[Dragon]

This handbook was written for talking to common Americans. Notice how often they are mentioned! And for the common American man, Fascism=Nazism="There goes Godwin". For people who know what Nazism and Fascism were about, there's no such thing as Godwin's law. Hitler is not a modern word for "Devil" but an actual person and dictator. So is Fasci, whom I don't think most people ever heard about. In fact, most of these stupid internet laws apply only to dumb or unimaginative people. Still, the "majority" is composed of such dumb and unimaginative people, and this is who makes the real decisions in a democracy (my main argument against this type of government). Intelligent people, those who can see through the rhetoric and see the truth, or lack thereof, behind it, are in minority and usually have a hard time influencing the unthinking majority.

In America, ignorance of such subtle details is exaggerated by physical distance. For many of them, "Europe" is like a single country and WWII was mostly about Pacific. In Europe, it consisted (for them) of Battle of Britain, Stalingrad and Normandy landings. Nazis were the bad guys, everyone else was good. Europe is far away, so they're concerned little with it.

[Ulala]

Perhaps instead of asking why Israel is being singled out for so much hatred, we should ask why is it being singled out for so much love from the West first?

Because American politicians love getting re-elected, so they keep funding these conflicts and the military contractors that make huge donations to campaigns and Super PACs, and the American people are still too comfortable and distracted (or lazy and apathetic?) to do **** about it?

[MP-Ryan]

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

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

I've been remiss in reading and responding to this thread.

You can't know this.  You cannot know that if you plopped a Western population down in the middle of Gaza and said "elect some guys that are incompetent but won't get you shot at by your much more powerful neighbour because they vow to attack and kill its civilians, or these other guys who might be marginally more competent, or at least aren't the first guys, but who will do exactly that" that said population would then knowingly pick the folks who are going to get them shot at.

You can try to make this equivocation all you like, but you have no historical precedent to do so.  The fact remains that the only population that has knowingly elected a listed terrorist organization who made pre-election promises and statements that they knew would eventually provoke violence and retaliation from their neighbouring country is.... Gaza.  They're on a whole different level when it comes to electing scumbags, I'm genuinely very sorry to say, and they have paid for it dearly.

I'm sorry to keep pounding on this point, but I am constantly amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to to minimize Hamas' behaviour.  They are a listed terrorist organization, they intentionally target civilians, they intentionally murder civilians when open hostilities are not engaged in, they terrorize and subjugate their own civilian population, they divert funding from economic projects to funding their terrorism (including weapons stockpiling, tunnel infrastructure, etc), they use their own civilians as human shields and the bodies of those same civilians to score political sympathy points, they occupy safe zones and fire weapons from them, and they oppose the very existence of their neighbouring state.  They start open hostilities to win concessions, and then they use those concessions to fund continual violence.

Israel is no saint.  They deserve criticism for their tactics, their strategic outlook, and their heavy-handed use of military force to respond to Hamas.  But there is not a world in which I will support Hamas over Israel, or try to equate the two.  Nobody in the regional is particularly noble, but one side on the armed conflict is notably worse than the other for long-term peace and prosperity, and its name starts with H.  I have genuine sympathy for Gaza and the West Bank, and I'd like the world to collectively put its boot in Israel's ass to deal with the situation, but when the rockets start flying to civilian zones or the kidnapping and murder of civilians starts, I will never concede that Hamas is even remotely excusable in its actions.

I fully believe it is possible to criticize Israel and recognize it's villainous behaviour in some aspects of this historical conflict, while simultaneously recognizing that Hamas are actually villains deserving of global and unequivocable condemnation.

[Dragon]

You can try to make this equivocation all you like, but you have no historical precedent to do so.  The fact remains that the only population that has knowingly elected a listed terrorist organization who made pre-election promises and statements that they knew would eventually provoke violence and retaliation from their neighbouring country is.... Gaza.  They're on a whole different level when it comes to electing scumbags, I'm genuinely very sorry to say, and they have paid for it dearly.

Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.

[MP-Ryan]

Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.

There are so many things historically wrong in this that I don't know quite where to begin.

In the case of 20th century revolutionaries, these are unelected groups with no political alternative or functioning democratic system who have attempted to overthrow governments of the nation or nations of which they are a part.

The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system.  It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population).  It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.

Hamas, in turn, was an elected terrorist organization within the political process that openly stated its desire to wipe out and commit violence upon the civilian population of a neighbouring country.  It's not a romantic rebellion against Israel, it's not a justified opposition to state oppression, it's a group of terrorist thugs that got elected due to several ****ty circumstances colliding and now holds an entire quasi-state hostage.  They are much more comparable to the terrorist bull**** of the IRA than the other forms of political rebellion we've seen in places like the Balkan region and the Eastern Bloc.  On the other hand, they're simultaneously worse than the IRA because they were actually democratically elected initially, whereas the IRA never was (Sinn Fein, IMHO, doesn't count).

