Facts about the war in Israel


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 668 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

If you say so, although the fact that Israel has an effective anti-ballistics system doesn't really answer the question quoted.


Well...yeah...it does.

Not sure which part you are focusing on. He seems to be a bit mystified by the notion that Israel has taken surprisingly few deaths, and the concept of anti-ballistics seem to be beyind his grasp.

Similarly, he seems to have a pretty unsophisticated grasp of what 'precision targetting' involves, and the nature (and habits) of the targets of those strikes.

To put the shoe on the other foot, perhaps he can answer why a bunch of Israelis are now dead at the back end of indiscriminate missile attacks?
He doesn't seem too worried about that, other than as a way to keep score.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He's not asking why there are so few Israeli dead, he's asking why there are so many Palestinian civilians dead.

Which may fall under exactly what "precisiont targetting" involves, but then, maybe "precision targetting" isn't exactly all that the IDF backers claim it's cracked up to be.

Also: "And if indiscriminate Palestinian rocket fire is not an acceptable response to Israeli violence (which it absolutely isn't), how can indiscriminate Israeli bombings of Gaza ever be acceptable?"

So, he seems plenty worried about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:

Yes. The first step is security.

Security for Israel, security for Palestine.

Unless you can achieve that, you cannot move forward.

And how do you achieve this vague concept of "security" ?

Israel cannot secure the area militarily short of genocide: every militant they shoot creates 2 more willing to take his place out of revenge.

The Palestinians have no mechanism for policing their own. They don't have an army, and they don't have enough of the population that doesn't agree with hamas, and there is no way to to progress towards any of that unless their living conditions change.

The Palestinians (rightly) are not going to put up with the status quo. You can't just tell people to be quiet and put up with a life of misery and rely on the beneficence of another group that has historically not had their best interests at heart.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You have just successfully pointed out why there is still no Palestinian State.

Lots of work to do.

Palestinians have to have security forces to shut down the militants. They have to have some kind of economic opportunity that accompanies peace negotiations. Israel has to learn to trust Palestinian police commanders and politicians. Israel has to stop the settlement building and encourage Palestinian agriculture. And on and on.

This is really tough stuff. It takes years and is delicate and isn't easy like drawing a line on a map that has no bearing to the situation on the ground.


Lord Snow wrote:
As you may have heard from any number of international media sources, war has started between Hamas (supported by a handful of other Islamic terrorist organaizations) and Israel.

didnt the Isrealites' special forces invent Krav Maga

that stuff is cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmBPFPTq-g


A couple more reasons that there is a disparity in deaths is:
Explosive load of Qassam rocket: 10-20 kg
Explosive load of Maverick air to ground: 57-136 kg

The Palestinian rockets are fired blind, and often crash and burn in open ground.
The Israeli missiles are guided and hit their target much more often.

The Israeli missiles make a bigger boom and are more likely to cause significant damage - even through walls and into bunkers, bring down buildings, etc.

None of which excuses the fact that rockets are being fired from Gaza... just explains the lower death count.

Going back to what Lord Snow posted:
Completely agree, elements of Hamas and other Palestinian groups are pretty downright horrible to their own citizens as well when looking outward.


Yakman wrote:

You have just successfully pointed out why there is still no Palestinian State.

Lots of work to do.

Palestinians have to have security forces to shut down the militants. They have to have some kind of economic opportunity that accompanies peace negotiations. Israel has to learn to trust Palestinian police commanders and politicians.. And on and on.

Quote:
This is really tough stuff. It takes years and is delicate and isn't easy like drawing a line on a map that has no bearing to the situation on the ground.

Did i say it was going to be easy? No. did i say it would be done when you draw the lines on a map? No. I said it needs to start there. Let me spell out why the map needs to be the first step so you can stop trying to address an idea I don't hold and I'm clearly not advocating.

-They have to have some kind of economic opportunity that accompanies peace negotiations-

You cannot have an economy without commerce. You cannot have commerce without movement. You cannot have movement without in an area where moving from one of those little yellow dots on the map through the green and into another little yellow dot takes 4 hours to get through an armed check point.

-Palestinians have to have security forces to shut down the militants-

This is neigh impossible, even by mid east peace standards, if those security forces cannot move and operate within the area they ostensibly control. Your security forces can't move from one yellow dot to the other. Try to imagine the Israeli guards on the checkpoints letting heavily armed people through.

