Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on November 15, 2012, 10:33:53 am
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1352961388
At least eight rockets were fired Thursday morning at Beersheba, which took the brunt of the 90 rockets Gaza hurled at Israel a day earlier following the assassination of Hamas military commander Ahmed Jabari. Five rockets were shot down by the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system, which is programmed to intercept rockets heading towards populated areas. The rest fell in open areas, causing no injuries or damage.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=israel+iron+dome%2C+today&lclk=today
Those sirens give me flashbacks to the (first) Gulf War.
-
Rocket just exploded in Tel-Aviv.
-
Glad the dome works fairly well. Hope this nonsense sorts itself out sooner than later.
-
I just got a call from a unit-mate from reserves. He was tasked with calling around to see who's in the country in case we get called up.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I ran across this on Facebook:
(http://staff.hard-light.net/sandwich/images/gaza-rocket-range.jpg)
-
Ok, now give one to the Palestinians.
/me hides
-
Just heard about this on the radio. Tense times. :|
-
I heard that in Kiryat Malachi, which is just outside Ashkelon, an apartment building was hit and three people were killed. It seems that sometimes the dome doesn't work, or maybe they're not covered?
-
I heard that in Kiryat Malachi, which is just outside Ashkelon, an apartment building was hit and three people were killed. It seems that sometimes the dome doesn't work, or maybe they're not covered?
System might have been saturated, or they might be trying to conserve for the most dangerous inbounds. There's been an awful lot of rockets launched in the last few days and I don't think Iron Dome was envisioned as being able to deal with hundreds of incoming rockets over a few days.
Or it's outside of coverage, yeah.
-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4305658,00.html
The victims of the Kiryat Malachi attacks didn't make it to the fortified stairwell in their building, which did not have a viable shelter. Two people were seriously injured in the blast, one boy was moderately hurt and two infants sustained light wounds. Several others suffered panic attacks. Another building in the city was directly hit, but no injuries were reported. Hamas' military wing accepted responsibility for the attacks.
Over 50 rockets were fired since morning, and the count climbed by the minute. Several were intercepted by the Iron Dome aerial defense system. One rocket hit the front yard of a home in Shaar Hanegev on Thursday afternoon. Another hit an open area in Ashkelon.
Earlier in the day, a rocket barrage targeted Ashdod, with one projectile hitting a home but failing to cause casualties. A school in Ofakim was also hit. Salvos targeted Beersheba, Ashkelon and Gan Yavne and other areas as well. Some of the rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system.
IDF Commissioner Yohanan Danino told Ynet that the tension in the south is expected to last for several days, and that the rocket fire is set to intensify. He said that despite Israel's advanced aerial defense and warning systems, civilian vigilance is of the essence.
EDIT: The video embedded in the article I linked to above is pretty incredible, showing about 14 rocket interceptions over a city within the space of 30 seconds. :eek2:
-
Jeez...what an absolute cluster****. Are you anywhere near here Sandwich, or more to the north?
-
Ok, now give one to the Palestinians.
/me hides
/me finds himself agreeing with this sentiment
How did this one escalate again?
-
This one started a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ;)
Thing is, both sides are trapped in an endless cycle, they are both waiting for the other to stop first. To be brutally honest, if both sides had exchanged trade, rather than ammunition when the Jewish state started, it'd probably be one of the most powerful blocs on the planet given their access to manpower, technology and resources. However, there are reasons, many, many reasons some sensible, some silly, but all adding up to an enormous cluster****.
-
Jeez...what an absolute cluster****. Are you anywhere near here Sandwich, or more to the north?
It's Israel. We're the size of the state of New Jersey. I'm out of range of the rockets that have been lunched so far, which is to say, I'm exactly 41.7 miles east-northeast from the Gaza Strip.
This one started a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away ;)
Thing is, both sides are trapped in an endless cycle, they are both waiting for the other to stop first.
The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.
- Binyamin Netanyahu, 2006
-
Jeez...what an absolute cluster****. Are you anywhere near here Sandwich, or more to the north?
It's Israel. We're the size of the state of New Jersey. I'm out of range of the rockets that have been lunched so far, which is to say, I'm exactly 41.7 miles east-northeast from the Gaza Strip.
Good point, though not exactly a comforting one.
I'm not even sure what to think about this current chain of events. The continuous barrage of rockets that Hamas has been launching at civilian areas is just ridiculous, and Israel has every right to defend its citizenry from that. But then you know that taking out a Hamas commander was going to provoke a huge reaction, because that's what always happens, and it's like...was that really the best move here? Or was there any good move at all?
-
I'm not even sure what to think about this current chain of events. The continuous barrage of rockets that Hamas has been launching at civilian areas is just ridiculous, and Israel has every right to defend its citizenry from that. But then you know that taking out a Hamas commander was going to provoke a huge reaction, because that's what always happens, and it's like...was that really the best move here? Or was there any good move at all?
It's these kinds of things that would stop me from running for office if I ever had the inclination, not that Native Americans are lobbing rockets at us anymore or anything. Iron Dome looks totally kick ass, though. Try not to explode, Sandwich.
-
If there's a solution, it starts with the end of the Gaza blockade and the various other **** that the Israelis are always doing in Palestine. It's a lot harder to maintain a militant hatred of Israel if they aren't directly responsible for your nation's pereptually ****ed economy, and you're going to be a lot less willign to martyr yourself if you've got the kind of life that's worth living (i.e. not in constant poverty).
-
I agree that **** like continuing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is patently ridiculous, and I have little to no respect for Netanyahu in general because of his advocating policies like that. (I guess what I'm really interested in is what the general opinion of him is at home.) It's also true that the best way to combat extremism in general is to give people a standard of living that prevents that sort of lunacy from fermenting in the first place. But honestly, there isn't any sort of unilateral action that's going to magically stop things at this point. Even if Israel acquiesces to every common-sense demand on the table, you know there's a fringe element out there that would still continue their attacks, and then Israel would respond in turn, and then we'd be right back where we started.
-
One side is simply going to have to "win" some day. There is no other realistic alternative.
-
One side is simply going to have to "win" some day. There is no other realistic alternative.
Maybe I'm channelling Nuke here but the complete destruction of both sides would also end it.
And frankly, it's the more likely of the two.
-
The cynical side of me feels like the only real solution might be to just yoink every single child out of there, and then let them grow up in a place where the centuries' worth of nonsense doesn't mean anything. There are groups that work today to get Israeli and Palestinian kids to meet up and interact, for the purpose of letting them see that the other side is *GASP* just like them. The problems only start after they go back home to the culture that produces the self-fulfilling cycle of hatred. So just get them out of there, and tell the adults that they'll only be given back if everyone can get the hell over this bull****. If they can manage that, great. If not...well, you just let time take its toll, and either way, the conflict ends with that generation, and the next one gets a fresh start.
(Obviously this is by no means a reasonable or conscionable solution.)
-
i dont think ive ever seen a video of a missile intercept system before, not to mention one in use against multiple targets during actual military operations. its quite impressive.
-
Hmm, I once read a good article in National Geographic Magazine, about one or two years ago. It focused on the differences in freshwater supply between Israel and Palestine. It can be summarized as follows:
Israel:
(http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PRE11612.jpg)
Palestine:
(http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/water.jpg)
Now consider that this same situation extends every single basic supply: food, energy, education, whatever, you name it. Are you surprised the Palestinians are angry?
A question for Sandwich (and I mean this as an honest question, because I'm not following Israel's domestic politics myself): did any politician ever consider trying to be the good guys? Sending aid to Palestine, instead of live ammunition? Would the idea have any chance of catching on?
-
Well, to be frank, it's both side's fault, really. Israel for trying to wipe out natives because they want MOAR lebensraum, and the Palestinians/Hamas/dudes trying to blow up Israel for targeting the civilian populace.
Of course though, the behavior of both parties can be summarized in regards to attacks by this sentence below:
Israel: BUT MAH JOOS! *and lebensraum*
Palestinians/Hamas/dudes trying to blow up Israel: Holy ****, they're wiping out all the minorities! Clearly, this must mean that everyone who lives in Israel are all horrible people who want to kill us all! Bomb them!
-
The israelian propaganda machine is quite impressive, with them using youtube and the social media and all. It is a bit ironic that they post the assisination of that hamas leader, in which 10 civilians died, alongisde a video on how the IDF minimizes civilian casualties, but still. Impressive stuff.
-
While I don't know everything that is going on within the Middle-East, or what has been specifically escelating the (more) recent violence and mobilisations. I would certainly have more respect for Hamas/Gaza if they focused less on spending $$ on bombing Israel. (Which from what I can see, is mostly bombing Civilians, due to range or ?) and instead focused on their economy, civilians and standard of living.
A good waste of money firing those rockets that Israel easily intercepted. And from what I can tell, if Israel wanted to steam-roll them, they wouldnt hold out long in a direct fight. Staying with their gurrilla warfare would keep them alive a little longer.
Anyway, it's a mess, stay safe Sandwich, and all.
-
Rocket just exploded in Tel-Aviv.
Realy "in" Tel Aviv?
The Iron Dome claculates the impact and engages, if the point of impact is inside a popolated area.
-
A question for Sandwich (and I mean this as an honest question, because I'm not following Israel's domestic politics myself): did any politician ever consider trying to be the good guys? Sending aid to Palestine, instead of live ammunition? Would the idea have any chance of catching on?
I'm not Sandwich, but let me answer anyways.
It's got no chance. First, Israel is after all surrounded by people who have vowed its destruction even if they're completely unable to cause it, and so long as either side keeps talking the ultimate hardline, there's very little room to negotiate. Second, Israeli's political landscape is badly skewed to the right-wing hawks.
The right-wing parties in Israel hold power out of proportion there for three reasons. One, everybody around them talks up war with Israel periodically and the nation has a history of having to defend its right to exist with force of arms. The second is self-inflicted, in identifying as a Jewish State they necessarily embrace a degree of conservationism that comes with religion. But these are fairly minor issues.
The real reason Israel is run by their version of Michele Bachmann most of the time, however, is because of the US. This is not, strictly speaking, a political choice anymore, as the machinery that makes it possible is mostly in private hands. We have, on one side, Judaism in the United States reacting quite reasonably to the fact that Israel is surrounded by people who have vowed its destruction and the destruction of their religion and ethnicity.
On the other side, we have a population of our own religious crazies, who while composing a small segment of the US population still manage to outnumber the population of the Israeli state because the US is kinda huge. These are people who are working off End Times Prophecy Checklists and other similar drivel and want Israel and its neighbors to be antagonistic because that's on their list. Wars and the rumors of wars. They give money to people who seem likely to bring about their desired apocalypse or at least keep things bad so the apocalypse still looks possible.
-
While I don't know everything that is going on within the Middle-East, or what has been specifically escelating the (more) recent violence and mobilisations. I would certainly have more respect for Hamas/Gaza if they focused less on spending $$ on bombing Israel. (Which from what I can see, is mostly bombing Civilians, due to range or ?) and instead focused on their economy, civilians and standard of living.
Don't think that is going to work really (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-palestinians-israel-wikileaks-idUSTRE7041GH20110105).
-
It's got no chance. First, Israel is after all surrounded by people who have vowed its destruction even if they're completely unable to cause it, and so long as either side keeps talking the ultimate hardline, there's very little room to negotiate. Second, Israeli's political landscape is badly skewed to the right-wing hawks.
The right-wing parties in Israel hold power out of proportion there for three reasons. One, everybody around them talks up war with Israel periodically and the nation has a history of having to defend its right to exist with force of arms.
Oh, I'm not saying they should abolish their army, that would be rather careless indeed. But they could start by keeping it inside their own borders. It'll still provide plenty of deterrence, and without actually killing people.
The second is self-inflicted, in identifying as a Jewish State they necessarily embrace a degree of conservationism that comes with religion. But these are fairly minor issues.
The real reason Israel is run by their version of Michele Bachmann most of the time, however, is because of the US. This is not, strictly speaking, a political choice anymore, as the machinery that makes it possible is mostly in private hands. We have, on one side, Judaism in the United States reacting quite reasonably to the fact that Israel is surrounded by people who have vowed its destruction and the destruction of their religion and ethnicity.
Bah, I'm pretty sure the Jewish religion is NOT preaching the aggressive, selfish expansionist strategy they've been following... But yeah, there's rotten apples in every religion.
On the other side, we have a population of our own religious crazies, who while composing a small segment of the US population still manage to outnumber the population of the Israeli state because the US is kinda huge. These are people who are working off End Times Prophecy Checklists and other similar drivel and want Israel and its neighbors to be antagonistic because that's on their list. Wars and the rumors of wars. They give money to people who seem likely to bring about their desired apocalypse or at least keep things bad so the apocalypse still looks possible.
I might have misunderstood, but to me that sounds like the US tin-foil-hat people are controlling Israeli domestic politics? It sounds far-fetched to me...
-
Let's just carpet bomb the place with H-Bombs and then let physics sort the rest out.
That's probably the fastest way of ending the nonsense, however nonsensical the method is.
-
How about let's not suggest wiping out tens of millions of civilians, including friends on this very discussion board, or even joke about it.
-
lets not discriminate, just nuke everybody.
-
How about we give the entire area to Switzerland? That's probably the one country no one really wants to piss off, as all your funders have major financial assets stored there.
-
Egypt ect all should help pay for Iron Dome in exchange for a better standard of living for Gazans, maybe?
-
Egypt ect all should help pay for Iron Dome in exchange for a better standard of living for Gazans, maybe?
Egypt is currently run by an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and isn't more than a stone's throw from the 'wipe Israel off the map' political position themselves these days.
It's also interesting to note that the Gaza strip was actually territory seized from Egypt during the Six-Day war which they didn't negotiate to get back along with the Sinai with the 1979 treaty. The fact is, the area has been unstable for decades and nobody really wants to administer or help it. Meanwhile, it's current residents aren't helping their cause any by throwing rockets at Israeli population centers - that's just a recipe to getting bombed to rubble, again.
Israel needs to quit building ****ing settlements (which in terms of Gaza I believe they have already), the Palestinian territories need to quit flinging rockets at Israel, Russia and China need to each decide to support a peace process, and everybody needs to sort **** out.
Unfortunately, Islamist governments are replacing dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria, which is bad news for a Middle Eastern peace settlement as far as Israel and Palestine goes.
-
I might have misunderstood, but to me that sounds like the US tin-foil-hat people are controlling Israeli domestic politics? It sounds far-fetched to me...
Controlling, no, but having heavy influence on, yes. It helps to remember that Israel isn't a big place, so our crazies and their donations can easily outnumber man-on-the-street fundraising in the real country.
-
The arabs speak of wiping a foreign, aggressive rival theocracy just dumped into their neck of the woods. *Most* don't speak of wiping out all jews, however.
To an extent, I agree, Israel as it stands should be wiped off the map. And replaced with a Joint Israeli-Palestinian nation of two states sharing with its neighbours.
But that's impossible when BOTH sides think giving up an inch means their destruction.
-
The arabs speak of wiping a foreign, aggressive rival theocracy just dumped into their neck of the woods. *Most* don't speak of wiping out all jews, however.
Israel wasn't just dumped in their neck of the woods. Read about the history of the region sometime. Israel was formed based on action by the UN and as a result of ****ups by all involved. The what-are-now-Israelis got fed up in the midst of it and declared themselves a country. Had the UN (most notably Britain, at the time) not ****ed it up, there might have been a better solution than what we have now.
But that's impossible when BOTH sides think giving up an inch means their destruction.
There are big barriers to peace on both sides, but Israel at least has embraced the idea of a two-state solution (as has the Western world at large). Governments in some of the Palestinian territories (Fatah party) have also accepted the notion of a two-state solution. The government in the Gaza Strip - Hamas - refuses to recognize Israel entirely.
Kind of hard to reach a two-state solution when one of the parties at the table doesn't believe one of the others even has a right to exist...
Wikipedia also has an excellent primer on what wonderful people the Hamas government in Gaza is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_the_Gaza_Strip
So, park me firmly in the camp of "israel can do whatever it needs to to protect its citizens from rocket fire."
-
Kinda hard to justify that when by crippling the opposition party who were willing to talk peace, Israel were the ones who put Hamas in power in the first place though.