Further compounding the issue is that "Palestine" has never been a nation, at least until recently.  Rather, it was a historical region of multiple ethnicities and faiths.  The modern grouping of Palestinian as Arab, Muslim, and belonging to a nation is entirely the result of the political opposition to the creation of the state of Israel.  Hamas isn't comprised of Palestinians wanting to reclaim their homeland stolen by the state of Israel.  Hamas is a group of terrorist thugs, predominantly of Arab ethnicity and hiding behind the guise of Islam, who have long proclaimed a goal of wiping Israel off the map in favour of creation of a fundamentalist theocracy that is at least theoretically Islamic.  They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.

[Mr. Vega]

Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.

There are so many things historically wrong in this that I don't know quite where to begin.

In the case of 20th century revolutionaries, these are unelected groups with no political alternative or functioning democratic system who have attempted to overthrow governments of the nation or nations of which they are a part.

The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system.  It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population).  It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.

Hamas, in turn, was an elected terrorist organization within the political process that openly stated its desire to wipe out and commit violence upon the civilian population of a neighbouring country.  It's not a romantic rebellion against Israel, it's not a justified opposition to state oppression, it's a group of terrorist thugs that got elected due to several ****ty circumstances colliding and now holds an entire quasi-state hostage.  They are much more comparable to the terrorist bull**** of the IRA than the other forms of political rebellion we've seen in places like the Balkan region and the Eastern Bloc.  On the other hand, they're simultaneously worse than the IRA because they were actually democratically elected initially, whereas the IRA never was (Sinn Fein, IMHO, doesn't count).

Further compounding the issue is that "Palestine" has never been a nation, at least until recently.  Rather, it was a historical region of multiple ethnicities and faiths.  The modern grouping of Palestinian as Arab, Muslim, and belonging to a nation is entirely the result of the political opposition to the creation of the state of Israel.  Hamas isn't comprised of Palestinians wanting to reclaim their homeland stolen by the state of Israel.  Hamas is a group of terrorist thugs, predominantly of Arab ethnicity and hiding behind the guise of Islam, who have long proclaimed a goal of wiping Israel off the map in favour of creation of a fundamentalist theocracy that is at least theoretically Islamic.  They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.

And yet Hamas has stated it will accept a 2 state solution along the 1967 borders, whereas the ruling party of Israel rejects the idea of a two state solution in its entirety.

[Scotty]

I know for a fact that I've posted a link in here at least twice (possibly three times) to the Hamas leadership openly refuting their willingness to accept a two state solution.  I'm on a phone or I'd look up the exact posts for you.

[Dragon]

I think it's safe to say it's a good idea, except none of the two governments wants to accept it. If it was as simple as that, we'd have peace long before now. The '67 borders are not that bad of an idea, but it's unfortunately too good for anyone to actually accept.

The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system.  It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population).  It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.

I was talking about the "previous" IRA, not the one from the Troubles. The one all the best songs are about. There was a popular uprising, on Easter 1916. They had other differences to Hamas, definitely less formal, but they had a lot of popular support. And boy, did they hate the "Black and Tans"... British also thought them terrorists, but in Ireland, they're heroes.

Also, what about "Mandate of Palestine" and "Emirate of Transjordan" from before WWII? They were where Israel is now. Weren't those nations in their own right? OK, the map I have lists them as British territory, but it was pre-WWII.

[Mr. Vega]

I know for a fact that I've posted a link in here at least twice (possibly three times) to the Hamas leadership openly refuting their willingness to accept a two state solution.  I'm on a phone or I'd look up the exact posts for you.

Go back a page or two and look at the quote i provided. Keep in mind it was spoken recently.

[DarkBasilisk]

Perhaps you should look at partisans and underground countries, then. What is really unprecedented here was Isreal giving Gaza an "official" permission to elect someone. Historically, when something like this happened, the invading nation simply suppressed any notions of the conquered one's nationality, or kept their government under tight control at best. Gaza didn't believe in it's freedom, so they elected those who promised to make them free and destroy their oppressors. Essentially an officially elected rebellion. Hamas' politics are not anything new, what is new is that they are allowed to do that openly instead of underground. When I compared them to rebels and revolutionaries, it became really clear. They're just a rebellion against Israel that, due to a peculiar sequence of events, became it's own country of sorts. It's methods have things in common with IRA, Polish underground movements and so on. Yes, including spreading hate towards their enemies and (perceived) oppressors. Just listen to some IRA songs or read Polish rebel literature. It's the same idea, sometimes disturbingly similar. You should have heard things Poles used to say about the Germans back in 19th century... I'm sure other rebel groups had some of this as well.