- Israel has to stop the settlement building and encourage Palestinian agriculture-

This problem is exacerbated 10 fold without connectivity. In order to have agriculture you need to control

1) the field
2) The water supply
3) and what people always forgot- that long stretch of land in between. In the us this can be a pain when different localities bicker at each other. Its neigh impossible to build any aqueduct or the infrastructure for a water supply when the people who's land it has to cross want you dead.

You then need to sell your crops. The problems pointed out with commerce in a fragmented area are magnified ten fold when the produce in question can be half way to rotting before you can get it to market.

If you merely stop the settlements from expanding you're still stuck


Shifty wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Another interesting article.

5 Lies the Media Keeps Repeating About Gaza

That was actually a pretty bad article, drawing ridiculous conclusions and clearly shows a lack of understanding of military hardware and capability. The journalist could well do us all a favour and try be a bit more informed before posing such ridiculous questions in future.

the silly man wrote:
If, for some odd reason, you cannot decide whether it is official Israeli spokespersons or soldiers of conscience and human rights investigators who are telling the truth, consider this question: If Hamas has only managed to kill 3 people despite being bent on killing civilians with thousands of indiscriminate rockets, how has Israel managed to kill several dozen Palestinian civilians when it is using sophisticated precision weapons to avoid civilian casualties?

Perhaps he could look into military technology and find the answer?

Like here, on Janes, with a 30 second search.

Just saying.

I think you're reading the article very different from how I'm reading it (and it seems like Comrade Anklebiter is reading it the same way I'm reading it). He's not confused at all. He's questioning the story the media is reporting, that the Palestinians are carpet bombing Israel and Israel are only doing a few very precise strikes. If that's the story the media wants to tell, then it doesn't match up with the number of deaths from each side.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

He's not asking why there are so few Israeli dead, he's asking why there are so many Palestinian civilians dead.

Which may fall under exactly what "precisiont targetting" involves, but then, maybe "precision targetting" isn't exactly all that the IDF backers claim it's cracked up to be.

Also: "And if indiscriminate Palestinian rocket fire is not an acceptable response to Israeli violence (which it absolutely isn't), how can indiscriminate Israeli bombings of Gaza ever be acceptable?"

So, he seems plenty worried about it.

I'll tell you exactly what "precision targeting" means: it means more than 1,500 aerial strikes against the most densely populated area in the world, while being forced to attack problematic targets like mosques and public schools (because that's where Hamas keep their weapons), and killing less than 60 civilians. That's less than 1 innocent man killed per 20 attacks. Sorry to tell you, but given the circumstances, it's nearly impossible to do any better. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about what Israel is doing.

You can ask if it is morally acceptable to kill 60 humans from another country or nationality in order to make sure that millions of citizens in your own country can live their days without being subjugated to dozens of missile attacks per month (or hundreds, when Hamas feel like it).
There isn't a single country in the world that would give a different answer from Israel to that question.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Shifty wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Another interesting article.

5 Lies the Media Keeps Repeating About Gaza

That was actually a pretty bad article, drawing ridiculous conclusions and clearly shows a lack of understanding of military hardware and capability. The journalist could well do us all a favour and try be a bit more informed before posing such ridiculous questions in future.

the silly man wrote:
If, for some odd reason, you cannot decide whether it is official Israeli spokespersons or soldiers of conscience and human rights investigators who are telling the truth, consider this question: If Hamas has only managed to kill 3 people despite being bent on killing civilians with thousands of indiscriminate rockets, how has Israel managed to kill several dozen Palestinian civilians when it is using sophisticated precision weapons to avoid civilian casualties?

Perhaps he could look into military technology and find the answer?

Like here, on Janes, with a 30 second search.

Just saying.

I think you're reading the article very different from how I'm reading it (and it seems like Comrade Anklebiter is reading it the same way I'm reading it). He's not confused at all. He's questioning the story the media is reporting, that the Palestinians are carpet bombing Israel and Israel are only doing a few very precise strikes. If that's the story the media wants to tell, then it doesn't match up with the number of deaths from each side.