Especially when that itself was the result of "israel doing whatever it wanted to to protect its citizens from rocket fire."
-
People keep saying "Israel is open to peace, the Palestinians need to back down" and yet Israel keeps up its slow invasion of the West Bank.
-
Exactly, when neither side really wants peace, I feel it's rather partisan to support the actions of either.
Supporting either sides actions means turning a blind eye to the stupidities in their actions that resulted in this situation in the first place.
-
Exactly, when neither side really wants peace, I feel it's rather partisan to support the actions of either.
Supporting either sides actions means turning a blind eye to the stupidities in their actions that resulted in this situation in the first place.
However, it's not fair to the realities of today to assign equal blame between the Israelis and the actions of Hamas. When you have a democratic government on the one side that provides guaranteed freedoms to its legal residents and citizens, and a terrorist organization that is actively working toward the Talibanization of its own populace on the other side while simultaneously denying the right of the democratic nation to even exist, there is a fairly clear moral line to be drawn on who is in the right and who is in the wrong, presently. Doing that does no absolve either side of their past histories - and there is more than enough blame to go around the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the UN Security council's permanent members to leave everyone looking like fools - but it does clearly outline who needs to resolve **** today.
I have news - if the military wing of the pIRA or its off-shoots starting lobbing rockets toward London, despite all the **** that the UK and its designates and the republican forces in that region have done to each other since circa 1600 which give equal blame to both sides for creating 400-year-old grievances, there is no way that any of you would be saying the republicans are in the right to toss rockets toward civilian population centers and the UK should just put up with it and negotiate. Even during the height of the negotiations of the 80s and 90s, Britain still responded with the military and paramilitary police forces to terrorist acts. Israel's right to self-defence is no less, and given that their neighbours have now tried to invade and destroy them no less than three times in three-quarters of a century, I'd say they have a right to be a little twitchy when it comes to preventative actions.
Historical arguments are nice when it comes to philosophical discussion, but if we'd all like to rejoin reality for a moment we are left with a militant Islamic terrorist organization terrorizing its own populace (AP/reuters reporting six summary executions of Gazan residents by Hamas Tuesday alone) - to bring it into the ideological foundations used by a wider rights-abusing militant Islamic group fighting it out in Afghanistan/Pakistan - slinging rockets at civilian population centers in a country that is free and democratic with pig-headed foreign policy. It is irresponsible to equate the two.
When it comes to negotiations reflecting past history - absolutely, neither side can claim the moral high ground. When it comes to the here and now realities of the situation on the ground, no person with a conscience should be able to equate the actions of Hamas and those of Israel and conclude they should support neither side.
-
Yeah, MP pretty much sums up what's been on my mind since the 90s much better than I would ever do.
-
When it comes to the here and now realities of the situation on the ground, no person with a conscience should be able to equate the actions of Hamas and those of Israel and conclude they should support neither side.
Well I just did just that, and I am quite sure that I have a conscience.
-
When it comes to the here and now realities of the situation on the ground, no person with a conscience should be able to equate the actions of Hamas and those of Israel and conclude they should support neither side.
Well I just did just that, and I am quite sure that I have a conscience.
So in your mind, [summary execution of your citizens, harassment of women for refusal to follow religious policy, unlawful detention of female journalists, unprovoked targeted attacks on civilians (including residential areas) in a foreign country, and use of radical sharia law to suppress your citizenry] is morally and ethically equal to [defends its right to exist, carries out strikes on military members organizing attacks on its civilian citizenry, defends itself from rocket strikes]?
This is the problem with the neutral approach. It allows you to excuse fundamentalist extremism and the atrocities committed in its name that are happening and preventable today because of historical conflict in the area. Hamas is - rightly - designated as a terrorist organization by the bulk of the West. They are not oppressed fighting for the rights of Palestinians, they are fundamentalist extremists fighting to destroy Israel and subjugate the rights of Palestinians to the agenda of radical Islam, an agenda which now has 'legitimate' footholds in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, maybe Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If you think this development is perfectly fine, I (and the people seeking democratic rights and freedoms in those countries) are very glad you aren't in charge of Western foreign policy.
Israel's worst nightmare is a strong Hamas in Gaza gaining traction in the West Bank, with Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan (they'll be next, mark my words) run by Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, all supported by the fundamentalists entrenched in Iran. And really, this should be the West's biggest nightmare too as it will lead to genocide and rights-suppression across the Middle East.
-
the issue though is that Israel is also guilty of acts which if done by pretty much any other country would incur calls for international tribunals, most notably for, but not limited to, it's blatant use of military force such as high explosive missiles in civilian areas based on insufficient intelligence incurring civilian casualties while completely missing the supposed target.
So a neutral view point is valid on the grounds that neither side is fit for purpose based on their combat record or how they treat civilians in the conflict zone
-
The right to defend itself
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8A2oOZCIAAE_9d.jpg:large)
-
Supporting either sides actions means turning a blind eye to the stupidities in their actions that resulted in this situation in the first place.
Hamas exists on its promise to destroy Israel. It is this promise that gives the organization legitimacy in the eyes of others, from its own citizens to its foreign supporters. If it abandons this promise, no matter how impossible it is to keep it, then it loses that legitimacy. The government of Israel might refuse to but it is able to come to the bargaining table. The government that Hamas has created is not able to compromise because compromise will destroy it.
The only way forward from this, by violence or politics, begins with the destruction of Hamas as a political entity. Without that precondition no progress is possible.
-
I feel for the people in the Palestinian territories, I really do. I firmly believe that Israel should not be expanding or even continuing settlements in the West Bank. I firmly believe that they should be limiting their striking at hard targets in Gaza. I firmly believe that they should be actively and continuously negotiating in good faith towards a two-state solution.
All of these beliefs do not prevent me from calling a spade a spade when it comes to Hamas in Gaza. In this case, a spade being murderous fundamentalist terrorists who embed rocket launch locations in densely-populated civilian areas and launch at Israeli civilians, then cry foul when the IDF hits these targets with military strikes, all the while suppressing and executing their own citizenry who want nothing more than to go about their lives in peace and prosperity. This isn't the way to go about getting that, and frankly Hamas has no interest in getting that. Hamas will only govern Gaza so long as they fan the flames, because every time there is peace between Hamas and Israel, the residents of Gaza start to see how Hamas wants to take away their rights in the name of religious fundamentalism.
It is quite possible to acknowledge the history, recognize that both sides have serious work to do, and still recognize that we have a legitimate democratic state on one side and fundamentalist wackjobs on the other - and I refer not to Palestinians in general here, but to Hamas specifically. Anyone incapable of doing that excuses their actions in the name of balance, and these are not actions that should ever be excused. Ignorance and excuses is how the Taliban ended up in power, and we've all seen just how well that worked out.
-
The right to defend itself
Israel has its fundamentalists, too. Then again, were the civilian population centers in your country being bombarded with rockets I'm pretty sure you'd be advocating the destruction of the perpetrators ability to fire them in the long term too.
Now, perhaps you'd like to actually engage in the discussion instead of drive-by posting to stir the pot?
-
I'm pretty sure that if Hamas wasn't constantly bombarding Israel's cities with rocket strikes the Israeli hawks would be taken a lot less seriously by your average Israeli citizen. The beat of war drums gets extremely tiring when nobody's attacking.
-
The right to defend itself
Israel has its fundamentalists, too. Then again, were the civilian population centers in your country being bombarded with rockets I'm pretty sure you'd be advocating the destruction of the perpetrators ability to fire them in the long term too.
You know, in the UK we had a similar problem with the Irish, while instead of rockets it was car bombs both in Ireland and on the mainland, but for decades we had the same attitude on both sides that the only way there will be peace is for the other side to be wiped out in it's entirety. Buit you know something, there are several republican and unionist groups that are still officially active including some of the more significant groups and all it took for the current peace was for the government hard-line to soften enough to allow concessions. With those concessions support for the paramilitaries faded fairly fast to the point they had neither the local support or funds to carry on attacks, not only that but it allowed political moderates became the power base in Northern Ireland and now while there are games of political brinkmanship between Belfast and London, there has not been a physical attack for a very long time.
-
I'm pretty sure that if Hamas wasn't constantly bombarding Israel's cities with rocket strikes the Israeli hawks would be taken a lot less seriously by your average Israeli citizen. The beat of war drums gets extremely tiring when nobody's attacking.
This is a worthy point.
At the end of the day, all the moderates in the Palestinian territories and Israel want is peace, prosperity, and a country. If there were not still people advocating for the outright destruction of Israel, the parts of the Israeli government calling for more settlements, for a harder line, for maintaining the blockades would no longer have a leg to stand on. If Hamas disengaged entirely, suddenly the entire Western world would be looking at Israel going "what up, folks? Sort this already." Every rocket fire at Israel, every Palestinian calling for its destruction, and every minute that an Israeli feels their life is at risk just because of where their country is and who they are is an excuse for the Israeli hawks to keeop the country running the way it is. If the other side just quit and said "give us a fair shake" then they would have the world on their side, morally and politically. As NGTM-1R pointed out, the very existence of Hamas is a barrier to the peace process because they cannot quit and continue to exist. And they want to. They want very dearly to impose Sharia law and follow the radical islamization path, and that is only possible so long as there is conflict with Israel.
By contrast, Israel can't just quit. If they do, the result is rocket strikes and attacks on their country in perpetuity.
-
You know, in the UK we had a similar problem with the Irish, while instead of rockets it was car bombs both in Ireland and on the mainland, but for decades we had the same attitude on both sides that the only way there will be peace is for the other side to be wiped out in it's entirety. Buit you know something, there are several republican and unionist groups that are still officially active including some of the more significant groups and all it took for the current peace was for the government hard-line to soften enough to allow concessions. With those concessions support for the paramilitaries faded fairly fast to the point they had neither the local support or funds to carry on attacks, not only that but it allowed political moderates became the power base in Northern Ireland and now while there are games of political brinkmanship between Belfast and London, there has not been a physical attack for a very long time.
As it happens I'm quit familiar with the Irish conundrum, and it is a useful example. The peace process only really got moving (and resulted in today's power-sharing agreements) after mainstream public opinion turned away from the hard line on both sides, which is what needs to happen in the Palestine-Israel mess.
Where the comparison breaks down, however, is in the details. The pIRA had already lost a great deal of support because it had become quite obvious their way wasn't working (that and the pIRA was fundamentally Marxist in the Troubles which became more apparent as time went on and alienated more and more people). The pIRA was also willing to allow for the existence of the UK to continue, and they were pragmatic enough to know that "the British out of Northern Ireland" wasn't ever going to happen. The Troubles are often painted by non-historians as religious conflict but anyone familiar with it knows it was all about power and power-sharing - tiny Protestant population held all the political power for literally centuries. That's why power-sharing has worked. There was also a lot more to the Irish settlement than the UK government simply softening the hard-line - may changes took place internally within the pIRA and Sinn Fein that made peace and the power-sharing agreements possible.
Contrast to Gaza. Hamas' literal and stated goal is the outright destruction of Israel, and the Islamization of Gaza (and all the Palestinian territories). Israel can't concede the first point, even partially. Hamas can't concede it either and continue to exist because that is quite literally their platform.
-
@MP-Ryan: it wasn't "drive-by posting to stir the pot", it was a direct response to your use of the phrase "right to defend itself", which is not what they're doing. What they are doing is disproportionate retaliation. Even moreso now that this Iron Dome is shooting down virtually all of the incoming rockets.
-
If moderate Palestinians would start actively fighting Hamas (or if they already do that, do something noticeable), the situation could improve somewhat. They're not legitimate authority of any kind, they're a bunch of terrorists. If somebody from the Palestinian side proposed, say, a joint operation with Israel to put Hamas out of business (by arresting it's members like common criminals, treating them like military would only encourage them), it could lead to some interesting development. Israel's treatment of Arab population was somewhat less than ideal at times, but compared to "Arabs" launching rockets at Israelis, it's not going to get much attention. If the latter would stops though, the west would most likely notice the former. Even if the US would stick it's head in the sand (with Israel being such an important ally, this could happen), somebody else would point that out. As it stands, Hamas is ruining any chances of sorting out all the injustice (it's present more or less on both sides, really) in the region.
-
You know, in the UK we had a similar problem with the Irish, while instead of rockets it was car bombs both in Ireland and on the mainland, but for decades we had the same attitude on both sides that the only way there will be peace is for the other side to be wiped out in it's entirety. Buit you know something, there are several republican and unionist groups that are still officially active including some of the more significant groups and all it took for the current peace was for the government hard-line to soften enough to allow concessions. With those concessions support for the paramilitaries faded fairly fast to the point they had neither the local support or funds to carry on attacks, not only that but it allowed political moderates became the power base in Northern Ireland and now while there are games of political brinkmanship between Belfast and London, there has not been a physical attack for a very long time.
As it happens I'm quit familiar with the Irish conundrum, and it is a useful example. The peace process only really got moving (and resulted in today's power-sharing agreements) after mainstream public opinion turned away from the hard line on both sides, which is what needs to happen in the Palestine-Israel mess.
Where the comparison breaks down, however, is in the details. The pIRA had already lost a great deal of support because it had become quite obvious their way wasn't working (that and the pIRA was fundamentally Marxist in the Troubles which became more apparent as time went on and alienated more and more people). The pIRA was also willing to allow for the existence of the UK to continue, and they were pragmatic enough to know that "the British out of Northern Ireland" wasn't ever going to happen. The Troubles are often painted by non-historians as religious conflict but anyone familiar with it knows it was all about power and power-sharing - tiny Protestant population held all the political power for literally centuries. That's why power-sharing has worked. There was also a lot more to the Irish settlement than the UK government simply softening the hard-line - may changes took place internally within the pIRA and Sinn Fein that made peace and the power-sharing agreements possible.
Contrast to Gaza. Hamas' literal and stated goal is the outright destruction of Israel, and the Islamization of Gaza (and all the Palestinian territories). Israel can't concede the first point, even partially. Hamas can't concede it either and continue to exist because that is quite literally their platform.
Fair enough, but my understanding of the current situation is that Hamas is the "government" supposedly because the people of the region felt they were the best option to deal with their problems during the last election, namely Israel, and when Israel bombs a civilian area, or bulldozes a Palestinian occupied house or whatever they reinforce the belief/propaganda that Israel is the source of all their problems. This strengthens the idea that groups promising to fight Israel and destroy the country, (no matter how improbable that seams from the outside) look to be the best option to the population, because lets face it, without that resistance Israel will carry on trying to wipe them out anyway to their minds.
By throttling back on on the aggression, the extremist rhetoric, by offering the people an olive branch of some sort, no matter how small you start to erode the support for extremist viewpoints and thus the support for Hamas and the like will erode with it. It will be a slow process, and there will be times things look to be going backwards but while only hard-line views hold out on both sides, then neither side can truly win, to kill groups like Hamas you dont fight them directly, because even if you "win" some one else will take their place in some form or another, you deny them support which collapses both the group and the idea they promote, and without the idea then it is no longer a source for conflict
-
@MP-Ryan: it wasn't "drive-by posting to stir the pot", it was a direct response to your use of the phrase "right to defend itself", which is not what they're doing. What they are doing is disproportionate retaliation. Even moreso now that this Iron Dome is shooting down virtually all of the incoming rockets.
The Iron Dome is taking out most of the rockets headed for some of the population centers. There are still unprotected areas, and israeli civilians have still been killed.
So, with rocket fire ongoing, causing damage and killing people, what would you propose Israel's response be? If they don't do targeted airstrikes, the other options are ground incursion or special forces drops to eliminate launchers, all of which carry greater inherent risk to Israeli forces and Palestinian civilians. Should Israel have to put its own people at greater risk to mitigate casualties where the combatants are knowingly and intentionally placing their weapons in civilian areas for the entire purpose of making the IDF kill more of them?
Hamas could place their launchers in less-populated areas. They don't - intentionally. So what is a proportionate response?
