[swashmebuckle]

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?

[SypheDMar]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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).

[Flipside]

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.

[Grizzly]

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!

[Flipside]

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.

[BrotherBryon]

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.   

[SpardaSon21]

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
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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.)

[karajorma]

Well it pretty much proves what I've been saying this entire time, neither side really wants peace.

[Flipside]

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.

[SypheDMar]

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.

[BritishShivans]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[BritishShivans]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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...

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[LordPomposity]

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.

[BrotherBryon]

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.