Hamas has very primitive weapons, Israel has very sophisticated weapons. Israel attacked more than 1,500 times, Hamas attacked with less than that. Israel is defended by a very high tech anti missile system. More importantly, the missiles Hamas owns are very hard to aim. A large percentage of them actually falls in Gaza (some of the deaths over there are due to those Hamas rockets), and about 90% of those that reach Israel fall in open grounds without harming anyone. When they do fall in populated areas, most of the Israelis living there hide in shelters, making them practically invulnerable to the missile attacks.

Further, hospitals in Israel are much better equipped to handle badly injured people than their Gazan counterparts. So if you even get wounded in Gaza there's a much higher chance of becoming a casualty.

That's why there are many more dead in Gaza than in Israel. Sorry folks, media telling the truth this time. Israel was the target of over a thousand missile attacks last month. They are inaffectvie but that dosen't change the number.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^^ Spot on Lord Snow. It's not 'media lies and consipracy', it's just the nature of the weapons systems (and defences) in play.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
You can ask if it is morally acceptable to kill 60 humans from another country or nationality in order to make sure that millions of citizens in your own country can live their days without being subjugated to dozens of missile attacks per month

You have a ready apples to apples comparison. Don't try to shy away from it by only allowing your side to operate with a broader context.

Yes, any nation on earth would make the same decision. But at least cop to the fact that you're not comparing millions to 60. You're comparing 60 of their lives to 4 of yours. Whatever the rockets are doing to make lives worse for Israel that justifies the missile strikes the Palestinians could respond with a litany of things Israel is doing to make the Palestinians lives worse that justify the rocket attacks.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
You can ask if it is morally acceptable to kill 60 humans from another country or nationality in order to make sure that millions of citizens in your own country can live their days without being subjugated to dozens of missile attacks per month

You have a ready apples to apples comparison. Don't try to shy away from it by only allowing your side to operate with a broader context.

Yes, any nation on earth would make the same decision. But at least cop to the fact that you're not comparing millions to 60. You're comparing 60 of their lives to 4 of yours. Whatever the rockets are doing to make lives worse for Israel that justifies the missile strikes the Palestinians could respond with a litany of things Israel is doing to make the Palestinians lives worse that justify the rocket attacks.

Obviously I'm not comparing millions to 60 on a one-to-one basis, since those millions of Israelis are indeed alive (also by the way there are 6 Israeli dead as of this morning). However, comparing "their" 60 to "our" 4 is also wrong. In this sort of situation, intentions are sometimes more relevent than deeds.

As an example: imagine an Al-Qaeda operative attempting to hijack a plane and (for example) crush it into a building in the united states, caliming hundreds of civilian lives in the process. Let's say that the CIA managed to detect the threat and, while still in the airport, CIA operatives assaulted the man. He responded with violance which ended up creating a gunfight, during which the terrorist was killed without even casing an injury to anyone around him.

By your measurment, the U.S just killed 1 while loosing 0, therefore they killed more. Al-Qaeda could preseant this as aggrssion.

I think it is obvious to you why that logic is faulty. The fact that the CIA gives escellent training to it's field agents means they are more likely to survive a fight, so they will kill more than get killed, but there is no doubt the agressor in this story is the Al-Qaeda man.

I would like to remind you that during days when Israel wasn't holding Gaza quite as tightly as it does now (it is nearly impossible to go out of Gaza without Israeli permission now, and that permission is hard to get; many Palestinians are suffering daily because of this), suicide bombing was a very regular strategy deployed by local terrorists. I remember times, when as a child my parents won't let me to go to a movie with friends (or even just go to Jerusalem on a school trip) because there was too much of a chance that a suicide bomber will designate the nearest mall/shopping centre as his target. Those days Israelis dies every week.

Even earlier this year, with the fence in place, Hamas operatives shot anti tank missiles at a friggin school bus (luckily empty of children at the time and the driver survived).

the rocket fire Hamas aimes at Israel isn't meant to be a nuisance or just a way to make people's lives harder. They are just the (meager) best that Hamas can do at the moment. Rocket fire is not intended to "make life worse", it is intended to kill and strike terror and destroy. It is hardly effective, but just like the Al-Qaeda operative who couldn't kill anyone because the CIA got him first, the intentions of Hamas are NOT as innocent as "making lives harder".