-
Fair enough, but my understanding of the current situation is that Hamas is the "government" supposedly because the people of the region felt they were the best option to deal with their problems during the last election, namely Israel, and when Israel bombs a civilian area, or bulldozes a Palestinian occupied house or whatever they reinforce the belief/propaganda that Israel is the source of all their problems. This strengthens the idea that groups promising to fight Israel and destroy the country, (no matter how improbable that seams from the outside) look to be the best option to the population, because lets face it, without that resistance Israel will carry on trying to wipe them out anyway to their minds.
By throttling back on on the aggression, the extremist rhetoric, by offering the people an olive branch of some sort, no matter how small you start to erode the support for extremist viewpoints and thus the support for Hamas and the like will erode with it. It will be a slow process, and there will be times things look to be going backwards but while only hard-line views hold out on both sides, then neither side can truly win, to kill groups like Hamas you dont fight them directly, because even if you "win" some one else will take their place in some form or another, you deny them support which collapses both the group and the idea they promote, and without the idea then it is no longer a source for conflict
Partially true, although Hamas and Fatah fought a little mini-war after the elections. This is why Hamas controls Gaza, where they basically killed off Fatah, while Fatah still controls the Palestinian Authority and had Hamas booted from it. The PA is the only internationally-recognized Palestinian government, but it holds little to no sway in Gaza.
While Israeli concessions could have an effect on Palestinian opinion, Palestinian opinion is not what currently controls the actions in Gaza. Not saying things like an immediate halt and withdrawal of all the West Bank settlements wouldn't help (it would), it's just unlikely to help quell the situation in the Gaza strip because of who runs the show there. While Hamas did win a majority of seats in the election, they have held and taken that power through force-of-arms.
-
Fine. Israel's response is reasonable tactically. Israel's internal minister (granted idk what that position entails) talking about sending Gaza back to the middle ages is not reasonable. And it's basically the same as with Hamas' promise to wipe Israel off the map.
-
I have news - if the military wing of the pIRA or its off-shoots starting lobbing rockets toward London, despite all the **** that the UK and its designates and the republican forces in that region have done to each other since circa 1600 which give equal blame to both sides for creating 400-year-old grievances, there is no way that any of you would be saying the republicans are in the right to toss rockets toward civilian population centers and the UK should just put up with it and negotiate.
Neither would I say that the proportional response would be one that kills scores of innocent people who had nothing to do with the conflict. Your response is basically the same as saying "There was nothing wrong with Bloody Sunday"
Israel has faced numerous criticisms that their idea of a "Proportional Response" doesn't do enough to prevent civilian casualties. So while I wouldn't say that they can't defend themselves, they've got a proven track record of going way too far when trying to do so. Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that this conflict won't be more of the same.
Historical arguments are nice when it comes to philosophical discussion
Historical arguments are relevant when you see someone doing the same thing again that has made the conflict worse every single time they did it. There is a certain point where you have to question someone's ability to learn from their mistakes.
So in your mind, [summary execution of your citizens, harassment of women for refusal to follow religious policy, unlawful detention of female journalists, unprovoked targeted attacks on civilians (including residential areas) in a foreign country, and use of radical sharia law to suppress your citizenry] is morally and ethically equal to [defends its right to exist, carries out strikes on military members organizing attacks on its civilian citizenry, defends itself from rocket strikes]?
And by supporting Israel, you lose the support of anyone in Palestine who is against this agenda.
The only moral choice is to not support either because both sides are being run by some pretty evil examples of humanity. Shielding Israel from the consequences of its actions by supporting it has done nothing to end this conflict and it never will.
-
Refusing to support or condemn either any more than the other sets them on a level moral playing field; you are declaring that neither is worse than the other and that both are as good as the other.
I'm fairly certain that's not a particularly moral choice, considering what Hamas manages to do all day every day.
-
I'm not going to say there isn't a lesser of two evils. Simply that I support neither side.
The West's habit of continually supporting the lesser of two evils is what has resulted in this mess. Israel knows it has impunity to do whatever it likes because someone will simply point out that Hamas are worse. So as long as they're careful not to do anything quite as bad they can continue to get away with all the **** they get away with.
I'll give you an example, name one other theocracy which anyone defends?
-
Great Britain? :P
The sovreign power of the royal monarch comes directly from God in the British government.
Unless, that is, you wanted to talk about functional theocracies, in which case I'd remove Israel from that list as well, in all honesty. EDIT: by which I mean the Israeli government isn't motivated by religion nearly as much as it is by ethnicity. The Jews are both, you know, and I daresay their religion doesn't come very close to their government except in passing.
-
So institutional racism instead of discrimination based on religion is fine?
But you're wrong anyway. There are lots of very good examples of laws favouring Jews. And plenty of examples of people who are of Jewish ethnicity but not the religion getting a rough ride. Hell, Sandwich himself has posted examples.
-
Neither would I say that the proportional response would be one that kills scores of innocent people who had nothing to do with the conflict. Your response is basically the same as saying "There was nothing wrong with Bloody Sunday"
Israel has faced numerous criticisms that their idea of a "Proportional Response" doesn't do enough to prevent civilian casualties. So while I wouldn't say that they can't defend themselves, they've got a proven track record of going way too far when trying to do so. Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that this conflict won't be more of the same.
You're not wrong, but as I pointed out to Aardwolf, what's the better response? If Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel is unacceptable (and it is), then how should Israel respond? Tactical airstrikes carry no risk to Israeli forces but higher risk to civilians because Hamas places their rockets in civilian centers. Ground incursion will result in higher bloodshed on both sides, but particularly among Gazan 'civilians' as they have a nasty tendency of hurling rocks at tanks and troops. Special forces limit civilian casualties, but would still be dropped into the middle of a zone containing civilians which gurana-frickin-teed Hamas will use as human shields because that's what they do and it poses a high risk to the Israelis. Given that Israel does not want to lose their own people and wants to limit potential civilian casaulties, air strikes are the preferred option. The fact that Hamas puts targets they know are going to get hit by airstrikes in civilian-dense zones is something observers should be criticizing Hamas for, not Israel. If Hamas wasn't lobbing rockets, there would be no Israeli airstrikes. The fundamental reason there are weapons landing from israel in Gaza right now is because Hamas likes to lob rockets into Israel. That stops, so do the airstrikes. If Hamas gave one single **** about their civilians (and they clearly do not, see reference to summary executions) they would either stop firing the rockets OR relocate them to zones where civilians would not be put at risk. Israel has an obligation to limit civilian casualties as far as is possible. Now, I'll agree they can probably do more, but the fundamental reason they are even killing civilians right now is entirely preventable by Hamas.
Historical arguments are relevant when you see someone doing the same thing again that has made the conflict worse every single time they did it. There is a certain point where you have to question someone's ability to learn from their mistakes.
This applies more to Hamas than Israel. Keep in mind whose violent actions are the source of the current mess. That would be rocket attacks from Gaza.
And by supporting Israel, you lose the support of anyone in Palestine who is against this agenda.
The only moral choice is to not support either because both sides are being run by some pretty evil examples of humanity. Shielding Israel from the consequences of its actions by supporting it has done nothing to end this conflict and it never will.
Wrong. It is possible to side with Israel against Hamas and still recognize that the Palestinian territories have legitimate grievances against Israel; however, the side that perpetuates the violence and could put an end to it tomorrow (i.e. Gaza quits firing rockets) is the one deserving moral condemnation in the meantime. I am not proposing Israel be shielded from consequence; I am suggesting that Hamas is a terrorist organization that is responsible for all the deaths directly or indirectly in this current conflict and therefore should not be considered the moral equivalent of a free and democratic nation like Israel.
I'm not saying Palestinians are in the wrong and Israelis are in the right; I'm saying that if we are considering the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government, there should not be a moral equiavlency in anyone's mind. Hamas is composed of fundamentalist violent fanatics bent on the destruction of an entire nation and the Islamization and suppression of rights in their own populace; Israel's government is hard-line but democratically elected by a variety of people belonging to multiple religions and cultural groups.
-
So institutional racism instead of discrimination based on religion is fine?
You challenged, I responded. If you want to move the goalposts after that, it's your perogative.
-
Actually I pointed out you were also wrong about the original subject too. :p
I'm not saying Palestinians are in the wrong and Israelis are in the right; I'm saying that if we are considering the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government, there should not be a moral equiavlency in anyone's mind. Hamas is composed of fundamentalist violent fanatics bent on the destruction of an entire nation and the Islamization and suppression of rights in their own populace; Israel's government is hard-line but democratically elected by a variety of people belonging to multiple religions and cultural groups.
Who is saying there is a moral equivalency? I've repeatedly stated that the Israeli leadership is the lesser of two evils. But that they are still evil. And they continually get what basically amounts to a blank check from large portions of the world to continue.
I'll further point out that I hold Israel to a higher standard precisely because they have the advantages of education and access to information that people living in Gaza do not have.
Now, I'll agree they can probably do more
And that's the fundamental issue. They could do more to limit civilian casualties. But they don't.
Sure Hamas could too, but two wrongs do not make a right. You continually point out that Hamas are terrorist organisation and not a legitimate democratic government. Given that, how do the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli fire bear any moral responsibility for what happens to them?
On the other hand, how do Israeli citizens, who have elected increasingly hawkish leaders, not bear the moral responsibility for the outcome of their actions?
In the end you have a bunch of very evil people leading a bunch of very ignorant people in a struggle against a not quite as evil bunch of people leading a bunch of people who really should know better. I can't see any good reason to support either side since neither side really shows any interest in stopping.
-
Sorry for the mega-post, but y'all kept on posting some really great stuff while I was away. I'm proud of you all for keeping it civil and impersonal. :yes:
The continuous barrage of rockets that Hamas has been launching at civilian areas is just ridiculous, and Israel has every right to defend its citizenry from that. But then you know that taking out a Hamas commander was going to provoke a huge reaction, because that's what always happens, and it's like...was that really the best move here? Or was there any good move at all?
We've had daily rocket launches on our southern towns (Note: these are not in disputed areas such as West Bank settlements or the like!) since 2006. An entire generation of kids well-versed with what they can accomplish in 15 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsm-mEy38pQ&feature=plcp). The potential huge reaction was not the driving force behind our motives. The 6 years of civilians under bombardment was.
If there's a solution, it starts with the end of the Gaza blockade and the various other **** that the Israelis are always doing in Palestine. It's a lot harder to maintain a militant hatred of Israel if they aren't directly responsible for your nation's pereptually ****ed economy, and you're going to be a lot less willign to martyr yourself if you've got the kind of life that's worth living (i.e. not in constant poverty).
I agree that intentional, perpetual poverty absolutely sucks and is horrific. Read up on the corruption of the PA, diverting internationally-donated funds to Gaza from basic humanitarian needs to its own, often terrorism-related purposes. Then run the tape forward to the democratic election of the Hamas terrorist organization / political entity in Gaza by Gazans. Of course they elected Hamas - the PA kept them in poverty. But then what does the new Hamas government funnel the funds towards? Daily rocket bombardments and educating their own children in the ways of hatred and homicidal suicide "martyrdom".
I would love to see a Palestinian entity that did not hate, attack, and intend to annihilate us. I have a few Arab friends and acquaintances (both Christian and Muslim Arabs, all of whom grew up under Israeli rule), and the fact that they have not been raised in an attitude of hatred towards the Jews means that we are friends - it's not hypothetical, and it can happen.
I agree that **** like continuing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is patently ridiculous, and I have little to no respect for Netanyahu in general because of his advocating policies like that. (I guess what I'm really interested in is what the general opinion of him is at home.)
Generally the public likes him.
Also, settlements are not the real issue, just a scapegoat. They have been taken out of the equation a number of times (offhand, the 9(+?) month settlement freeze from a few years back, and the complete Gaza withdrawal in 2006), with no change in the terrorist attacks.
One side is simply going to have to "win" some day. There is no other realistic alternative.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. In WWII, the Allies did not stop the fighting until the Nazi regime had been obliterated in a decisive and total victory. The Allies did not just win all the battles and stop - they won the war. Israel, in all the wars waged against her since 1948, has always stopped at winning all the battles. We've never gone on to completely win the war. We don't want to conquer our neighbors. We want our neighbors to stop trying to conquer (or terrorize) us.
A question for Sandwich (and I mean this as an honest question, because I'm not following Israel's domestic politics myself): did any politician ever consider trying to be the good guys? Sending aid to Palestine, instead of live ammunition? Would the idea have any chance of catching on?
You mean like this (http://www.idf.il/1283-17499-en/Dover.aspx)?
Last week (October 28-November 3), 919 trucks carrying 26,142 tons of goods entered the Gaza Strip from Israel through land crossings. The delivered goods included 336 truckloads of construction materials.
@MP-Ryan: it wasn't "drive-by posting to stir the pot", it was a direct response to your use of the phrase "right to defend itself", which is not what they're doing. What they are doing is disproportionate retaliation. Even moreso now that this Iron Dome is shooting down virtually all of the incoming rockets.
Disproportionate by what measure, the number of civilians killed? This is often the metric the world looks at, despite being an utterly nonsensical comparison. One one hand, you have Hamas, which takes advantage of this fascination with body counts by using their own people as human shields - launching rockets from populated areas, knowing that Israel's reactionary targeting of the launchers will cause civilian deaths, which they can make use of in the world media to further their cause in world opinion. On the other hand, Israel has bomb shelters in virtually every building - if not every apartment - built in the last few decades, thus minimizing Israeli casualties, as well as the Iron Dome system now, intercepting 85% (I think?) of incoming rockets. And when you consider that Israel has superior weaponry targeting systems vs the Hamas' (apparent?) "point the rocket in the general direction and fire" method, then of course there are going to be more deaths on the Palestinian side than the Israeli side. So as I stated, this metric is an utterly nonsensical metric to choose for comparison.
Disproportionate by years of daily rocket bombardment targeted at civilians, which followed decades of suicide bombings (also targeting civilians)? Damn right it's disproportionate - our response has yet to become anything near what they've sent our way.
If moderate Palestinians would start actively fighting Hamas (or if they already do that, do something noticeable), the situation could improve somewhat. They're not legitimate authority of any kind, they're a bunch of terrorists.
:wtf: Um, Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza, and thus are the only "legitimate" authority in Gaza, as well as being a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority educated their children in the ways of jihad, martyrdom, and hatred, and then got themselves kicked out of office for those who were even more extreme.
Israel has faced numerous criticisms that their idea of a "Proportional Response" doesn't do enough to prevent civilian casualties. So while I wouldn't say that they can't defend themselves, they've got a proven track record of going way too far when trying to do so.
So when Israel drops leaflets to warn of impending strikes in an area, calls residents of an apartment building where a terrorist cell is located to warn them to evacuate, that's not doing enough? How about all this: http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/CommunityPosts/tabid/809/PostID/3317/MinimizingCollateralDamageInGazaConflict.aspx
Who is saying there is a moral equivalency? I've repeatedly stated that the Israeli leadership is the lesser of two evils. But that they are still evil.
This evil you speak of, is it because the Israeli leadership takes steps to defend the people it was elected to govern? Is it because the Israeli leadership does not prevent 100% of civilian deaths in Gaza when striking at terrorists? Is it because those who wish to destroy us love death more than we love life (http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8022)? What exactly is your basis for labeling the Israeli government "evil"?
And that's the fundamental issue. They could do more to limit civilian casualties. But they don't.
Such as...? Saying "they could do more" is nice and all, but concrete suggestions would go so much farther.
You continually point out that Hamas are terrorist organisation and not a legitimate democratic government. Given that, how do the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli fire bear any moral responsibility for what happens to them?
No, Hamas is the democratically-elected government in Gaza. Wonderful judgment, that.
On the other hand, how do Israeli citizens, who have elected increasingly hawkish leaders, not bear the moral responsibility for the outcome of their actions?
Who said Israelis aren't responsible (not sure if 'morally' is relevant) for the leaders they elect? Matter of fact, Israel has not allowed one single Prime Minister to complete a single 4-year term in office for over 20 years (a few times circumstances were not intentional by the public, such as Rabin's assassination or Sharon's stroke/coma). We're a very opinionated people, and the government's resiliency - or lack thereof - just goes to show that.
-
thats the problem with war. there are always casualties. there isn't a nation in the world that has conducted a war with zero civilian casualties. murphy's law alone will make sure that **** happens even with a zero civilian casualty policy. to expect this of every warring nation is kind of a little unpractical.
