[karajorma]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah, MP pretty much sums up what's been on my mind since the 90s much better than I would ever do.

[Grizzly]

  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.

[MP-Ryan]

  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.

[headdie]

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

[Aardwolf]

The right to defend itself

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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?

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[headdie]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Aardwolf]

@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.

[Dragon]

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.

[headdie]

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]

@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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Aardwolf]

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.