There are so many things historically wrong in this that I don't know quite where to begin.

In the case of 20th century revolutionaries, these are unelected groups with no political alternative or functioning democratic system who have attempted to overthrow governments of the nation or nations of which they are a part.

The IRA, on the other hand, was an unelected terrorist organization that sought to use means of violence to overthrow a democratic governance structure, while a parallel political movement operated alongside it within the system.  It's the reason that the IRA is globally condemned as a terrorist organization (and much of Ireland's Troubles stemmed from the power imbalance between the large majority Catholic population in Northern Ireland and the comparatively small minority Protestant population).  It's also the reason that Northern ireland's problems have largely been dealt with by a political solution, and there was never a popular uprising.

Hamas, in turn, was an elected terrorist organization within the political process that openly stated its desire to wipe out and commit violence upon the civilian population of a neighbouring country.  It's not a romantic rebellion against Israel, it's not a justified opposition to state oppression, it's a group of terrorist thugs that got elected due to several ****ty circumstances colliding and now holds an entire quasi-state hostage.  They are much more comparable to the terrorist bull**** of the IRA than the other forms of political rebellion we've seen in places like the Balkan region and the Eastern Bloc.  On the other hand, they're simultaneously worse than the IRA because they were actually democratically elected initially, whereas the IRA never was (Sinn Fein, IMHO, doesn't count).

Further compounding the issue is that "Palestine" has never been a nation, at least until recently.  Rather, it was a historical region of multiple ethnicities and faiths.  The modern grouping of Palestinian as Arab, Muslim, and belonging to a nation is entirely the result of the political opposition to the creation of the state of Israel.  Hamas isn't comprised of Palestinians wanting to reclaim their homeland stolen by the state of Israel.  Hamas is a group of terrorist thugs, predominantly of Arab ethnicity and hiding behind the guise of Islam, who have long proclaimed a goal of wiping Israel off the map in favour of creation of a fundamentalist theocracy that is at least theoretically Islamic.  They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.

Every rebellion is more or less elected. Just not without the formalities or tight controls you see in the first world (although ironically many informal elections can be more fair than "formal" elections in countries like the US with broken electoral systems). Much like criminal enterprise, sure there's the elements of intimidation, suppression, violence (those historically exist in many democracies as well), but ultimately, desperate people vote with their feet just as much as upstanding citizens vote with a ballot. By being a part of rebel group you signify that you support that group as your best chance out of the current situation. When you're willing to die supporting a group, the idea that you need a formal election to signify that you support them is an unnecessary formality.

Moving on. You can't keep waffling between calling Palestine a state or a non-state when it suits your argument. Terms like "another country's civilians" imply that it's another country, which by legal rulings as well as most practical metrics, it isn't. And like I said in earlier post. They aren't the biggest factor against peace. Hamas is manageable, because even as monsters, they're insanely predictable monsters, with now a very limited playbook. It's as multiple people have been hinting at saying, there's a certain point when it can be no longer "negligence" or "it seems clearer in hindsight". Israel is not even trying to avoid stepping in the mud because they know no meaningful consequences will come from the mud stepping.

The fact that the US, Israel's most important ally, has been criticizing Israel for not taking the peace process seriously since as far back as Clinton (i think someone here actually said it goes back further), should really say something here.

We come down harder on Israel more than any of the other places in the Middle East because they're a damn first world country, with a very advanced military, educated populace, and experienced politicians. They should be able to handle this. Instead, they've let a situation persist that fans the flames of unrest both in the region as well as the rest of the world. They may not be fully causing the situation but they've done only the most trifling moves to try and fix it. And don't bring up pulling out of Gaza or the "relaxed" situation in the West Bank, those aren't really moves to peace considering that even from when each was initiated, they've been tactical moves that benefit Israel greatly, while, under best interpretations, only maintain the status quo for Palestinians (their lives continue to suck, I'm not sure they'd find much solace that the reasons life sucks for them technically changed). Making moves that benefit yourself does not necessarily mean you're moving towards peace.

The claim that there's nothing that Israel can do to get close to peace without the other side moving first is something that has been more and more flimsy with every decade that's passed.

[Lorric]

Nope. Don't get me wrong, they're horrible. But they're anything if not predictable in their reaction to everything, which makes it a bit more damning sometimes during various conflicts when people try to say "there's nothing anyone else could have done to prevent this!"

Is there anything you might consider fair to be done is a better question.

But really, when you take a political power that maintains roughly a similar stance and motivation for the long term, and is not only extremely reactionary, but reactionary in incredibly predictable ways, that's fish in a barrel for foreign policy. But instead, in some baffling move, Israel steps right into every one of the plays Hamas makes.