-
There's a massive difference between civilian casualties due to collateral damage and civilians being deliberately targeted. Case in point, a bomb just blew up on a bus in Tel-Aviv about 30 mins ago.
EDIT: Apparently, there's another unexploded bomb on said bus as well.
EDIT 2: No deaths or critically-injured.
-
There's a massive difference between civilian casualties due to collateral damage and civilians being deliberately targeted.
The thing is that there are instances where Palestinian protestors or people in Gaza are either detained without trail or shot for no apperent reason (Several movies on that too). Then there's also that blockade that for a long time did not allow building materials to go trough, which also harms the civilian populace (there's also a diplomatic cable floating around that it was intended to keep Gaza on the brink of ruin). It might not be deliberate targeting, but I don't think it falls under "collateral damage" either.
-
Um, Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza, and thus are the only "legitimate" authority in Gaza, as well as being a terrorist organization. The Palestinian Authority educated their children in the ways of jihad, martyrdom, and hatred, and then got themselves kicked out of office for those who were even more extreme
I'm pretty sure Hamas isn't recognized internationally, isn't the current government of Palestinian Authority supposed to hold power in Gaza (yes, I know it doesn't)? I don't think people there would accept Israeli rule, but if PA showed up and tried to take control of Gaza (I don't see Hamas giving up power by not being reelected, not that they'd ask anybody about that), with Israeli backup, maybe they could succeed. PA seems much more reasonable than Hamas, I don't recall hearing them wanting Israel wiped out (at least, not recently).
-
Who is saying there is a moral equivalency?
You've said you can support neither side. Joshua and Aardwolf both appear to be saying there is moral equivalency. And a statement that one can support neither side implies each is as bad as the other, hence moral equivalency. Unless you recognize that one bears greater moral culpability in the present than the other, in which case supporting neither amounts to indifference or tacit support of terrorist actions. You can't say that Israel needs greater scrutiny for its actions and simultaneously ignore the fact that Hamas' actions are far worse and motivated by far worse objectives.
I'll further point out that I hold Israel to a higher standard precisely because they have the advantages of education and access to information that people living in Gaza do not have.
Except that israel has no control over the rocket bombardment that precipitated their military action. Pretty unfair to hold the defender to a higher moral standard. I believe that's typically called "victim blaming." Granted, Israel may not be the historical victim across the history 1948-present, but they were certainly the party responding to rather than precipitating the use of violence in this case.
And that's the fundamental issue. They could do more to limit civilian casualties. But they don't.
But despite the fact that I pretty clearly outlined the options, every single person saying the israelis could do more has failed to say what could be done to further limit civilian casualties. So what's your solution? I say they can probably do more simply because there are always additional measures to ensure safety, but they come with a cost - be it in personnel, more civilian deaths, more destruction, or delayed action (and hence more rockets).
Sure Hamas could too, but two wrongs do not make a right. You continually point out that Hamas are terrorist organisation and not a legitimate democratic government. Given that, how do the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli fire bear any moral responsibility for what happens to them?
They elected their leadership, they allow their leadership to continue supporting rocket strikes, they allow their leadership to place rocket emplacements in civilian zones. The West doesn't view them as legit and neither does the PA, but they did still garner a majority in the last elections and that's why they run the show.
On the other hand, how do Israeli citizens, who have elected increasingly hawkish leaders, not bear the moral responsibility for the outcome of their actions?
Israel didn't start lobbing rockets into Gaza's civilian population and precipitate this mess. israel withdrew from Gaza entirely, still ships in aid, maintains a blockade to keep out weapons shipments, and otherwise stays out of Gaza's affairs. Gaza imports rockets illegally from Iran/Syria/wherever else they can gets their hands on them and flings them into Israeli civilian centers while simultaneously publicly declaring Israel does not have a right to exist. How would you propose Israel deal with that? Let the rockets fly?
In the end you have a bunch of very evil people leading a bunch of very ignorant people in a struggle against a not quite as evil bunch of people leading a bunch of people who really should know better. I can't see any good reason to support either side since neither side really shows any interest in stopping.
Except, as I repeatedly have said, Hamas could stop all of the violence this very second by ceasing rocket attacks and allow both sides to negotiate. That's the kicker. Israel is responding to force by another party (this time, not always), and therefore deserves the support of anyone who believes in democratic principles and the right of self-defense until such time as they are not the subject of force by an aggressor.
-
You've said you can support neither side. Joshua and Aardwolf both appear to be saying there is moral equivalency. And a statement that one can support neither side implies each is as bad as the other, hence moral equivalency.
No. This is probably where you misunderstood me.
Supporting neither side means simply that: I support neither side. That does not mean that I think that both sides are equal. It simply means that I don't like either side enough for me to support them.
Compare it to, say, girls! Just because I currently do not want to kiss any girl does not mean that I like them all equally.
-
No, Hamas is the democratically-elected government in Gaza. Wonderful judgment, that.
While true, they were democratically elected on the platform of "destroy Israel, kill Israelis", so their legitimacy being bound up in that promise (and unable to negotiate for more than temporary peace) is still a legitimate problem with the situation.
-
Also, for how long were they supposed to stay in the office? IIRC, they've been around for quite some time, shouldn't there be another election? And if they prohibited elections, doesn't that mean they're not as legitimate as they'd like to think? I'd be really interested if people still want them in power after all this fighting.
-
Finally, a ceasefire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20436699
-
well see how long it lasts
-
Good riddance. Seems a couple of people came to their senses. Now, I hope Hamas keeps it's end of the deal (their record isn't the best about that).
-
Did Israel just pay Danegeld? Doesn't this mean the threat of violence is legitimate way to get what you want?
Edit:I know I'm talking out of my butt.
-
The first paragraph of this article is an excellent reason why Hamas deserves the universal condemnation of the free world: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/gaza-conflict-unveils-two-faces-of-hamas/article5527523/)
A car drags the body of an executed “collaborator” through Gaza City, streets away from where a team of foreign dignitaries come to show solidarity with Gazans under Israeli fire.
-
Not sure if you (or anyone else here) is still trying to imply that there's something wrong with saying this, but:
1. **** Hamas
2. **** Israel
-
The first paragraph of this article is an excellent reason why Hamas deserves the universal condemnation of the free world: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/gaza-conflict-unveils-two-faces-of-hamas/article5527523/)
A car drags the body of an executed “collaborator” through Gaza City, streets away from where a team of foreign dignitaries come to show solidarity with Gazans under Israeli fire.
Note, they're democratically elected. Which means it's also the fault of people who elected them. What did they expect when they voted to terrorists? Hamas was always the kind of party which would do that to it's own people.
-
Democratic election does not necessarily mean they won legitimately, and even if they did, that does not mean that 100% of the population endorsed them.
-
Is it possible that Hamas was actually the least of multiple evils in the election, too?
-
Is it possible that Hamas was actually the least of multiple evils in the election, too?
Fatah was also up for election (hence why there's only the Gaza front currently since Fatah isn't on board with Hamas). People didn't vote for the lesser evil, they voted their anger.
-
The Hamas - Fatah (Palestinian Authority proxies IIRC) election scenario was an interesting one. The PA was screwing the Palestinians over big time - diverting international aid funds to build mansions, etc - the kind of corrupt behavior that gets you tossed out of office. The Hamas, meantime, was being both a terrorist organization to the Israelis, and a perverted sort of humanitarian aid organization to the Palestinians oppressed by the PA - monetarily rewarding families of suicide bombers, etc. Ergo, they won in Gaza, and immediately began battling it out with Fatah in the streets. They won, and here we are today.
Note that I may have some of the details wrong, but the general gist I believe is still intact, that Hamas won by appearing to do more immediate good to the Palestinians, while screwing them over in the longer run due to their terrorist activities.
As for the cease-fire, 12 rockets have been fired at Israel in the 90 minutes since it went into effect. Israeli sources have stated ahead of time that they expected a "short tail" of dwindling rocket fire over a day or so, probably due to the uncoordinated nature of the Hamas cells now that they've had their existing leadership largely wiped out.
-
The first paragraph of this article is an excellent reason why Hamas deserves the universal condemnation of the free world.
Aren't they already getting the universal condemnation of the free world? You are completely right in that they deserve it, but that was rather obvious from the start.
As for the cease-fire, 12 rockets have been fired at Israel in the 90 minutes since it went into effect. Israeli sources have stated ahead of time that they expected a "short tail" of dwindling rocket fire over a day or so, probably due to the uncoordinated nature of the Hamas cells now that they've had their existing leadership largely wiped out.
Isn't there another group in Gaza, called the Islamitic Jihad of Palestina or something? It seems logical that they would continue firing, as the peace treaty was with Hamas and Hamas only AFAIK.
-
Isn't there another group in Gaza, called the Islamitic Jihad of Palestina or something? It seems logical that they would continue firing, as the peace treaty was with Hamas and Hamas only AFAIK.
Islamic Jihad, and they aren't suicidal enough to break a ceasefire signed by Hamas.
-
I guess Hamas batteries just didn't got the news about ceasefire yet. I'm not sure if they have any sort of comms short of whoever's in charge driving to them and telling them to stop shooting.
-
thing is my understanding is that Hamas is more like a resistance group than a modern military, its less about how the orders are given and more about who is giving them and with several leaders targeted by Israel some killed there will probably be cells isolated from the centeral leaders because the person/people they know to be the ones giving them their instructions are dead or in a hospital thus breaking both chain of command and lines of communications.
-
Well, considering even the Islamic Jihad seem to mind the ceasefire, I'd say that there isn't going to be much splintering inside Hamas on the issue. The worst extremists might not like it, but I guess that Hamas leadership is the leadership because they have the biggest guns, so any attempts to splinter will soon have rockets falling on them, among other unpleasantries. So I think it's just a matter of them being told to stop shooting by somebody who'd definitely "the boss", which means said boss would need to do some driving around before shooting stops. Hamas doesn't seem to have a strict CoC like modern militaries do.
-
As I've said before about this situation, there's a certain amount of political Jiggery-Pokery going on here. Hamas may be the ruling body of the area, and the voice of it, but they only have limited control over those holding the rockets etc. However, politically, it's better to say 'Yes, we are in charge of what's happening' than admitting that there are nutters running round your country with rocket launchers and you don't have a clue how to stop them without being accused of being 'pro-Israeli' or the like, a badge Hamas most certainly don't wish to wear.
So whilst Hamas has agreed to the ceasefire, I sadly suspect that there will be at least a few cells that will decide that Hamas are 'wrong' and will continue firing. I just hope the actions of those few don't lead to a re-escalation of the problem as they hope it will.
-
If the Russians had invaded California, and Washington DC said to stop shooting, do you think all the people in California would stop shooting?
-
So are you proposing that Israel has performed any invading with regards to Gaza, at least in the current sense? Because otherwise that analogy falls apart at the outset.
-
Considering how there wasn't an israel until the British and the UN said so, I'd say that analogy works just fine. Do you think the parents of the children in California would teach their kids that Russia deserved to occupy their land?
-
Considering how there wasn't an israel until the British and the UN said so, I'd say that analogy works just fine. Do you think the parents of the children in California would teach their kids that Russia deserved to occupy their land?
Interesting history. (Also wrong; Stalin was a major force behind it right up until they didn't buy Russian, something that most of Israel's neighbors were quick to forget. The Brits just wanted out since terrorism was a serious issue then.)
-
Considering how there wasn't an israel until the British and the UN said so, I'd say that analogy works just fine. Do you think the parents of the children in California would teach their kids that Russia deserved to occupy their land?
The particular wisdom of how the UN handled things in 1947-48 doesn't have much to do with the current conflict, other than being held up as a strawman. Last time I checked, Hamas continuing its rocket barrage of civilian targets is what prompted Israel to take military action here in the first place.
-
Considering how there wasn't an israel until the British and the UN said so, I'd say that analogy works just fine.
I like how people use history to base their arguments upon, but only go so far back in history as is convenient. And by like I mean the :rolleyes: kind of like.
EDIT: Anyway, due to the aforementioned cease-fire, I'm being called back for a couple of days to help return the wartime equipment to storage. See y'all in a few - don't go all uncivil without me. ;)
-
If the Russians had invaded California, and Washington DC said to stop shooting, do you think all the people in California would stop shooting?
The problem is, how far back do we take these analogies of displacement of people to establish a new population? There are an awful lot of countries, in both North and South America for example, who would be on very shaky grounds with regards to previous population displacement, be it Native Americans, or the Pre-Hispanic South American tribes. So I'm concerned where the 'line' is regarding what is acceptable population displacement and what is not.
That does not mean I support Israels responses to those situations on every occasion, any more than I particularly support the treatment of the Native Americans in previous decades etc, but it just means that the argument is probably better made on humanitarian and political viewpoints than historical and/or religious ones.
-
Here's the thing, Israel has the control of the situation, they have some protection from enemy fire, the Palestinians are getting bombed, their kids are dying and ****.
I know if I had a kid that got killed in a drone strike from a neighbouring country, it would take a hell of a lot to stop me trying to avenge.
Israel has to make the first move to stop killing people, then tell them hamas/whatever to stop shooting them or they will resume
-
Is this latest ceasefire is actually a ceasefire, or a hudna -- A temporary ceasefire allowing for rearmament of either side. Hamas has pulled this before, and the Israelis are very eager to get any kind of truce in place.
-
Here's the thing, Israel has the control of the situation, they have some protection from enemy fire, the Palestinians are getting bombed, their kids are dying and ****.
I know if I had a kid that got killed in a drone strike from a neighbouring country, it would take a hell of a lot to stop me trying to avenge.
Israel has to make the first move to stop killing people, then tell them hamas/whatever to stop shooting them or they will resume
Are you stupid? No, really. That's a serious question given the entire thread you apparently didn't read.
There have been four Israeli fatalities as a direct result of rockets that hit an area that the dome can't cover in the last week. While that doesn't exactly equate to the hundred-odd Palestinian dead, it also has the handy effect of justifying the Israeli reaction in your own words.
That, and Israeli strikes haven't exactly been targeting civilians deliberately. The way that this war has been waged consists of roughly four steps:
1. Hamas fires rockets into Israel from sites located in civilian areas.
2. Israel destroys the rocket launch sites with precision airstrikes.
3. Hamas whines about Israeli strikes killing civilians.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 until there are no more rockets and/or civilian areas.
-
I think the question everyone seems to be avoiding asking is whether or not the cost of Israel's defenses justifies the killing of Gazan militants and civilians to the degree that took place.
Edit:USA Today puts the cost to Israel at $1 billion, and there were about 150 Gazan casualties. So that's $6.6 millions per Gazan. That's about what we expect car manufacturers to spend on safety features.
Israel is so far in the right it isn't funny. Egypt ect all should really chip in for Israel's defense instead of complaining about civilians being killed.
-
speaking of costs, the thing i've been wondering about is how much it costs each time the iron dome intercepts a rocket. people seem to be pointing at the iron dome and using it to criticize the airstrikes. it's not like it's a passive shield that just magically protects israel from rockets. it takes effort and money to run. for damn sure the iron dome missile costs more than the rocket it intercepts. i wonder how the math works out on the cost of an airstrike vs. the cost to continue intercepting rockets shot from that position.
-
Each missile fired costs $40,000. Each rocket fired from Gaza costs $300 - $500. That is slightly mitigated by the fact that because the Gazan rockets are hand-made and unguided, a good portion of them land far away from inhabited areas.
Edit: Total cost 25-30 million dollars for the 8 days of fire.
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/iron-dome-shootdowns-of-gaza-rockets-cost-25mln-30mln-israel/
-
While we're on the subject of statistics & numbers, here's some interesting stats (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-it-fulfilled-all-its-goals-while-hamas-hails-an-exceptional-victory-pillar-of-defense-gaza/). In summary (taken from here (http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/a-look-at-the-2012-gaza-war-by-the-numbers-how-many-rockets-were-fired-intercepted-deaths-injuries/)):
Palestinian rocket/missile attacks on Israel:
Israel was on the receiving end of a total of 1,506 rockets that were fired from Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense.