The Exchange

I mean, it's like you are not even noticing that you are talking about shooting rockets at civilians. Yes, I get it, it's very upsetting that people in Gaza are denied some basic human rights (seriously, I mean it, it upsets me), but that dosen't, and NEVER shaould, justify firing rockets at people.

this is actualy a kind of racism, you know? for some reason, it is acceptable to you that Hamas shoots in order to kill, aiming exclusivley at bystanders, bcause the people in Gaza are opressed Arabs, and how else are opressed Arabs to behave? However somehow, when Israel (with it's much more western culture) reacts to the opression that rocket fire creates by attacking, that's unjustified, because they are not ARABS. It's not like they can't control themselves.

If you would have felt that the U.S govrenment is constantly opressing you, would you buy a gun and shoot people to death in the street? do you know anyone who you think will do so? no? good. That's because that kind of behavior is monstrous and unacceptable. Arabs are humans like you and your family and friends. The same kind of people, really. That's why when some of them start doing that kind of thing, it's also unacceptable, it's still a crime. Expect of them what you expect of yourself.

By the way, 98% of Arabs are peaceful people just like you and I. Bad thing is it only takes 2% of them to create groups like Hamas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
By the way, 98% of Arabs are peaceful people just like you and I. Bad thing is it only takes 2% of them to create groups like Hamas.

Lord Snow - I hear what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree with many of your points. At no point have I ever thought the aggressive actions undertaken by Palestinian groups (suicide bombs, rockets, etc) as acceptable.

What about the Israeli settlers who assault and harass the Palestinian people? I think you'd agree that those people are bad guys... but you'd also argue to not taint the entirety of the Israeli people with the actions of that few.

But as a country alot of the measures that you stated - controlled borders, the walls, segregation of farmers from crops, very tightly controlled import/export, destruction of infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.

These all affect the 98% of normal peace loving people more heavily than the 2% of bad guys.

While what I'm saying might be seen as anti-Israeli, I'm not trying to be. I'm trying to be pro-humanity. But at the heart of the issue is that the Israeli government at present:

  • Justifies all actions taken because of Hamas - and attempts to displace all of the blame off of itself onto the Palestinians because of this.
  • Refuses to rein in and control the settlers - who have killed in the past but I don't believe any of them have ever been charged / imprisoned.
  • Blockades the Gaza strip and West Bank (admittedly partially relaxed recently) which while it blocks some questionable material, also blocks medicine, food, construction materials to rebuild infrastructure that Israel destroyed, etc.
  • Steadily encroaches into the West Bank further and further beyond what international 'lines' had been set.

I mean this conflict just passed kicked off when Israel assassinated a major Hamas official... reportedly who was engaged with and involved in discussions around attempting to put in place a ceasefire. (based on international media reports)

How in any way is that justified?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Mark Sweetman,
That all depends when you consider this to have started. Isrel assassinated him because he's a military commander of Hamas and rockets had been alucnehd at israel. Which was undoubtedly due to some provocation from Israel. Which was due to provocation from Hamas...and so on ad infinitum.

I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's use of "Remember Kroome Valley" to mean "Remember the atrocity they committed on us to justify the atrocity we're about to commit on them."

Lord Snow,
To use your own wording, "What nation on Earth would allow another to constantly encroach on its territory without a military response?" Neither side is exactly blameless here and military solutions have not worked for over 50 years. I doubt they'll magically start working now. And yes, I do understand that if you don't respond militarily that will embolden those on the other side who want to commit genocide but as a primary strategy to produce peace and security, it ain't doing a good job.

The Exchange

Mark Sweetman wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
By the way, 98% of Arabs are peaceful people just like you and I. Bad thing is it only takes 2% of them to create groups like Hamas.

What about the Israeli settlers who assault and harass the Palestinian people? I think you'd agree that those people are bad guys... but you'd also argue to not taint the entirety of the Israeli people with the actions of that few.

Yeah, those Israeli settlers are bad, violent people. However, it's not as if they are the only ones to assualt and harass - Palestinians do that as well. Those "assaults" are more like crime families fighting or something - evrey now and then one groups gets bored and seeks someone from the other side to beat up. As far as I know, the personal, small scale violance goes both ways there in roughly equivalent measures.