Hell. maybe some of the things raised here are more right than people gave credit for : Maybe the human shield thing is at least partially true (willing to admit it might be to some degree), and maybe the kidnapping/murder of the three teens was directly Hamas orders (evidence seems to indicate otherwise, but it's not outside of realm of possibility). But even if that's true, why in the HELL would you fall right into the playbook as good as they've been doing?

It's a situation where it's hard to find a winning move, granted, but every move played so far, intentionally or otherwise, hasn't just been a non-winning move but has instead been the worst possible move you could attempt in terms of not sparking international outrage. (And for gods sake find the politicians that are making public statements about "we should deport or kill everyone in Gaza" and get them to shut up. Not helping matters right now!)

I'm not keen to get into the Israel vs. Palestine debate. But there are a couple of points I want to make.

Hamas is the aggressor here. Hamas is the one indiscriminately slaughtering civilians on the Israel side of the border, and being absolutely outrageously shamelessly disrespectful of the lives of the people on their side of the border. Hamas is the one brainwashing their citizens to kill Jews and become martyrs. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with Israel's policies and decisions in this conflict because they do some real facepalm-inducing things. But to say Israel is the number one problem and not Hamas I can not agree with. When Israel starts just slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately and using it's people as pawns to score points through their deaths, and indoctrinating them into a holy war against Muslims starting with the children, then maybe we can install Israel as number one problem here, but not with Hamas still around and using their disgusting tactics.

Also, I've just seen you again post about Hamas' predictability. This imo is a dangerous assumption to make. Hamas are not using the same tactics because they've got nothing else. They're using the same tactics because they're effective. We have absolutely no way of predicting what Hamas will do if these tactics stop being effective, and personally, I think they will try something different. Hamas' tactics are well planned the way they exploit the sympathies of the "West". The way they stir up support for their cause. Look at the way they devastated Fatah with such brutal efficiency after their election victory. Hamas are not stupid. And underestimating them in such a way and thinking their behaviour can be predicted and controlled would be very dangerous.

As for those politicans, I guess they need to read that document that was posted today.

[jr2]

Any attempt at peace would have to involve removing those stirring the pot (terrorists).

Which Israel probably doesn't want to do because it's "not their problem" however, since terrorists have a penchant for making it your problem, I would think it would be best to purge them by force. However, they would face near universal condemnation for this.

As for an international solution, I don't think that would be wise considering the make up of the UN.   (Think of the ridiculous selections for countries to head up the human rights council, I mean, really??)

[MP-Ryan]

I was talking about the "previous" IRA, not the one from the Troubles. The one all the best songs are about. There was a popular uprising, on Easter 1916. They had other differences to Hamas, definitely less formal, but they had a lot of popular support. And boy, did they hate the "Black and Tans"... British also thought them terrorists, but in Ireland, they're heroes.

I don't really want to delve into the history of Ireland here despite it being something of a personal passion (my paternal family hails from county Limerick in the south, the maternal from county Derry in the north), but the narrative surrounding the period of 1910 to 1921 in Ireland is extremely contentious and I would caution you to actually study that history in an academic setting or manner prior to drawing conclusions from it in a meaningful way.  Regardless, the events leading to the founding of the Republic of Ireland are in no meaningful way comparable to Hamas of today (most notably because it was a much more conventional conflict wherein those that fought to create an Irish state weren't going out of their way to attack civilian populations).

Also, what about "Mandate of Palestine" and "Emirate of Transjordan" from before WWII? They were where Israel is now. Weren't those nations in their own right? OK, the map I have lists them as British territory, but it was pre-WWII.

No, they were not.  There has never been a country/state/empire called Palestine.  It has always been a region defined more by its borders with other places than a governed autonomous entity unto itself, and it has never been ethnically or religiously homogenous.

I know for a fact that I've posted a link in here at least twice (possibly three times) to the Hamas leadership openly refuting their willingness to accept a two state solution.  I'm on a phone or I'd look up the exact posts for you.

Go back a page or two and look at the quote i provided. Keep in mind it was spoken recently.

The Hamas Charter (or whatever other name people want it to go by, it varies) has not been amended with this stance.  Hamas leaders have verbally stated in their negotiations with Fatah that they're willing to contemplate a two-state solution, but the organization has not formally adopted that position throughout.

Every rebellion is more or less elected. Just not without the formalities or tight controls you see in the first world (although ironically many informal elections can be more fair than "formal" elections in countries like the US with broken electoral systems). Much like criminal enterprise, sure there's the elements of intimidation, suppression, violence (those historically exist in many democracies as well), but ultimately, desperate people vote with their feet just as much as upstanding citizens vote with a ballot. By being a part of rebel group you signify that you support that group as your best chance out of the current situation. When you're willing to die supporting a group, the idea that you need a formal election to signify that you support them is an unnecessary formality.