At least 875 rockets, or 58 percent, landed in open areas
58 — 3.8% — rockets exploded in urban areas
Attempted launches of rockets failed 152 times
Success of the Iron Dome system
The Iron Dome missile defense system scored 421 interceptions
Overall success rate: 84%
IDF strikes in Gaza:
the IAF carried out over 1,500 air strikes against targets in Gaza
19 high-level Hamas command centers were hit
980 underground rocket launchers were hit
140 smuggling tunnels were hit
66 tunnels “used for terrorist operations” were hit
42 Hamas operation rooms and bases were hit
26 weapon manufacturing and storage facilities were hit
dozens of long-range rocket launchers and launch sites were also hit
Israeli casualties:
Five Israelis were killed by rocket fire
240 Israelis were injured
Palestinian casualties:
177 Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes — 120 of them
were “engaged in terrorist activities,” an IDF spokesman said
More than 900 Palestinians were injured
-
Considering how there wasn't an israel until the British and the UN said so, I'd say that analogy works just fine.
I like how people use history to base their arguments upon, but only go so far back in history as is convenient. And by like I mean the :rolleyes: kind of like.
This may need a little bit of explaining - There is a huge gap in my knowledge of the state of Israel between 1948 and that time it was part of the Roman Empire.
-
I can't see any reason to go back further than living memory in these matters anyway.
Things get decidedly strange if you go beyond that.
-
Agreed. If we started going back some 2000 years, one could make, for instance, a claim that most of Western Europe should belong to Italy. That's just ridiculous.
And let's not even start on religious "promised land" claims. This never ends well, and I think it's actually not very relevant to political decisions.
-
I don't think Israel should go anywhere if that is what people are saying, 70% of the Jewish people living in Israel were born there, I can't help feeling that anything that involves the removal of these people is merely a repeat of the poorly handled establishment in reverse and, for me, two wrongs don't make a right in this situation.
I suppose, if we move back only slightly more than living memory, that the way I look at it is, if Indigenous Americans started firing rockets at an American City, claiming they were fighting to restore their homeland, I would kind of understand their grievance, but I would not condone their actions, and would fear the retaliations.
The solution to the problem does not actually lay in Palestine, it is directly related to Israels position with the rest of the Middle East. As long as the Middle East is several disparate countries united in their distrust of Israel, nothing can change, and how we approach that, I have absolutely no idea.
The next move, whatever it may be, is going to need the entire area in my opinion, whilst Israel are very much the ones in control of the situation, and whilst walls and missiles work in the short term, something, and pardon my use of the word, fundamental has to change before anyone can do something about the distrust.
-
Your preferences for ignoring anything beyond "living memory" and/or any religious reasonings does not make them irrelevant; it just makes you close-minded. The political decisions and actions of living memory were largely based upon those ancient and religious reasons - Jews would be living in Uganda otherwise.
Now, I don't disagree that from a modern political point of view, going back millennia as a rule of thumb is, well, yeah - strange. :p And yet there must be some validity to doing so, otherwise why would the Muslim world be educating its children so frequently that archaeologically-proven historical events happened entirely different from what is recorded in the history books (if an event is even said to have happened at all)?
The solution to the problem does not actually lay in Palestine, it is directly related to Israels position with the rest of the Middle East. As long as the Middle East is several disparate countries united in their distrust of Israel, nothing can change, and how we approach that, I have absolutely no idea.
The next move, whatever it may be, is going to need the entire area in my opinion, whilst Israel are very much the ones in control of the situation, and whilst walls and missiles work in the short term, something, and pardon my use of the word, fundamental has to change before anyone can do something about the distrust.
It is, and always has been, a matter of education. Remove hatred and encouragement to murderous intent from the Muslim education system, and a large chunk of the problem will be marginalized.
-
The problem with going back historically is you don't go back beyond the Jews conquest of the Holy Land. Why stop there?
-
Phoenicia for Phoenicians! Out with the Israeli and Palestinian usurpers! :p
-
Speaking of that, why not go further and fully reclaim Palestina I, Palestina II & Palestina III (the revenge of Palestina)?
Seriously, this way of thinking is nonsense, who lived somewhere in the past is irrelevant, what matters is now. The place has always fluxed on it's inhabitants, it has never been "X Side" since the start of time.
So why not get along? ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity make countries richer, so embrace it instead of picking war, the coward's way of avoiding responsibilities of peace.
Edit: This applies to way more than just this conflict and to more than one faction, by the way.
-
The problem with the whole issue though is that both sides look at the history as a justification for the ****ty things they're doing now.
-
But we don't have to!
-
way to fix this is give everyone in the area nukes and let them have their own little cold war. it will either make em settle down or trigger the apocalypse, either way its a win win.
-
Oddly enough, the Nuke is a strange weapon as in it encourages the existence kind of people that would be smart enough to oppose it. In order to have an infrastructure that supports nuclear power or weapons, you need people who are well educated and imaginative.
Certainly, from Palestine's situation, an improvement to the infrastructure and industrialization of the area would encourage jobs and put people in a position where they can improve themselves. However the U.N. alone would never be allowed to do it, it would have to be the Arab League who played the main role, because any presence of Allied powers in these countries will be plagued by attacks from within Palestine itself.
You can imagine the odds of a deal of this type being worked out between the U.N. and the Arab League. Oddly enough the key may be in the up-and coming Far East countries like Korea, Japan or even China, but for the moment that is unlikely.
I do think personally that it would be a good gesture on Israels' part to be more pro-active with regards to the removal of the settlements, but it's a difficult political move, move too fast and people get nervous and vote in hardliners, and all the work gets undone again, it's one of the reasons Democracies can't do anything quickly.
What is needed, more than anything else, is room to breathe and for Palestine to have something to move towards, the more that people are looking to the future, the less they will look to the past, but until the Israel question itself is settled, Israel will continue to be forced to remain somewhat isolated from the surrounding world. It's that, final hurdle that I think will prove to be phenomenally difficult to get over.
-
The problem with the whole issue though is that both sides look at the history as a justification for the ****ty things they're doing now.
I'm pretty sure that, of the ****ty things happening right about now in Israel and Palestine, one side's justification is history, and the other's is "We're getting shot at right now."
-
Oddly enough, the Nuke is a strange weapon as in it encourages the existence kind of people that would be smart enough to oppose it. In order to have an infrastructure that supports nuclear power or weapons, you need people who are well educated and imaginative.
Problem is they can be purchased / assembled by those who aren't.
-
i'd say the problem is more that the smart ones who build/maintain them are not the ones making the decisions about their use.
-
Yup, that's the danger of just giving 'stuff' when what Palestine needs is the infrastructure to make its own stuff. Nuclear devices are probably a bit of an extreme example, to be honest, but generally a country that develops its own technology places extra weight in the hands of those who do that developing.
-
The problem with the whole issue though is that both sides look at the history as a justification for the ****ty things they're doing now.
I'm pretty sure that, of the ****ty things happening right about now in Israel and Palestine, one side's justification is history, and the other's is "We're getting shot at right now."
I'd suggest you talk to Sandwich some more then. Or look up some of his past comments on the issue.
Things are not as black and white as you like to claim.
-
I don't believe I've ever claimed that there is a black and a white in this situation. However, there are very clearly two shades of grey, and one is much darker than the other.
In the broadest sense, it's two sides of an argument where one side is screaming "Stop existing!" and the other shouting "No!". It baffles me how anyone can condemn the side saying "no" because the side calling for the total destruction of the other is deliberately trying to run up civilian casualties to use as PR ammo.
-
If you want to look at it that way. Or you could look at it as a completely oppressed, downtrodden group of people striking back at the people who keep them downtrodden. That's as stupidly simplistic as the view you just stated.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Choosing sides simply makes it seem like you're blind to one side or the other. I assure you if someone was espousing the Palestinian side I'd be spending just as much effort pointing out what a shower of bastards Hamas are. But then that is the issue, on one side we have a bunch of people who everyone knows are evil ****ers. No one tries to defend them.
But bizarrely no one wants to realise that the other side are also in the wrong about a great many things too. There are lot of reasons why Hamas can't just stop firing rockets. Acting like that is a practical solution is condescending and staggeringly naive.
-
i fail to see how launching rockets at civilians is accomplishing ANYTHING positive, unless you count the fact they get to play PR with the airstrikes it attracts. if that makes me naive, so be it.
-
I don't think it achieves anything either. I wish Hamas would try non-violent resistance instead. What makes people naive though is expecting them to and saying that since they won't, it doesn't matter how many Palestinian civilians die as a result.
Funny how many people think the conflict could be ended by Hamas stopping firing rockets. Does anyone honestly think that's going to happen?
-
As has been repeatedly stated above, Hamas can't stop firing rockets for any real amount of time because firing rockets is what keeps Hamas in power. They must try to destroy Israel or they have no reason to exist by their own admission. Hamas can't be non-violent without ceasing to exit.
That kind of circumstance doesn't leave much wiggle room.
-
That's kinda my point.
In which case washing your hands of the deaths of Palestinian civilians seems somewhat callous, neh? They're trapped with a very violent government who thinks nothing of using them as human shields and PR martyrs. And yet the response of many on this forum is to say "Well Israel is justified in killing them since they're the collateral damage in keeping Israeli citizens safe"
And if you really, honestly can't see why that is such a ****ty thing to say, I don't really see much point in continuing.
-
The Isreali government's choice is a very simple one.
1) Respond to the rocket strikes by taking out the rocket launch sites.
2) Respond to the rocket strikes by doing nothing.
One of the government's, any government's, most important duties is to protect its citizens. If the Israeli government stops taking out the rocket launch sites, it has failed as a governmental entity in the most basic sense, and they know that. They don't exactly have a legitimate choice in response.
So, really, despite being ****ty, if you honestly can't see why that's the only real course of action, I don't see much point in continuing.
-
Any thoughts from the militarily-knowledgable people here on the strategy of hunkering down behind the Iron Dome and waiting for Hamas to collapse? Can Hamas stay in power without provoking Israel into kicking the **** out of Palestine every few years? It seems like Israel is in prime position to deliver a knockout blow here if they can continue to improve that system. I mean sure it's expensive, but if it works, it's the best investment the country has ever made.
Hell, even liberal pussies like me would give them money for that (voluntarily, not through US taxes) if they would stop retaliating. They should do a kickstarter: $10,000,000,000 to improve our missile shield! If our goal is not met, your money will be refunded and the war will continue forever. Now that's a PR campaign.
-
I wonder what would happen if anybody actually tried that...
Honestly, sometimes I get the feeling that governments are way behind the times. Online fundraisers make millions, the entire internet has enormous political, economical and social potential which only corporations seem interested in exploiting. Meanwhile, governments only try to censor it and treat it like it was just another form of media, not much different from TV.
-
Swash:
Any idiot can tell you that the campaign promise for revenge on Israel/destroy Israel is one that Hamas has no chance of keeping. They were voted for on that platform anyways.
Israel has, one by one, blunted the weapons available to Hamas and the many other organizations that attempt such things. The rockets and Iron Dome are merely the latest manifestation of a pattern of events that stretches back generations. There's no reason to believe that a perfect Iron Dome system would end the violence; they'd keep ineffectively firing rockets while they looked for another way.
Arguably, that's what they've been doing all along. Compared to their previous campaigns with methodologies like suicide bombers, the rocket campaign has lasted a good ten years and been by far the least successful one they've ever set up, with one in one hundred (or less!) launches successfully injuring anyone.
Hamas will keep failing. But as long as they act like they're trying, Hamas will keep existing. Those who back them know full well they can't get results.
-
Israel has, one by one, blunted the weapons available to Hamas and the many other organizations that attempt such things. The rockets and Iron Dome are merely the latest manifestation of a pattern of events that stretches back generations. There's no reason to believe that a perfect Iron Dome system would end the violence; they'd keep ineffectively firing rockets while they looked for another way.
I wonder just for how long can they keep it up. Can they actually manufacture usable rockets in Gaza? Considering how many of them Israel blew up, and the number of launchers, I wonder if war of attrition would be a valid strategy for the Israel. I know that Hamas has foreign backers, but Gaza strip is completely surrounded by Israel from the land. An artillery rocket isn't something you can just smuggle under your coat. The only way anybody (my guess is Iran) could supply Hamas would be via sea. I'd say, a perfect Iron Dome coupled with a strict naval blockade would, sooner or later, lead to Hamas running out of things to fire at Israel. A few well executed commando raids could help hasten the process without the usual collateral damage airstrikes cause.
-
Israel has, one by one, blunted the weapons available to Hamas and the many other organizations that attempt such things. The rockets and Iron Dome are merely the latest manifestation of a pattern of events that stretches back generations. There's no reason to believe that a perfect Iron Dome system would end the violence; they'd keep ineffectively firing rockets while they looked for another way.
I wonder just for how long can they keep it up. Can they actually manufacture usable rockets in Gaza? Considering how many of them Israel blew up, and the number of launchers, I wonder if war of attrition would be a valid strategy for the Israel. I know that Hamas has foreign backers, but Gaza strip is completely surrounded by Israel from the land. An artillery rocket isn't something you can just smuggle under your coat. The only way anybody (my guess is Iran) could supply Hamas would be via sea. I'd say, a perfect Iron Dome coupled with a strict naval blockade would, sooner or later, lead to Hamas running out of things to fire at Israel. A few well executed commando raids could help hasten the process without the usual collateral damage airstrikes cause.
Hamas is supplied with arms by Iran through Egypt and via sea (despite the blockade). They aren't running out anytime in the forseeable future.
-
Well, the naval blockade is obviously not doing it's job then. Can't their radar cover the whole coast of the Gaza strip? You can't really smuggle rockets in a dinghy either, those smuggling ships should be detectable. As for Egyptian route, there's still a sizable patch of Israeli soil between Egypt and Gaza. I would expect it to be pretty heavily blockaded, I wonder how those smugglers sneak past. AFAIK, to carry a load of artillery rockets you need a pretty big cargo truck, and they aren't easy to hide in aid packages.
-
Tunnels?
-
Yes.
-
Hamas will keep failing. But as long as they act like they're trying, Hamas will keep existing. Those who back them know full well they can't get results.
Well I wouldn't expect them to cease existing overnight, but could they remain the dominant political force indefinitely if they were the only ones killing Palestinians? I guess what I'm wondering is whether the short term benefits of the Israeli airstrikes (a temporary halt in rocket attacks, possibly other things I'm unaware of) are worth caving in and giving Hamas the Palastinian casualties it wants. If Israel has to win the long game, isn't Gaza's internal power struggle the key front here?
-
But then Israel would be risking short term casualties. If they do nothing but intercept rockets, the moment one rocket goes through and kills civilians, the Israelis would get really pissed at the current regime, which may culminate to electing a more hawkish leader.
Supposing that a rocket goes through and Israel does nothing: isn't that what Hamas wants as well? The Palestinians in Gaza got to kill their enemies without losing anything. Hamas would stay elected.
Another thing to consider: Hamas isn't stupid. I don't think they would start killing "treacherous" Palestinians if they know that it will hurt them. There's a reason why they built rockets in populated areas. There's a reason why they terrorize their own people and get away with it.
I'm not familiar with the subject, but from what I've been reading, it'd be inhumane for me to condemn Israel for this particular issue.
-
Well I wouldn't expect them to cease existing overnight, but could they remain the dominant political force indefinitely if they were the only ones killing Palestinians?
Governments remaining the dominant political force indefinitely while being the only ones killing their own citizens isn't exactly abnormal. They have a ready-made external enemy to rally against. That enemy acting against them directly isn't always necessary for this sort of thing (hi Iran, Soviet Union).
-
See, this is the problem with the peace process :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20552391
Seems a pretty petulant move from the Israeli authorities here, Palestine get recognition at the UN, and Israel promised to 'act accordingly', the next day this happens. I give it a week or two before the rockets start again at this rate.
-
See, this is the problem with the peace process :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20552391
Seems a pretty petulant move from the Israeli authorities here, Palestine get recognition at the UN, and Israel promised to 'act accordingly', the next day this happens. I give it a week or two before the rockets start again at this rate.
I really don't understand Israel's logic:
1) Country you dislike gets UN recognition, which allows it to use the ICC.
2) Break geneva conventions in said country.
3) Profit!
