[Flipside]

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.

[MR_T3D]

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

[Nemesis6]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[stinkyFeet]

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.

[Klaustrophobia]

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.

[Flipside]

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/

[Sandwich]

While we're on the subject of statistics & numbers, here's some interesting stats. In summary (taken from here):

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

[Grizzly]

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 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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Sandwich]

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. 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.

[karajorma]

The problem with going back historically is you don't go back beyond the Jews conquest of the Holy Land. Why stop there?

[Ace]

Phoenicia for Phoenicians! Out with the Israeli and Palestinian usurpers!

[An4ximandros]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Aardwolf]

But we don't have to!

[Nuke]

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.

[Flipside]

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.