Most 'rebellions' have extremely limited participation in the first place.  In the last international poll with a meaningful scientific methodology, Hamas was supported by less than 37% of the Gazan population.  They had much greater support in the election; which goes to my point that Gaza was willing to elect a group that had violence central to its core identity, despite it being capable of legitimate political activity.  That they immediately showed their colours as a group of thugs more interested in ideology than human life on either side should come as a surprise to no one, least of all the people who elected them.

Moving on. You can't keep waffling between calling Palestine a state or a non-state when it suits your argument. Terms like "another country's civilians" imply that it's another country, which by legal rulings as well as most practical metrics, it isn't. And like I said in earlier post. They aren't the biggest factor against peace. Hamas is manageable, because even as monsters, they're insanely predictable monsters, with now a very limited playbook.

 It's as multiple people have been hinting at saying, there's a certain point when it can be no longer "negligence" or "it seems clearer in hindsight". Israel is not even trying to avoid stepping in the mud because they know no meaningful consequences will come from the mud stepping.

The fact that the US, Israel's most important ally, has been criticizing Israel for not taking the peace process seriously since as far back as Clinton (i think someone here actually said it goes back further), should really say something here.

We come down harder on Israel more than any of the other places in the Middle East because they're a damn first world country, with a very advanced military, educated populace, and experienced politicians. They should be able to handle this. Instead, they've let a situation persist that fans the flames of unrest both in the region as well as the rest of the world. They may not be fully causing the situation but they've done only the most trifling moves to try and fix it. And don't bring up pulling out of Gaza or the "relaxed" situation in the West Bank, those aren't really moves to peace considering that even from when each was initiated, they've been tactical moves that benefit Israel greatly, while, under best interpretations, only maintain the status quo for Palestinians (their lives continue to suck, I'm not sure they'd find much solace that the reasons life sucks for them technically changed). Making moves that benefit yourself does not necessarily mean you're moving towards peace.

The claim that there's nothing that Israel can do to get close to peace without the other side moving first is something that has been more and more flimsy with every decade that's passed.

I am not waffling.  I have been very clear.  Palestine is not a historical state.  The Gaza Strip and West Bank are independent state entities of Israel which most people (myself included) would like to see become the modern state of Palestine.  And the ordinary residents of Gaza and the West Bank are not the biggest barrier to peace; Hamas is.  This is not because Hamas is particularly effective.  Rather, this is because Hamas provides a convenient and at least partially legitimate rationale for Israel to drag its feet in the peace process.

Every time Hamas attacks Israel or Israelis, it gives Israel an excuse.  It once again reduces the legitimate plight of ordinary residents of Gaza and West Bank to a sideshow while Western nations - rightly, in my view - focus on the fact that a nation does not have to endure constant attacks from outside its borders without acting in its own defense, particularly when its civilians are being targeted.

Hamas, and the attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, are the barrier to peace because, without them, the entire progressive world is on the side of the two-state solution and a final resolution between Israeli and the Palestinian territories.  I readily admit that I am of the mindset that so long as Hamas is attacking Israel, I do not believe it should tolerate so much as a single dead Israeli or rocket landing and can take retaliatory measures (while minimizing civilian casualties to the greatest possible extent).  So long as Hamas fires at Israel, I care far more about the damage being wrought on a democratic state's civilian population than I care about the damage and death toll being wrought in a state run by a listed terrorist organization at the point of a gun which spends its funding financing terrorism instead of improving the prospects of its people.

Of course, the moment Israel is not experiencing violence at the hands of said armed thugs, my calculus changes, and I am firmly of the mindset that the international community basically needs to force both sides to the bargaining table and into a two-state solution and quickly as possible, with international enforcement.  But again, that can and only will happen if the constant attacks on Israel are removed from the equation.  I have a LOT of problems with the way Israel does business and has been negotiating with the Palestinian territories; but those take a backseat when the illegitimate armed thugs start shooting at civilian populations in a democratic state, and always will.

[DarkBasilisk]

Of course, the moment Israel is not experiencing violence at the hands of said armed thugs, my calculus changes, and I am firmly of the mindset that the international community basically needs to force both sides to the bargaining table and into a two-state solution and quickly as possible, with international enforcement.  But again, that can and only will happen if the constant attacks on Israel are removed from the equation.  I have a LOT of problems with the way Israel does business and has been negotiating with the Palestinian territories; but those take a backseat when the illegitimate armed thugs start shooting at civilian populations in a democratic state, and always will.