-
I suspect that you will see 'urbanisation' turning to 'fortification' before long. Yesterdays' vote will have given weight to the hardliners in Israel, as I've said before, the speed of the change is essential, it's like trying to steer an asteroid on a collision course with the planet, you need gentle pressure over a long period of time.
Those settlements are certainly the crux of the argument, Palestine specifically stated talks would not resume whilst those settlements were being built, so it's no surprise the retaliation came from that direction. I suppose that at the very least, political rattle-throwing is better than munitions flying back and forth, though I suspect that is how it will end.
-
Seems to me that both sides need to start small if there is any chance to make any sort of progress at all. Way I understand it the West Bank hasn't been nearly as volatile as the Gaza strip in recent years. Perhaps they should start there creating a Palestinian state out of just the West Bank and what ever agreement can be made about Jerusalem during negations. Negations start primarily with deciding final boarders which should handle the whole settlement issue in the process. Gaza and the West Bank are too different now a days to ever really unite them as a single state any way. If after a while the West Bank works out as it's own state then perhaps Gaza can enter negotiations for themselves.
-
If Gaza becomes a state, then things get really messy for them the second they start launching rocket attacks at Israel, which would be an act of aggressive war by one sovereign nation against another. A quick browse on Wikipedia also says those who don't act in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention can't legally claim its protections as prisoners of war
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention)
There's also some rules governing resistance forces, both organized and non-organized, saying they have to carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war, so Israel is fully entitled to summarily execute people with hidden bomb vests who intend to detonate in civilian areas.
So basically, if Gaza goes independent and starts launching rockets at civilian centers, those are all war crimes and if they don't obey the rules regarding any prisoners they take (so no using them as hostages, proper medical care and food, etc.), Israel has the legal right to start blamming any Gazan with a firearm since they're enemy combatants.
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.
Note that this means the guys we picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan don't get the protections entitled to prisoners of war since they "no longer act under the strictures of the convention". Yes, that means waterboarding them is perfectly legal under the Third Geneva Convention since they aren't entitled to its protection since beheading prisoners and intentionally targeting noncombatants violate the terms of the Third Geneva Convention.
EDIT: I'm not saying waterboarding and the rest of that is ethical or moral. Just legal like a lot of other unsavory activities like employment as a lawyer.
-
Seems a pretty petulant move from the Israeli authorities here
Assumption: this wasn't exactly what was intended by the UN vote. Everyone knew it would happen. Lots of people think they're accomplishing something by tying up Israel like this. (They're not, ask the Soviet Union about how well it worked funding terrorists in Western Europe.)
-
Well it pretty much proves what I've been saying this entire time, neither side really wants peace.
-
Seems a pretty petulant move from the Israeli authorities here
Assumption: this wasn't exactly what was intended by the UN vote. Everyone knew it would happen. Lots of people think they're accomplishing something by tying up Israel like this. (They're not, ask the Soviet Union about how well it worked funding terrorists in Western Europe.)
True, everyone knew there would be a reaction and where that reaction would be targeted, however, I'll disagree that this was the purpose of the vote. I'll certainly agree there was a large degree of nose-thumbing at Israel involved, but the Media machines of both sides are running like crazy at the moment, there'll be all sorts of rumours and reasons around as to why the 'Yes' vote won. It's down to the phsychological/political battle now.
-
Well it pretty much proves what I've been saying this entire time, neither side really wants peace.
But now we can safely blame Israel for being immoral.
-
But only partially. Gaza is still control by religious fanatics. And thus people will continue to suffer under both sides. I only wish that this could end sooner, but at the very least it's going to take decades before people from both sides can reasonably claim that they are safe and that they are not suffering under oppression.
-
Well, I don't see how can you call somebody "partially immoral". That conflict was full of hypocrisy and immorality since it started. Both sides had a part in this. It's a purely political conflict usually presented as religious/moral one. Neither Islam nor Judaism (nor any serious religion, for that matter) would define the actions of either side as right. See through all this blasted ideology and religion, and you'll see two dogs wanting the same bone, nothing more. TBH, since Israel is a recently created country, I'd side with Palestinians if they weren't so extremist, since they were there first.
Palestinians want freedom and their own state. Since I come from a recently liberated country (one with a history of being occupied, too), I can understand them. Israel's methods are only a bit different from methods used against Poland, and that's only because the times are different. On the other hand, Israelis also have a right to live, and Palestinians' methods of fighting for freedom aren't very laudable either (though consistent with other freedom fighting movements). Religious fanaticism is a side effect of occupation, but also a result of the times and the fact Israel has a different official religion.
Poland has seen all this, in some form, over 200 years of occupation (and yes, the Catholic Church was one of the most important bastions of Polish national identity). When seen from, say, (Tsarist) Russian perspective, they were fanatical catholic terrorists. There are many parallels between Palestinian situation now and Polish situation before WWI. The only difference between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" is who's writing about them.
I'd say, Israelis should give up Gaza and West Bank, they have enough other territories. Let Palestinians form an independent country in those areas, even if it means having fanatics rule there. Have UN supervise the newly formed country so that there can be free elections in there (I don't see Hamas getting re-elected after what they've done). As for Jerusalem, it should be made an independent territory supervised by UN and open to everybody, no matter the religion. That way, Muslims, Jews and Christians can access their holy city without being shot at. I don't see this being resolved without UN being involved.
-
I am referring to the who gets the blame, of course. Your point is also very valid: I vaguely remember about Poland's situation in WW1. I was wondering if anyone thought that this was similar in some respects.
-
I'd side with Palestinians if they weren't so extremist, since they were there first.
Simplistic statements like this are why most people shouldn't try to invoke history in saving how the dispute should be settled. The area has been under conflict for literally millenia. However, as Islam wasn't established as a religion until well after Judaism and the Palestinian cultural identity is not ethnic (Palestinians are primarily, but not exclusively, ethnic Arabs, as are a good number of Jews) but actually religious, the Jews actually have a better "I was here first" claim than do Muslims. But all of that is complicated by the number of religions that have held the area (by my rough estimate over the last 4000 years, there are at least 6, 3 of which still exist today) and the number of times control has changed hands (not even going to attempt to figure that out), "who was there first" is a stupid way to resolve the issues.
I'd say, Israelis should give up Gaza and West Bank, they have enough other territories. Let Palestinians form an independent country in those areas, even if it means having fanatics rule there. Have UN supervise the newly formed country so that there can be free elections in there (I don't see Hamas getting re-elected after what they've done). As for Jerusalem, it should be made an independent territory supervised by UN and open to everybody, no matter the religion. That way, Muslims, Jews and Christians can access their holy city without being shot at. I don't see this being resolved without UN being involved.
Gaza is not a territorial component of Israel. Hasn't been since 2005. Parts of the West Bank are under Israeli control, but they aren't considered (internationally) to be part of territorial Israel either - none of the West Bank is.
The primary - and only legitimate, IMHO - Israeli argument against allowing the PA/PLO to establish nation states in the entirety of the West Bank is that whoever does that must guarantee the security of Israel's borders, and while Abbas is probably the person most likely to do this in the forseeable future, we still aren't there yet. Settlements are being used to establish Israeli territorial claims (even though the international community won't accept them) to create buffer zones against Israel's main territory and keep the primary attacks away from population centers.
The settlements issue is a dick move on Israel's part and always has been, and if they'd quit with the stubborness on that issue we might see everyone back at the bargaining table. However, as it has been since 1948, the real elephant in the room is the existence of the state of Israel in the first place. The PA/PLO has acknowledged Israel's right to exist, but hasn't guaranteed its security. Israel in turn won't quit with the settlements until it has such a guarantee. Thus, impasse. Kara is right - at this point in time, the only people who want peace are the civilians on both sides who are tired of getting rocketed, bombed, shot at, and burying family members.
As for the UN vote - it's disappointing in that the UN has long established the conflict needs to be settled by joint negotiation rather than unilateral action, and it's unfortunate that it has turned away from that principle. That said, the PA may have made a tactical mistake as they can be dragged into the ICC for war crimes now just as easily as Israel, and the declaration includes Gaza and the Hamas loonies. Wonder if they thought that one through...
-
I should also say, and this deserves a separate post, that there was a novel and interesting proposal in Time magazine a number of years ago where they argued quite persuasively that the best solution in the here and now might be to park a force of international troops on Israel's borders to say "you, on that side, and you, on that side! stay there, mind your own business, and don't mess with your neighbour!" essentially. It's not a completely insane idea, providing they parked on the pre-1967 borders.
-
The problem would be where to get troops from of sufficient quality who wouldn't be seen as partisan for one side or the other. Basically you've already ruled out the Western and Arab worlds, the US is going to veto using large numbers of Chinese or Russian troops and no one else really has the manpower to spare in the numbers that would be needed.
-
I should also say, and this deserves a separate post, that there was a novel and interesting proposal in Time magazine a number of years ago where they argued quite persuasively that the best solution in the here and now might be to park a force of international troops on Israel's borders to say "you, on that side, and you, on that side! stay there, mind your own business, and don't mess with your neighbour!" essentially. It's not a completely insane idea, providing they parked on the pre-1967 borders.
It'd be an empty threat. If Israel decides to march troops past the hypothetical international forces into Palestine, no neutral party is going to start a shooting war over it.
-
I should also say, and this deserves a separate post, that there was a novel and interesting proposal in Time magazine a number of years ago where they argued quite persuasively that the best solution in the here and now might be to park a force of international troops on Israel's borders to say "you, on that side, and you, on that side! stay there, mind your own business, and don't mess with your neighbour!" essentially. It's not a completely insane idea, providing they parked on the pre-1967 borders.
I recall a similar solution in one of the Tom Clancy novels where in exchange for allowing a state to form the US established a joint NTC with Israel. The idea being that Israel's security concerns would be put to rest if a major US training unit was stationed there with a constant rotation of American and Israeli forces conducting joint training exercises. Not sure if that idea would work or even be sustainable.
-
US is firmly on Israeli side, so I'm afraid this wouldn't be the best solution. Whoever would enforce such thing should be completely nonpartisan and US doesn't fulfill the requirement. This could work, but would be risky and prone to abuse.
"who was there first" is a stupid way to resolve the issues.
I know it's not a good way to resolve issues, but it's a valid point to consider. It was Israeli who came in there, and Palestinians who were there. Jews' claims to territory are based on religion, while Palestinians' claims are based on living there. I know it's an oversimplification, but I doubt a common Palestinian citizen was going to delve into religious/historical dispute after being chased out of his home by a bunch of foreigners.
I'll respond to the rest later.
-
religion shouldn't even come into this. the fact that it's considered their "holy land" doesn't automatically make their claim purely religious and invalid. they DID live there and were forcibly removed. that's just historical fact, no matter what consideration you give to the religion.
-
It's also holy to the Muslims and Christians though, and has been own by both of those too at some point, so that makes it a wash.
Especially since the Jews only got hold of the land in the first place by kicking out or killing everyone who had the land before them. Pretty hard to claim "It was our country 2000 years but we got kicked out" when that's pretty much what you did to the people who had it before you.
-
well, the big difference is they made sure there were no survivors to claim the land after.
-
It's also holy to the Muslims and Christians though, and has been own by both of those too at some point, so that makes it a wash.
Especially since the Jews only got hold of the land in the first place by kicking out or killing everyone who had the land before them. Pretty hard to claim "It was our country 2000 years but we got kicked out" when that's pretty much what you did to the people who had it before you.
Exactly my point - you can't use history to decide who was there first because it has changed hands so many times (and between so many religions) that I don't think anyone could actually sort it out.
Better to deal with there here and now.
-
religion shouldn't even come into this. the fact that it's considered their "holy land" doesn't automatically make their claim purely religious and invalid. they DID live there and were forcibly removed. that's just historical fact, no matter what consideration you give to the religion.
However, this happened 2000 years ago. I think there aren't any Jews (other than Palestinian ones, that is) who can claim that his/her family lived there since grandfather's grandfather. You could easily find a Palestinian who could make such claim. Just imagine that: You're living in your house in Central America (which your family has owned for a century and a half), when suddenly, a bunch of Apaches comes around and tells you to pack your bags, since 200 years ago, they had their village there and they've been chased off by the Pioneers. Would you oblige and move out, being left with no place to call home, or would you go to court?
It might be that I come from a country where this was commonplace. It still is, BTW. There's a lot of friction between "rightful" owners of some lands and buildings and the new ones, who bought them after Communists stole and divided them. Israeli/Palestinian dispute is easy compared to those, since in both cases, the claims are very recent (30-60 years ago vs. 70 years ago instead of 70 years ago vs. 2000 years ago). Of course, Poland being what it is, in most cases it ends with the old owners (often Germans, because of WWII border changes) coming and throwing whoever lived in the place to the street. Those people end up with no place to live, while the old owners usually have another house, maybe even several. Do you think it's a good thing?
-
I think there aren't any Jews (other than Palestinian ones, that is) who can claim that his/her family lived there since grandfather's grandfather.
Hi.
You're wrong.
There are people on all three religious claimants living in the area who can trace their lineage in the area to before the Crusades, if not longer.
-
Wanted to stop by and drop this here before responding to a few comments:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/m-what_i_saw_during_operation_pillar_of_defense.html
Also, I'm proud of you guys for keeping this so civil. :yes:
I do think personally that it would be a good gesture on Israels' part to be more pro-active with regards to the removal of the settlements...
We did that when we pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza, and in both cases we were rewarded with happy-happy joy-joy feelings of peace and lov-oh, wait. :blah:
Well, the naval blockade is obviously not doing it's job then. Can't their radar cover the whole coast of the Gaza strip? You can't really smuggle rockets in a dinghy either, those smuggling ships should be detectable. As for Egyptian route, there's still a sizable patch of Israeli soil between Egypt and Gaza. I would expect it to be pretty heavily blockaded, I wonder how those smugglers sneak past. AFAIK, to carry a load of artillery rockets you need a pretty big cargo truck, and they aren't easy to hide in aid packages.
Tunnels. The network of tunnels they have is ridiculous. At one point there was talk of digging a huge trench between Gaza and Egypt and flooding it with seawater. Not sure what the latest is on that, but I doubt it'll happen as long as they keep the ceasefire (and it looks good so far (https://twitter.com/QassamCount)).
Another thing to consider: Hamas isn't stupid. I don't think they would start killing "treacherous" Palestinians if they know that it will hurt them. There's a reason why they built rockets in populated areas. There's a reason why they terrorize their own people and get away with it.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but they did execute 6 suspected collaborators (18+ link): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e49_1353437540
Those settlements are certainly the crux of the argument, Palestine specifically stated talks would not resume whilst those settlements were being built, so it's no surprise the retaliation came from that direction. I suppose that at the very least, political rattle-throwing is better than munitions flying back and forth, though I suspect that is how it will end.
Actually, Israel clearly informed the PA that if it made such a unilateral move, we would make this move with the settlements. I don't know any more details about that specifically, though.
Also, here's something that puzzles me. Everyone recognizes that the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and that the PA charter and education system literally does not have Israel on the maps and calls the entire country "Palestine". And yet whenever the settlement issue comes up, suddenly Side A's goal of annihilating Side B is no longer a factor - no, now the crux of the matter is that Side B is building houses. I mean, :wtf:
And the whole "this has to happen for us to come to the negotiation table" shpiel? What is this, negotiation-ception? That's what negotiating is all about - finding the smallest bit of common ground, grabbing on to it, and then finding another bit of common ground. Preconditions to negotiations is an excuse, nothing more.
I'd say, Israelis should give up Gaza and West Bank, they have enough other territories.
Have you seen a map of the Middle-East in the last, oh, few hundred years?
(http://staff.hard-light.net/sandwich/images/end-the-unjust-Jewish-occupation-of-Muslim-land.jpg)
-
I know Israel is dinky compared to the rest of Muslim world. I meant that I don't think it really needs additional territories, especially troublesome ones. From what I've seen, Israel isn't crowded enough to need a bigger border.
There are people on all three religious claimants living in the area who can trace their lineage in the area to before the Crusades, if not longer.
I know. That's why I mentioned Palestinian Jews, who obviously did live there just like every other Palestinian. The point was, Israel was formed by foreigners, and the majority of it's population, as well as it's dominant culture, came in recently. Also, if somebody lived around there, but left during The Crusades and didn't came back until now, then it's just as flimsy of a territory claim as ones from 2000 years ago. I don't know what was the situation of Palestinian Jews before Israel was formed, but I don't think it was too bad.
