extreme.

Same goes for Luis' article claiming it really is about religion in the end. Both religions have scriptures that promote expansionism? Well no ****! All religions have something like that lying around that you can cherrypick; it's meaningless, though, because different cultures within a religion will happily decide which bits of scripture they choose to express. Religion is just one factor in group/faction identification in these conflicts, which are perfectly capable of existing with no significant religious divide. It just gets singled out because it paints an awfully romantic narrative.

[Luis Dias]

Same goes for Luis' article claiming it really is about religion in the end.

It would really help if you actually read **** before spewing your opinion about it. Like, just saying.

[Phantom Hoover]

You mean things like relativistic physics?

[AtomicClucker]

Problem is that the "Middle East" has been a clashing point between different cultures, religions, and ideas for several thousand years. Each civilization comes and goes in this region like how the first primitive city-states arose, the first regional empires evolved, and were in turn overrun or conquered by a new or resurgent civilization. Ironically, these "clashes" have formed much of the bedrock of what take for granted in "Liberal" western civilization.

My only real complaint is that it's not simply religion that's at the heart of the current conflict, but rather a struggle simply to exist. Hamas continues to fight because if not, it would simply cease to exist and be usurped by another force. The current Israeli government wouldn't have something to shoot at and put their fancy toys to use. I've simply concluded this is Hamas fighting for a shadow, a meaningless existence, with no regard or upward purpose beyond clinging to any form of relevance.

And sadly, these are some of the most savage forces that refuse to pass on.

[DarkBasilisk]

THis popped up in my FB feed today. It's interesting, as it does contain a rebuttal to most of the arguments represented here. Esp interesting was the Dahiya doctrine, but I do recommend you to read all of the article.

I haven't read it all yet, but just looking at the other headlines on the site and the author's bio makes me suspect the 'facts' presented in this article are going to have some significant spin.

Just her point 1 about the occupation is shaky:

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an  obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

Israel doesn't occupy the Gaza territory or usurp its government.  Israel and Egypt blockade Gaza's borders and control its airspace.  Gaza itself is self-governed by Hamas.

The legal definition by international bodies is that Gaza and the West Bank are occupied territories, with the occupying power as Israel. While I agree that alternet has had a lot of heavily biased articles on Middle East and Eastern European affairs recently, this is a point that can be accurately claimed, unless someone has information saying the International Court has made a second, newer ruling on this matter.

Similarly, I've heard other people make similarly good arguments on the author's third point. Particularly with brother's keeper. You cannot take a situation with limited proof of guilt, arrest hundreds of people, and expect it to not be taken as a serious provocation. While the boy that got burned to death makes a good rallying call, I imagine the mass arrests of Hamas aligned individuals is what really got them going.

The ending of the article is the most inflammatory stretching things part. And #5 is iffy at best. While there is the complication of "Gaza is incredibly densely populated territory and there aren't vast fields in which to setup rocket launchers unmolested," I'm willing to believe they at least set up sites near civilian targets intentionally. Although I also believe Israel isn't doing the best job in reducing causalities, given the reports of airstrikes hitting places that blatantly have no military targets.

[Grizzly]

I am utterly suprised by the IDF bombing UN schools 0_o. That doesn't help anyone in any way.

[Phantom Hoover]

hamas was hiding under the textbooks

[jr2]

Research = they were misfired Hamas rockets, iirc.

[Grizzly]

Research = they were misfired Hamas rockets, iirc.

That's the Israeli story on the previous UN school bombing. The more recent one Israel has admitted that they attacked the building itself.

[MP-Ryan]

And my point is that is a rather silly point to make given that no Western country has ever been in the same position as Gaza.

Then why did you make it in the first place?  See: 

Are we really going to hold the downtrodden and under-educated Palestinians to a standard that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to themselves?

You can't even make the comparison in the first place, as you've just acknowledged, because you can't say that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to that standard.  This is why I took issue with your original statement.

And I haven't denied that they bear partial responsibility for their stupid, stupid decision. As do Israel for putting them in that position in the first place.

Fair enough.

[karajorma]

You can't even make the comparison in the first place, as you've just acknowledged, because you can't say that the citizens of most western countries are unable to live up to that standard.  This is why I took issue with your original statement.

Because were the western nations in the same place they would make the same decisions. There are numerous examples of better informed people choosing to elect scumbags. But we don't hold the people anywhere near as responsible for the actions of their governments as we do in the case of the Palestinians.

[Dragon]

Indeed. Sometimes, it comes down to choice between "useless scumbag", "spineless thief", "clueless, well meaning dolt" and "scumbag with an idea and strength to make it work". Which one would you pick? Oh, and protesting would get you shot, and you can't just GTFO from the country for whatever reason, so you're out of 3rd options, too. Hamas, at the time, probably seemed like the lesser evil, at least as far as Palestinian interests were concerned. Also, many Palestinians probably thought "Oh, well, they'll get rid of Israel, win back our land, then we'll be able to un-elect them if they don't behave afterwards". In most cases, an elected government, no matter how shoddy, does only last a single term, so it's not an invalid way of thinking. Though in that case, Hamas had other plans...