The problem with hard lines for peace is they're easily abused by people who don't want peace, and it's been more or less confirmed people on both sides exist for this. I assert that given the context that existed so far, it is unlikely attacks in Israel (again, not 'on', that distinction is very important) will ever stop. You cannot keep that level of control over a populace without someone instituting firm established government and civilian police structures. Internally, it's extremely unlikely Gaza can achieve those structures under current conditions. Externally, it's unlikely that Israel would want to create such conditions (and further unlikely they could be successful even if they did, because, try governing people that hate you... it doesn't work so well).

That said. The reason why I say that ceasing hostile actions can't be a peace requirement is because every piece of evidence says that it's unlikely to ever happen until after a successful peace plan (and possibly not perfectly so even then). Note that violence against civilians (both Arab on Israeli and vice versa) still happens in the West Bank, and Israel in general.

Also, your words work in both directions about Hamas. They act this way because it's gotten results. People are actually talking about peace and two state solutions again when even a year ago the world could care less. Maybe if peaceful action got results sometimes it'd enter their calculus. Or maybe it wouldn't. But the best way to be able to attack them as violence loving thugs would be for Israel to offer some legitimate step towards peace and have Hamas slap it from their hands. Possibly a few times so the world gets the point. Right now, since most talk about "they won't accept peace" is speculative, people are less than won over by the argument.

If you want attacks reduced, that's an acceptable condition. In fact more moderate parties have said in their suggested deals that they expect some means of guaranteeing a level of self-policing against militant groups in Gaza is a strong requirement for a peace deal. But, complete peace being achieved, well, before peace is achieved? It's never going to happen. No realistically offered peace deal should require something that is highly unlikely to happen.

Also as a note on that, I believe either here or elsewhere (forgive me, it's been a lot of conversations recently), someone noted that in 2013, as part of an agreement to reduce the attacks, rocket attacks from Gaza reduced to the lowest they've been since 2002 (44). So, there is precedent for being able to reduce the attacks to a trifling amount, both in capacity and political will.

EDIT: Also as a note. It's not entirely wrong to say that white peace type agreements "lets everyone stop shooting for now and figure out the rest later", is well. It's a step towards peace in a technical way. But not so much an advantageous step towards long term peace because the status quo hasn't changed. Life still sucks for the Palestinians, the world goes back to not caring about them, and Israel continues to capitalize on it's superior momentum.

The "world goes back to not caring about them" is meaningful. Consider. Raise your hands here if you in your respective countries were aware that rocket attacks had dipped to such a low level in 2013. Anyone? Did your countries care at all in their foreign policy? Did Israel change any stances towards Gaza as a result of this? I really don't know the answer but given the current situation it seems like the answer is no.

[Dragon]

OK, I checked more closely and it turned out the Emirate not only still exists as a part of Jordan (presumably it's citizens were moved east), but has remarkably little bad blood with Israel. Mandatory Palestine was a colonial hodgepodge that, as it turns out, has a long history of being a mess even without Israel being there. So I stand corrected. Oh, and Mandatory Palestine is what Hamas is trying to restore, they're bloody idiots.

I don't really want to delve into the history of Ireland here despite it being something of a personal passion (my paternal family hails from county Limerick in the south, the maternal from county Derry in the north), but the narrative surrounding the period of 1910 to 1921 in Ireland is extremely contentious and I would caution you to actually study that history in an academic setting or manner prior to drawing conclusions from it in a meaningful way.  Regardless, the events leading to the founding of the Republic of Ireland are in no meaningful way comparable to Hamas of today (most notably because it was a much more conventional conflict wherein those that fought to create an Irish state weren't going out of their way to attack civilian populations).

Of course it was completely different. Different world (interwar), different country, different people... You're probably more competent in that area than me anyway, I'm no historian. There is no real precedent to an entity like Hamas in a "history repeats itself" sense. Nor was there anything like Israel ever created before. Even if parallels with other events can be drawn between generalities or very specific points, it might ultimately be meaningless. I could not find any historical situation remotely similar to what is happening in Israel. Hamas is half-rebellion, half-government, Israel has be artificially formed, with most of it's population being immigrants... Nothing like that ever happened before.

[DarkBasilisk]

Also:
"IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=boAYuOgqzJQ

[Mr. Vega]

Nope. Don't get me wrong, they're horrible. But they're anything if not predictable in their reaction to everything, which makes it a bit more damning sometimes during various conflicts when people try to say "there's nothing anyone else could have done to prevent this!"

Is there anything you might consider fair to be done is a better question.

But really, when you take a political power that maintains roughly a similar stance and motivation for the long term, and is not only extremely reactionary, but reactionary in incredibly predictable ways, that's fish in a barrel for foreign policy. But instead, in some baffling move, Israel steps right into every one of the plays Hamas makes.

Hell. maybe some of the things raised here are more right than people gave credit for : Maybe the human shield thing is at least partially true (willing to admit it might be to some degree), and maybe the kidnapping/murder of the three teens was directly Hamas orders (evidence seems to indicate otherwise, but it's not outside of realm of possibility). But even if that's true, why in the HELL would you fall right into the playbook as good as they've been doing?