-
Have you seen a map of the Middle-East in the last, oh, few hundred years?
Ah, but you're assuming that all Muslims are the same. Do the same thing with Palestinian countries. :p
-
I know. That's why I mentioned Palestinian Jews, who obviously did live there just like every other Palestinian. The point was, Israel was formed by foreigners, and the majority of it's population, as well as it's dominant culture, came in recently.
See, that's the bit of history that I'm still foggy on. Just how many people of Jewish descent were living in the overall Palestinian area as of 1948, and where exactly? Though it was never actually implemented as such, the UN Partition Plan did seem to be based on areas of land ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_division), and the overall outline roughly corresponds to the modern West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights. The picture this all paints is a lot more complicated than a statement like, "The UN kicked out Arabs to make room for Jews."
-
Yeah but many of the Jews there in 1948 weren't there in 1900. There had been several waves of immigration before 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#History
Note that in 1922 Jews were 13% of the population but by 1946 they were 33%
-
Another thing to consider: Hamas isn't stupid. I don't think they would start killing "treacherous" Palestinians if they know that it will hurt them. There's a reason why they built rockets in populated areas. There's a reason why they terrorize their own people and get away with it.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that, but they did execute 6 suspected collaborators (18+ link): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e49_1353437540
That's exactly what I meant. They can terrorize their own people and get away with it. If they couldn't, they won't be doing so.
-
Yeah but many of the Jews there in 1948 weren't there in 1900. There had been several waves of immigration before 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#History
Note that in 1922 Jews were 13% of the population but by 1946 they were 33%
That kind of gets back to the whole question of exactly where we're supposed to draw a historical line, though. From that article, it seems like there were disputes over settlements in the 1920s, but hell if I can determine which side was in the right, or if such a "right" even existed either way.
-
--> Ignore historical. Just draw a line based on current population, and stick with it. With UN peacekeepers to beat the crap out of anyone who messes with it.
-
That leaves the question of what to do with the Israeli Arabs, the majority of whom do not want to live under the PA after having tasted the freedom of capitalism under Israel. The population is far more intermingled here than I think most of you realize, and by and large, where the populace is intermingled, the populace also gets along wonderfully. It's mainly when the Arabs are isolated under the PA/Hamas that they start causing trouble.
-
And here we can reach into history of Poland again, just after WWI. Let them vote on where they want to live. There were territories in which there was plenty of mingled German/Polish population, and plebiscites were held to decide how the territories were to be divided. Granted, since among them there were strategic areas (Silesia, bristling with coal mines and refineries), the Germans cheated and the Polish organized an uprising. Though it did work in other, less important areas.
In Israel, this should go better, since IIRC, the conflict areas aren't very resource-rich, and the divisions are much cleaner (not to mention today's UN isn't the old League of Nations, and botches such things much less frequently). It's not really about ethnicity or religion, but about national identity. If an Arab feels Israeli, then let him/her be Israeli. If a Jew feels Palestinian, nothing stops him/her from voting so.
-
If a Jew feels Palestinian, nothing stops him/her from voting so.
Actually... that's a life-threatening situation, and is not permitted from the PA's side. IIRC.
-
Haha! :rolleyes:
The Deadly Israeli House
(by Daniel Greenfield - FrontPage.com - December 5th, 2012)
There are few weapons as deadly as the Israeli house. When its bricks and mortar are combined together, the house, whether it is one of those modest one-story hilltop affairs or a five-floor apartment building complete with hot and cold running water, becomes far more dangerous than anything green and glowing that comes out of the Iranian centrifuges.
Forget the cluster bomb and the mine, the poison gas shell and even tailored viruses. Iran can keep its nuclear bombs. They don’t impress anyone in Europe or in Washington, DC. Genocide is equally not worthy of attention when in the presence of the fearsome weapon of terror that is an Israeli family of four moving into a new apartment downwind from Jerusalem.
Sudan may have built a small mountain of African corpses, but it can’t expect to command the full and undivided attention of the world until it does something truly outrageous like building a house and filling it with Jews. Since the Sudanese Jews are as gone as the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, Syria and good old Afghanistan, the chances of Bashir the Butcher pulling off that trick are rather slim.
Due to the Muslim world’s shortsightedness in driving out its Jews from Cairo, Aleppo and Baghdad to Jerusalem, the ultimate weapon in international affairs is entirely controlled by the Jewish State. The Jewish State’s stockpile of Jews should worry the international community far more than its hypothetical stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No one besides Israel cares much about the Iranian bomb. But when Israel builds a house, then the international community tears its clothes, wails, threatens to recall its ambassadors and boycott Israeli peaches.
You can spit on the White House carpets and steal all the gold in Greece. You can blow up anything you like and threaten anyone you will, but you had better not lift a drill near Gilgal, where Joshua and a few million escaped Hebrew slaves pitched their camp.
Obama has yet to respond to the Muslim Brotherhood coup in Egypt. The gangs of paid rapists assaulting women in Tahrir Square on behalf of the Sharia state are nothing for the White House to worry about. Everyone has their standards and he and the international community have theirs. There are things that we all cannot abide. And for all the Miss America answers about ending war, hunger and people who wear plaid in public, the one thing that everyone will stand up against or sit down in opposition to is the Israeli house.
White House officials are already insisting that Netanyahu “humiliated” Obama by authorizing the building of houses. This is the worst Israeli crime since two years ago when the city of Jerusalem passed some houses through one stage of a multi-stage approval process while Biden was visiting the country.
Hillary called it an insult and spent two hours yelling at Netanyahu over the phone. Axelrod declared it an affront. Biden was so furious that he refused to come down for dinner until an hour later. For weeks the media howled that Netanyahu had humiliated Obama through the dastardly act of allowing one of the country’s mayors to approve housing while the sacred presence of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was intersecting with Israeli airspace.
Now that Netanyahu has gone to the mattresses, literally, by authorizing new housing, the media has begun braying that Israel has humiliated Obama all over again. They say that every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings. But every time an Israeli jackhammer roars, Obama stands, like that famous trash-mourning fake Indian, off Highway 1 between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with a tear slowly making its way down one glistening cheek at the sight of another humiliating Israeli house.
According to the New York Times, which is never wrong, building more houses makes peace impossible. Peace, which is not in any way obstructed by rockets, suicide bombers, unilateral statehood bids and declarations of war, comes up against only one obstacle. The stout unyielding wall of the Israeli house. You can shell Israeli houses, bomb them and break inside to massacre the people living inside, but then after all that, Israel goes and builds more of those darned things.
Hamas shoots thousands of rockets and Israel builds thousands of houses. But Israeli houses generally stay where they’re built, while Hamas rockets are as likely to kill Gazans as they are to put holes in the roofs of those dastardly houses. And in the arms race between houses and rockets, the Israelis appear to be winning. And that’s not good for peace. If Israelis get the dangerous idea that they can just keep building houses and outlast all the talented rocketeers who spend their time with the Koran in front of one eye and the Anarchist’s Cookbook in front of the other, then what hope is there for peace?
That is why no one cares much about Hamas rockets, which only kill Israelis, who most reasonable people in London, Paris and Brussels think have it coming anyway, but get into a foaming lather about an Israeli house. Killing Israelis has never been any obstacle to peace. Twenty years of killing Israelis has not dissuaded a single Israeli government from sitting down at the table to dicker with the terrorists. But an Israeli family living in a house is holding down territory that it will be harder to then cede to terrorists.
This peace plan, which has worked as well as fighting fire with gasoline, has not in any way been endangered by two decades of terror, but trembles down to its toes every time an Israeli hammer falls on an Israeli nail in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Because that land must go back so that rockets can be shot from it into Israel, so that Israel can invade it and reclaim it, and then sit down for another peace process to return the land from which the rockets will be fired, which will be invaded, which will be given back… for peace.
And Israeli houses endanger this cycle of peace and violence. They endanger it by creating “facts on the ground,” a piquant phrase that only seems to apply to houses with Jews. Muslim houses in no way create facts on the ground, even though they are built out of the same material and filled with people. Or perhaps they create the good kind of facts on the ground. The kind of preemption of negotiations that the professional peacemakers approve of.
UN Chief Ban Ki-moon has declared Israeli houses to be an “almost fatal blow” to the peace process. It is, of course, only an “almost fatal blow” because the peace process, like Dracula, cannot be killed. Israeli houses, fearsome as they may be with their balconies and poor heating in winter, are never quite enough to kill it.
Like the monster of a horror movie, the peace process always comes back and no matter how many blows the Israeli house delivers to it, a year later there’s a sequel where the Israeli house is being stalked by the peace process monster all over again.
The army of lethal Israeli houses, which may not be built for another five years, if ever, seem formidable in the black newsprint of the New York Times, in the fulminations of Guardian columnists and the shrill talkingpointation of CNN talking heads, but its actual potency is limited to housing Jewish families and infuriating international diplomats and their media coat hangers.
Europe is furious, Obama is seething, the UN is energized, and somewhere in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wipes the grease out of his mustache and wonders what he could do to get this much attention. He briefly scribbles down some thoughts on a napkin but then dismisses it as being too implausible. As much as it might get the world’s attention, there is just no way Iran can put up apartment buildings in Jerusalem.
-
If you want America to stop telling you off, stop taking their money.
-
If a Jew feels Palestinian, nothing stops him/her from voting so.
Actually... that's a life-threatening situation, and is not permitted from the PA's side. IIRC.
Even on the West Bank? I thought this was only Hamas' stance, does Fatah also have a problem with it?
Anyway, this would just make the plebiscite simpler. All Jews to Israel, and Arabs get to choose which country they want to live in.
-
If you want America to stop telling you off, stop taking their money.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps America wants a stable ally in the region?
Even on the West Bank? I thought this was only Hamas' stance, does Fatah also have a problem with it?
As far as I'm aware, it's very much not allowed. Heck, Israelis have literally been slaughtered for taking a wrong turn and ending up in Ramallah (a West Bank city).
Anyway, this would just make the plebiscite simpler. All Jews to Israel, and Arabs get to choose which country they want to live in.
Are you saying the dozens of Arab states in the region aren't enough? That they can overrun Israel demographically as well, while the Jews can only have their half-state? :wtf:
-
If you want America to stop telling you off, stop taking their money.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps America wants a stable ally in the region?
Did it ever occur to you that the entire argument you posted basically consists of "Two wrongs do make a right" The argument that America should stop telling you that you're wrong because they don't tell other countries they don't have as close a tie with that they are wrong is flawed at best.
You take their money, that gives them the right to tell you what to do with it. Don't like it, stop taking it.
-
Also, houses in another country's territory are just as big a violation of the Geneva conventions as rocketing civilians is. And I am quite sure that Israel has signed those Geneva conventions.
-
If you want America to stop telling you off, stop taking their money.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps America wants a stable ally in the region?
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they want.
Which would be why they're telling the ally that they're subsidizing the existence of to take actions conducive to stability.
-
Anyway, this would just make the plebiscite simpler. All Jews to Israel, and Arabs get to choose which country they want to live in.
Are you saying the dozens of Arab states in the region aren't enough? That they can overrun Israel demographically as well, while the Jews can only have their half-state? :wtf:
That's rather thinly veiled racism. Both Arabs and Jews are people. If the "Arab states" don't allow Jews just because they're Jews, then it's a sign of a primitive way of thinking. If an Arabian Muslim feels Israeli, he/she should be allowed to be Israeli without changing religion, regardless of ethnicity. Just don't expect Islam being pandered to as in other Arab states. It should also work the other way, but it seems that Israel's neighbors have yet to grow up to understand this. Throwing Arabs out of Israel because they're Arabs is just as racist as throwing Jews out of a country just because they're Jews. Jews, of all people, should understand this, having been thrown out a lot of countries before. Responding to racism with racism never did any good.
I don't believe Arabian culture could overtake Israeli one. As long as separation of church and state is maintained, Islam and Judaism should be able to coexist in peace. Some won't like it, but if the laws would favor neither, it shouldn't be a problem. I think that Israel ran like a civilized, progressive, secular country is what is needed to bring progress to the region. Also, I don't think there's hope of purging Arabian culture from the region without committing atrocities. It would be much better to give it equal rights to Jewish one. If care would be taken to make sure both cultures are equally treated, I believe both Israeli Jews and Arabs would be happy, and some less extreme Arab states would have an easier time accepting it (of course, extremists would just declare Israeli Muslims "traitors", but that's to be expected with extremists).
-
That's rather thinly veiled racism. Both Arabs and Jews are people. If the "Arab states" don't allow Jews just because they're Jews, then it's a sign of a primitive way of thinking. If an Arabian Muslim feels Israeli, he/she should be allowed to be Israeli without changing religion, regardless of ethnicity.
Is this actualy based on religion? As far as I know, there are plenty of atheist Jews. Isnt it about culture or ethnicity? Because those are valid reasons to discriminate when it comes to citizenship or immigration. Every country has a right to protect its culture and ethnicity.
And anyway, I wouldnt call it racism. Religion is not a race. Just plain old bigotry.
-
:confused: How can you be a Jewish atheist? You can be an Israeli atheist...
-
Jewish refers to both a race and a religion.
-
Is this actualy based on religion? As far as I know, there are plenty of atheist Jews. Isnt it about culture or ethnicity? Because those are valid reasons to discriminate when it comes to citizenship or immigration. Every country has a right to protect its culture and ethnicity.
And anyway, I wouldnt call it racism. Religion is not a race. Just plain old bigotry.
I think we've ran into a miscommunication here. The problem with the term "Jew" is that it refers both to an ethnicity (not a race if we want to get technical, but "racism" is also applied to ethnic hatred) and a religion. So, you can have a Jewish Atheist, or an Arabian Jew. "Israeli" is a nationality, so it doesn't work here. I generally used the former meaning in my previous post (hence, talking about racism and not religious bigotry), but a few times I had to use the latter (generally, when I talk about Jews and Muslims, I mean religion, and when I talk about Jews and Arabs, I mean ethnicity). Often, ethnic Jews are religious Jews, but it's not universally the case. It'd be easier to discuss this issue if the language didn't encourage equating one with the other, and cause confusion if you try not to.
-
That's rather thinly veiled racism.
What the actual ****.
You're talking about separation of church and state and racial equality and crap like that, and Dragon, I hate to say this, but it means you have no presence in this discussion because you have no idea what you're talking about. None of this is present within the context of this discussion. Zero. The PA, Hamas, etc. are all self-identified as the champions of Muslim Arabs. Israel is a self-identified Jewish state. The idea that a majority will not attempt to use its majority to claim special privileges for itself is also laughably false, and as exhibit A I present to you all of human history.
And what is all this "feels" supposed to mean? If I "feel" Mexican today, can I go cross the border and vote there? I'll need to "feel" American again soon though, to vote in my own country. What is this supposed to mean? It's clearly not a "path to citizenship" you're suggesting, because you think the effects should be immediate. It's clearly not based in any kind of rule of law, and if you want to run the area on gusts of emotion, well, see its existing history for how that's worked out?
Would you please refer to some kind of actual reality? Something of relevance to the discussion, showing that you have a basic grounding in the facts of the matter? All you've done so far is betray your biases as someone who grew up in the West.
-
Self determination. Falkland islands.
Just because the people we're talking about don't believe in the same principles doesn't mean we should abandon our own.
-
That's rather thinly veiled racism.
And what is all this "feels" supposed to mean? If I "feel" Mexican today, can I go cross the border and vote there? I'll need to "feel" American again soon though, to vote in my own country. What is this supposed to mean? It's clearly not a "path to citizenship" you're suggesting, because you think the effects should be immediate. It's clearly not based in any kind of rule of law, and if you want to run the area on gusts of emotion, well, see its existing history for how that's worked out?