It's a situation where it's hard to find a winning move, granted, but every move played so far, intentionally or otherwise, hasn't just been a non-winning move but has instead been the worst possible move you could attempt in terms of not sparking international outrage. (And for gods sake find the politicians that are making public statements about "we should deport or kill everyone in Gaza" and get them to shut up. Not helping matters right now!)

I'm not keen to get into the Israel vs. Palestine debate. But there are a couple of points I want to make.

Hamas is the aggressor here. Hamas is the one indiscriminately slaughtering civilians on the Israel side of the border, and being absolutely outrageously shamelessly disrespectful of the lives of the people on their side of the border. Hamas is the one brainwashing their citizens to kill Jews and become martyrs. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with Israel's policies and decisions in this conflict because they do some real facepalm-inducing things. But to say Israel is the number one problem and not Hamas I can not agree with. When Israel starts just slaughtering Palestinians indiscriminately and using it's people as pawns to score points through their deaths, and indoctrinating them into a holy war against Muslims starting with the children, then maybe we can install Israel as number one problem here, but not with Hamas still around and using their disgusting tactics.

Also, I've just seen you again post about Hamas' predictability. This imo is a dangerous assumption to make. Hamas are not using the same tactics because they've got nothing else. They're using the same tactics because they're effective. We have absolutely no way of predicting what Hamas will do if these tactics stop being effective, and personally, I think they will try something different. Hamas' tactics are well planned the way they exploit the sympathies of the "West". The way they stir up support for their cause. Look at the way they devastated Fatah with such brutal efficiency after their election victory. Hamas are not stupid. And underestimating them in such a way and thinking their behaviour can be predicted and controlled would be very dangerous.

As for those politicans, I guess they need to read that document that was posted today.

 

The Netanyahu government knew at once that they [the three teenagers] were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas. Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie, as recognized early on. There has been no pretense of presenting evidence. One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.” The Israeli police have since been searching for two members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.”

The 18-day rampage however did succeed in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. According to Israeli military sources, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six Palestinians, also searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.

Hamas did NOT fire the first shot. Israel did so with no provocation other than their accusation that Hamas was behind the killings of the three teenagers, for which they still have presented NO evidence. I'm stunned how the positions you and others have taken in this thread are so easily shattered by facts readily available to all. Or you know, a working memory of events that happened a month ago. I vividly remember my jaw dropping that Israel would bomb the West Bank with no provocation and no evidence, before any rockets were fired. It's a convenient time to have the memory of an Alzheimer's sufferer.

[Mr. Vega]

Also:
"IDF Hamas Human Shield Manual a Sloppy Forgery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=boAYuOgqzJQ

Now here's a gem from 2005: IDF to appeal ruling by Israeli courts that the use of Palestinians as "human shields" when apprehending terrorists is illegal.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html

And here's a story about Israeli soldiers being given suspended sentences for using a 13 year old boy to open bags they suspected of containing explosives:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/26/israel-soldiers-punishment-using-boy-human-shield-inadequate

We can just keep piling up the evidence, you know.

[Lorric]

The Netanyahu government knew at once that they [the three teenagers] were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas. Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie, as recognized early on. There has been no pretense of presenting evidence. One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.” The Israeli police have since been searching for two members of the clan, still claiming, without evidence, that they are “Hamas terrorists.”

The 18-day rampage however did succeed in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. According to Israeli military sources, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians, including 335 affiliated with Hamas, and killed six Palestinians, also searching thousands of locations and confiscating $350,000. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.

Hamas did NOT fire the first shot. Israel did so with no provocation other than their accusation that Hamas was behind the killings of the three teenagers, for which they still have presented NO evidence. I'm stunned how the positions you and others have taken in this thread are so easily shattered by facts readily available to all. Or you know, a working memory of events that happened a month ago. I vividly remember my jaw dropping that Israel would bomb the West Bank with no provocation and no evidence, before any rockets were fired. It's a convenient time to have the memory of an Alzheimer's sufferer.

Cards on the table, I simply did not know.

This thread began not as a debate on this conflict, but as Sandwich telling us about him being called up to potentially participate in the ground offensive. So that was already some time after, and it was some time after that that the debate finally began, and that was looking back at the 16th July the first mention and got going at the 17th. And even then it wasn't in it's current form, and it was about the response to the rockets.

I don't think Hamas not firing the first shot refutes my claim that Hamas is the biggest problem, but the way things have turned in this thread against Israel is making me wonder if Israel is the side that should be condemned for this particular outbreak of violence. Reading the stuff even before you posted has been making me feel uneasy.