You didn't understand what I was saying. I was talking about a sense of belonging to one's nation. Is there a nation you can point to and say "I'm one of them"? That's what I meant. If you feel Mexican, then you move to Mexico and stay there. It's not like anything stops you from filling in the paperwork, getting a place to live and a job in there. If the Mexicans don't want you there for some reason or the other (I don't know what's the current immigration policy in there), you can still support them (buy Mexican products, support Mexican immigrants to America) and declare yourself Mexican. You don't need to feel American in order to vote, I would expect a Mexican with a right to vote in America to vote on whoever supports his/her country the most (for example, wants to increase trade, open the border up, increase economic aid, tighten diplomatic bonds, etc.). I talked about "feeling" Jewish or Palestinian in context of people choosing which country they want to live in. It has nothing to do with running an area, just with each individual person deciding who they want to be ruled by. National identity is a perfectly valid reason to prefer one country over another.
You're talking about separation of church and state and racial equality and crap like that, and Dragon, I hate to say this, but it means you have no presence in this discussion because you have no idea what you're talking about. None of this is present within the context of this discussion. Zero. The PA, Hamas, etc. are all self-identified as the champions of Muslim Arabs. Israel is a self-identified Jewish state. The idea that a majority will not attempt to use its majority to claim special privileges for itself is also laughably false, and as exhibit A I present to you all of human history.
You're talking like this was a good thing. A small hint: it's not. If it happened a lot of times in history, it still doesn't make it right. Yes, the majority will want special rights for itself, but they shouldn't discriminate the minority. The government is supposed to ensure that, and it does, more or less, in most countries.
You're right, neither separation of church and state nor ethnic equality frequently come up in the region we're talking about. Don't you think they should? Saying that people are in some way better/worse just because they're Jews/Arabs is racism. There's a matter of different culture and religion, but shouldn't this be separated from government? There's nothing wrong with Jewish culture dominating in Israel, but Palestinian one should not be forbidden. Likewise, in PA, Jewish culture shouldn't be forbidden even if it doesn't dominate. I'm not denying that there should be two different countries, but I think that it should be up to people in which one they want to live, and not some arbitrary force. And yes, I'm aware it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. I'm talking about what things should be like, not what they are.
-
Well it's all well and good to come up with a simplistic notion of what should happen in Israel but it's pretty pointless doing it because every single person on the board can do it for themselves.
It's only worth suggesting what should be done if you have something practical to suggest. Otherwise you might as well say that you wish you could wave your magic wand and have the Jews and Palestinians love each other. It's about as likely to happen.
-
Wasn't it just pointed out that Israeli Arabs get along just fine with the Israeli Jews? I can't imagine there are huge feelings of resentment for discrimination if that's the case. That's what I thought I was reading at least.
-
Indeed, Israeli Jews who actually deal with Israeli Arabs seem to have no problem with them. There are elements within Israeli government, on the other hand, who definitely wanted Israel to be only for Jews. Some time ago, it seemed like this was the official stance (I'm not sure what's the current status is, this being Jewish politicians we're talking about).
Well it's all well and good to come up with a simplistic notion of what should happen in Israel but it's pretty pointless doing it because every single person on the board can do it for themselves.
Every single but one I replied to, it seems. The post I replied to seemed to imply that the obvious wasn't obvious for me, so I clarified. Same for the rant about national identity, I thought it was pretty clear what I meant by saying somebody "feels" that he/she belongs to a nation, but for at least one person, it wasn't. I posted a practical solution (the plebiscite) earlier on.
-
It's only worth suggesting what should be done if you have something practical to suggest. Otherwise you might as well say that you wish you could wave your magic wand and have the Jews and Palestinians love each other. It's about as likely to happen.
It did happen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neve_Shalom).
-
No, hippies from both side happened. :p
Seriously though, although small scale stuff like that might work, it's doubtful it could be scaled up to the whole of Palestine and Israel.
-
No, hippies from both side happened. :p
Seriously though, although small scale stuff like that might work, it's doubtful it could be scaled up to the whole of Palestine and Israel.
I cannot stress enough how much an absence of an education of hatred and death helps people get along.
-
I'm just posting to remind myself to watch what happens from here because this debate is interesting so far.
-
I think this could work on a larger scale. Israel and Palestine are not competing over resources or some absolutely vital territory both sides must have, so I believe a decent compromise is possible. Neve Shalom is a proof that Jews and Arabs can coexist in peace, for those who need one. And indeed, proper education instead of shameless propaganda would probably help with that, since now, I imagine that all most Palestinians seen of Israeli people are IDF soldiers (if that), so the only pictures of Israelis they have are whatever propaganda invents. Similarly, it seems likely that most Israelis see Arabs as dirty savages shouting "Jihad!" and launching rockets at them (BTW, how does it look lie in Israeli bootcamps? Are generic "Arabs" portrayed as an enemy?). Whenever it's not the case (for instance, if they live next to each other), they seem to get along.
I think that a larger project like Neve Shalom is needed. Something the size of a city, perhaps. At the start, it should have a similar Arabian and Jewish population, and have a plenty of leeway to ensure it can be fully democratic without running afoul of some biased law. An independent education system is a must. Perhaps some sort of joint Israeli-Palestinian city state. I can imagine warmongers ignoring a village working contrary to what they say, but I don't think they'd be able to disregard a city.
-
To my understanding, the West Bank is considered to be fairly important to Israel and the Palestinians due to its aquifers: http://www.mideastweb.org/westbankwater.htm (http://www.mideastweb.org/westbankwater.htm) - and as such it is seen as the real "prize". I recall reading a news article back in about 2005 that this was one reason why Israeli settlers were removed from Gaza.
I'm not so sure that there isn't a resource conflict going on. The Council for European-Palestinian Relations has written a memo (http://thecepr.org/images/stories/pdf/cepr%20memo%20water.pdf) on the apparent power imbalance between the Palestinian Water Authority and the Joint Water Committee, the latter of which was established following the Oslo Accords to act as a regulator. I'm not finished reading it all yet, but a few things that caught my notice are below.
“Israel recognizes the Palestinian water rights in the West Bank. These will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations and settled in the Permanent Status Agreement relating to the various water resources.” - Article 40, Oslo Accords
The operating and decision-making nature of the committee itself is also a subject of power imbalance. At the JWC, Israel has an effective veto over the decisions regarding all water projects. However, the Palestinian side at the same committee is not provided with the equivalent veto.
As a result, high numbers of Palestinian projects were rejected or delayed by JWC since 1995; many water projects are still waiting for JWC approval. In comparison, all Israeli proposed projects, except one, have been approved (Lunat 2010). While the principle of equal representation applies to both sides, in practice, Israel has vetoed the Palestinian development of water resources in the West Bank.
Military Orders
Besides the administrative measures, the complex legal system issued by the Military Commander functions as a codification of control as well as an institutional framework of the occupation. From the beginning of the Israeli occupation, with not more than three Military Orders, Israel has created a “mechanism of total control” over water in the West Bank (Messerschmid 2004: 3). Shortly after the June 1967 War, Military Order 92 transferred full authority over all water concerning issues in West Bank and Gaza Strip from various local utilities to an Israeli official appointed by the area military commander (Mair et al. 2003: 12). Moreover, Military Order 158 introduced a permit system for all water projects. In other words, the law prohibited the construction of any new or reconstruction of old water infrastructure without a permit from an official appointed by the area military commander. The military order also provided this Israeli official with the right to refuse a permit without a justification and no mechanism was established to appeal the official’s decisions (Mair et al. 2003: 12). Lastly, Military Order 291 declared all water resources to be the property of the State of Israel. In this way the military orders ensured full control of state-owned natural resources and built up the legal system for issuing drilling permits and extraction rates for Israel.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised by this, but I didn't realize the military had such an influence in the permitting process.
I think that a larger project like Neve Shalom is needed. Something the size of a city, perhaps. At the start, it should have a similar Arabian and Jewish population, and have a plenty of leeway to ensure it can be fully democratic without running afoul of some biased law. An independent education system is a must. Perhaps some sort of joint Israeli-Palestinian city state. I can imagine warmongers ignoring a village working contrary to what they say, but I don't think they'd be able to disregard a city.
I too would love to see something on the scale of a shared city-state, however unlikely it may be.
-
(BTW, how does it look lie in Israeli bootcamps? Are generic "Arabs" portrayed as an enemy?)
Not specifically (or generically, I guess), no. If we're in a specific situation, such as the recent Gaza op, the enemy is identified as Hamas. If you're asking on more general terms, well, our cardboard firing range targets are generic soldiers in uniform with helmets. Not very detailed - just a monotone green print on the brown cardboard. I tried to find a picture of one in Google but was shocked that I wasn't able to find any decent pictures. Best I came up with was this: http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/range-620x444.png
-
Good to know. Looks like ethnic hatred for Arabs isn't being spread as much as I though in Israel. Looking at it now, ethnic hatred between normal people on both sides might be less of an issue than it's commonly believed. Hamas (not sure about Fatah) might be actively teaching Palestinian children hatred for Israel, but it seems that in Gaza Strip, a child is lucky if he gets any education at all. Most people in Gaza likely believe whatever Hamas tells them, because they hardly know anything else. So, maybe this whole war is being fought more or less over stubbornness of a few leaders on both sides. Or water...
To my understanding, the West Bank is considered to be fairly important to Israel and the Palestinians due to its aquifers: http://www.mideastweb.org/westbankwater.htm (http://www.mideastweb.org/westbankwater.htm) - and as such it is seen as the real "prize". I recall reading a news article back in about 2005 that this was one reason why Israeli settlers were removed from Gaza.
-snip-
Interesting. A resource conflict could explain (though by no means justify) Israel acting like it does much better than purely ethnic/religious conflict. It makes much more sense to them to want a swatch of desert if there's water under it. If it's also about resources, then it might be much more difficult to find a good, peaceful resolution than I thought. UN dividing the aquifers in half between Palestine and Israel might work, but I have a feeling it wouldn't. I don't think I need to mention how such disputes over natural resources usually ended through history.
-
Yeah, the Palestinians already feel aggrieved about Israel taking their land, giving them more of it would solve the problem. :rolleyes:
Seriously, there is no simple solution to the problem of Israel and Palestine. You're talking about a complex situation that goes back tens if not hundreds of years with neither side willing to take any of the steps necessary for peace.
-
...with neither side willing to take any of the steps necessary for peace.
Pardon my being blunt, but that's nonsense. Israel has made drastic unilateral sacrifices at least twice - pulling out of south Lebanon and then out of Gaza. What steps did the Hezbollah/Lebanese and the Palestinians respond with? Drastic increases in rocket barrages from the areas we vacated. Israeli prime ministers throughout the years have offered huge territorial concessions (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=83&x_article=2116) - upwards of 90% what was being demanded by the Palestinians - only to be rejected outright. Israel has a standing offer for the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, but the latter refuse to do so unless Israel agrees to the Palestinian's preconditions... which is what negotiations are all about. In the Sad-But-True dept, it's been said that the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
So anyone with an eye to see can tell that it's not actually about the land (if it were, they would have control over far more than they do now), but about their hatred of Jews and their desire to see us pushed into the sea.
-
How would you react to a solution proposed by the Palestinians that took 10% of Israel?
-
How would you react to a solution proposed by the Palestinians that took 10% of Israel?
That's already been offered once you know. Pretty much everything on the Palestinian wishlist was offered them, at the same time, during the '90s. Like the IRA's splinter factions, some people are just way too invested in the struggle to stop fighting Satan after he repents. Unlike the IRA, they compose a majority.
As has been repeatedly stated earlier in the thread, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah draw most of their support from from their promise to destroy Israel, not from their promise of better life for Palestinians and an independent Palestine. They know it. The PLO was really the only organization that had a reason to lay down its arms in the name of the Palestinian state.
-
How would you react to a solution proposed by the Palestinians that took 10% of Israel?
Again with the assumptions. Let's look at history first... no, not all the way back to Biblical times - modern history.
First of all, the West Bank was captured by Israel in a defensive war in 1967 from Jordan (defensive as stated by the UN at the time). Jordan, for that matter, "acquired" the West Bank illegally, as part of their offensive war fought against the newly-formed state of Israel in 1948. Before that time, the area was known as Judea and Samaria.
So, between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied the "West Bank" - an occupation which hardly any other nation recognized as legal, not even by any other Arab nation.
So who did the Judea and Samaria belong to before they were occupied? Going back a bit further, the Turks (Ottoman Empire) had control over the entire region until 1917, when they lost in WWI to the Allies. They gave up control over the territory, and the Allies decided to make countries out of the area. Britain's Lord Balfour recognized the ancient Jewish right to the region and proposed to allocate to the Jews the area equivalent to modern-day Israel and Jordan (minus the Golan heights IIRC). The League of Nations had second thoughts and split off the area we know as Jordan into its own country, the Hashemite Kingdom of TransJordan in 1922, but recognized the Jewish homeland as an area that included Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") - which was reaffirmed by the UN after WWII.
When the British mandate ended, UN General Assembly resolution 181 recommended splitting the area up yet again, into two states - a Jewish one and an Arab one. The Jews accepted the proposal and went on to establish the modern State of Israel. The Arabs refused and launched the 1948 war to destroy the newly-birthed Jewish state (btw, according to the Wikipedia, "In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to correct"). This left resolution 181 with no legal authority. When the 1948 war came to a halt due to reaching a ceasefire, the lines demarcated by the fighting were what we currently call the "borders" of the West Bank and Gaza strip. The Arab leaders at the time, being consistently bull-headed, insisted that these lines have no political significance. Let me restate that in case you missed it: what we call the "1967 borders" are not from 1967, but from 1948, and were never recognized as international borders. This left those areas as disputed territories, not "occupied territories".
To recap: Israel's presence in the "West Bank" is the result of a war of self-defence (1967). These areas were not occupied territories, since they did not legally belong to any nation up till then, but disputed territories. These territories were recognized as part of the Jewish homeland internationally, and since resolution 181 has no legal standing, they are at best/worst (depending on your POV) still only disputed territories, and thus the presence of settlements therein is not illegal.
So, to answer your question? The Jewish people reacted to a proposal by the League of Nations / UN to take away huge percentages of their homeland with a positive - so be it, we'll take whatever we can get after the horrors of the Holocaust. The Arab nations lost subsequent wars, and are now whining about it.
-
You realise that your declaration that 181 has no legal authority basically makes the entire state of Israel illegal too, right?
-
If the discussion had been as easily explained and blamed away to a single cause and faction, the conflict would have ended a long time ago.
Here's an interesting piece by Adam Curtis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/save_your_kisses_for_me
-
(btw, according to the Wikipedia, "In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to correct").
That would be progress. He's still in power, though through a bit questionable way. If he made good on his promise, it'd go a long way towards the situation in the region. Considering recent actions of the PLO, it seems that he's going to. It also seems like Israelis were actually more than willing to give up most of the disputed territory to PA. The question is, what's the current standing? If there was a resolution proposed right now in which PLO would get the entire West Bank and Gaza, with the exception of places where the Jewish population is a majority (the most reasonable layout I can think of), would common Israeli people agree to that?
As for Hamas, I believe that if a free Palestinian state was formed, they'd start looking ridiculous. I think that they'd lose much of their support if Fatah managed to form a functioning country and either die a natural death, or get clobbered by one military or the other.
-
Here's an interesting piece by Adam Curtis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/save_your_kisses_for_me
Thanks for that. It very nicely points out what I have said many times in the past, that Israel created this problem themselves.
I strongly suggest you find and watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares if you haven't already. It's a brilliant examination of the parallels between the rise of the neo-cons in America and Islamic radicals in Afghanistan.
Seriously, beg, borrow or steal a copy.
-
Here's an interesting piece by Adam Curtis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/save_your_kisses_for_me
Thanks for that. It very nicely points out what I have said many times in the past, that Israel created this problem themselves.
I strongly suggest you find and watch Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares if you haven't already. It's a brilliant examination of the parallels between the rise of the neo-cons in America and Islamic radicals in Afghanistan.
Seriously, beg, borrow or steal a copy.
I've actually seen that documentary series. It puts across a very interesting viewpoint: that the end goal of the neo-conservatives and the Islamic radicals is essentially the same: a totalitarian world, albeit one totally secular (and nationalistic) and another based on religious law (i.e. no separation of church and state).
It also puts across the idea that nationalism, or patriotism, is no different than a religion in itself, which is something that I've long thought has a lot of truth to it (the "myth of the nation" concept).