[karajorma]

You can try to make this equivocation all you like, but you have no historical precedent to do so.  The fact remains that the only population that has knowingly elected a listed terrorist organization who made pre-election promises and statements that they knew would eventually provoke violence and retaliation from their neighbouring country is.... Gaza.  They're on a whole different level when it comes to electing scumbags, I'm genuinely very sorry to say, and they have paid for it dearly.

About the only thing you have which keeps you safe there is the word terrorist. Israel have in the past voted for a known war criminal who otherwise complete fits your statement.

I'm sorry to keep pounding on this point, but I am constantly amazed at the lengths some people here are willing to go to to minimize Hamas' behaviour.  They are a listed terrorist organization, they intentionally target civilians, they intentionally murder civilians when open hostilities are not engaged in, they terrorize and subjugate their own civilian population, they divert funding from economic projects to funding their terrorism (including weapons stockpiling, tunnel infrastructure, etc), they use their own civilians as human shields and the bodies of those same civilians to score political sympathy points, they occupy safe zones and fire weapons from them, and they oppose the very existence of their neighbouring state. They start open hostilities to win concessions, and then they use those concessions to fund continual violence.

And who exactly do you think is saying they don't? I've repeatedly said Hamas are scumbags. What worries me is when people don't realise that Likud are scumbags too. They're just able to hide it a lot better because they have better resources.

Israel is no saint.  They deserve criticism for their tactics, their strategic outlook, and their heavy-handed use of military force to respond to Hamas.  But there is not a world in which I will support Hamas over Israel, or try to equate the two.  Nobody in the regional is particularly noble, but one side on the armed conflict is notably worse than the other for long-term peace and prosperity, and its name starts with H.  I have genuine sympathy for Gaza and the West Bank, and I'd like the world to collectively put its boot in Israel's ass to deal with the situation, but when the rockets start flying to civilian zones or the kidnapping and murder of civilians starts, I will never concede that Hamas is even remotely excusable in its actions.

1. First you have to prove that Hamas was responsible for the kidnap of those three teenagers. Cause pretty much every single piece of evidence I've seen actually points to another group who Hamas don't even like.

2. While I'm not defending the rocket attacks, you have to realise that they didn't start this. Israel started this whole mess off with Operation Brother's Keeper. Rocket attacks are literally all Hamas has to make a point. Cause no one gave a **** when Israel started Operation Brother's Keeper.

I fully believe it is possible to criticize Israel and recognize it's villainous behaviour in some aspects of this historical conflict, while simultaneously recognizing that Hamas are actually villains deserving of global and unequivocable condemnation.

I think you need to realise that they are both villains.

They aren't noble freedom fighters; they're the singular largest factor standing between the status quo and a long-term peace agreement that recognizes the rights of both Israel and a multi-faith state called Palestine existing in the region formerly known as the Mandate of Palestine.

And Likud are next in line right behind them. Cause they don't want a state of Palestine any more than Hamas want a state of Israel.

The Hamas Charter (or whatever other name people want it to go by, it varies) has not been amended with this stance.  Hamas leaders have verbally stated in their negotiations with Fatah that they're willing to contemplate a two-state solution, but the organization has not formally adopted that position throughout.

So Likud's stated position on Palestine is exactly the same as Hamas' stated position on Israel then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud#Charter

Charter

    The 1999 Likud Party platform emphasizes the right of settlement.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and it also claims Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.

    The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."

With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state. "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land."

On 14 June 2009, Netanyahu delivered a seminal address at Bar-Ilan University (also known as "Bar-Ilan Speech"), at Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, that was broadcast live in Israel and across parts of the Arab world, on the topic of the Middle East peace process. He endorsed for the first time the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with several conditions.

The Likud Constitution[31] of May 2014 is more vague and ambiguous. Though it contains commitments to the strengthening of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, it does not explicitly rule out the establishment of a Palestinian state.

I have a LOT of problems with the way Israel does business and has been negotiating with the Palestinian territories; but those take a backseat when the illegitimate armed thugs start shooting at civilian populations in a democratic state, and always will.

I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree with you. Israel should be forced to come to the table and talk peace now or it should be left to its own devices. But while they have America backing them up they know that they don't need to talk peace. The price for this is that Hamas will occasionally make largely ineffectual attacks on Israel. Likud simply don't care about this. The price is low enough to pay if it allows them to continue working on their Zionist view of what Israel should be.

They are quite happy to let Hamas continue attacking civilians to give them a rational to go on doing what they doing.

By demanding a stupid precondition which will never happen you allow Israel to continue their current policies. You fall right into the trap Likud want you to fall into. This is exactly the kind of naive "but they started it!" argument that has led to the situation dragging on as long as it has. It doesn't matter who started it. It matters that it ends now. Stop being part of the problem.