It's not entirley negligable, yet those kind of small violant acts are rather nit important to the actual political tension because:
a) they kind of cancel each other out since both sides are indulging in it
b) they are performed by stuipd civilians, not by armed forces representing either IDF or Hamas
c) Very few casualties
d) people beating each other with sticks dosen't seem all that important when more powerful people are blowing each othere's lands as the same time with rockets and air strikes.

Again, I realise that many, MANY innocent Palestinians suffer from the conflict between Israel and Hamas... I certainly agree that people in Gaza are the greater victims here... the question is, who is victimizng them? in reagrd to evrey day life, both Israel and Hamas are responsible, because Israel opresses human rights and Hamas does all those things you can see in the video I linked several posts above.

However I do claim that Hamas is responsible for the misery caused to Palestinians from Israeli air strikes, since Israel cannot reasonably be expected not to retaliate when rockets are fired at it's populace.

Hamas has extensive funds and is backed by several international powers - it COULD use those funds to improve life in Gaza but does not, focusing instead on arming itself to the teeth witn inaffective weapons.
During the couple years after operation Cast Led, Hamas didn't shot, and therefore Israel didn't shot. It was as simple as that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

You can ask if it is morally acceptable to kill 60 humans from another country or nationality in order to make sure that millions of citizens in your own country can live their days without being subjugated to dozens of missile attacks per month (or hundreds, when Hamas feel like it).

There isn't a single country in the world that would give a different answer from Israel to that question.

I like the first part of Citizen Watson's reply, but I'd add:

Or you could ask whether it is morally acceptable to dispossess a people, herd them into densely-populated bantustans (all their rockets sites are near civilians!), impose a blockade on them (oh, their hospitals aren't that good, I wonder why?), shoot their 13-year olds, assassinate their leaders and then carry out 1,500 aerial strikes when they respond.

It's possible every country in the world would respond the same way, but I'm not really a bigger fan of any of them. I oppose "targeted strikes" that kill civilians in Pakistan and Yemen, I don't see why I should cut Israel any slack.

And to be honest, I'm not sure I believe you. When my "own" country does this shiznit in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, they also claim they take every effort to avoid civilian casualties, and they are almost always lying. IIRC, the human rights groups issued pretty damning reports about Israel in southern Lebanon not too long ago, and, again, IIRC, Operation Cast Lead earned Israel accusations of war crimes from the UN investigator.

But I'm sure this is different because, uh, because a guy on Paizo who started a thread called "The Facts About the War in Israel" and then went on to say that the creation of the state of Israel was accompanied by only one terrorist act says so.

And yes, Hamas are a bunch of raving, anti-semitic, anti-women, vicious sectarian murderers as I and most of the "anti-Israel" crowd has conceded. Which is exactly why Israel supported them (and their predecessors) for so many years to undermine the PLO. And where have I heard the story of an oppressed people subjected to horrible treatment being driven to a racist, xenophobic, ethnic-cleansing ideology before? When has that ever happened?


Lord Snow wrote:
However I do claim that Hamas is responsible for the misery caused to Palestinians from Israeli air strikes, since Israel cannot reasonably be expected not to retaliate when rockets are fired at it's populace.

And the IDF is responsible for the deaths of Israelis from Palestinian rockets, since Hamas cannot reasonably be expected not to retaliate when their children are shot and their leaders assassinated.

This is a very easy game to play.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
points

You are not going to get the Israelis to take down their security checkpoints until they are assured of their own security.

You cannot get them to withdraw from the West Bank until they feel secure enough to make the hard domestic choices.

I agree that the Palestinian Archipelago is a horrible thing to do, that it stunts economic and political growth and everything else. So do most people.

But it is the Israelis who have to feel secure enough to start connecting those islands, and to do that, the US, the EU, and others are spending millions to build up the "Capacity" of the Palestinian Authority so that it can function as an effective government. That takes a long time and an enormous amount of trust that has to be built between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Hard, hard work on both sides. Security for both sides.

Then you can talk about final borders.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lord Snow - the persecution of the Palestinian people in the West Bank essentially disempowers and impoverishes them. Combine that with some unpunished settler violence and torching of olive fields and it reinforces that the Israeli security forces and government are doing nothing to protect them. Land and livelihood taken away, homes destroyed and an occupying force who treats them poorly - it's understandable how Hamas and other extreme groups survive and thrive.

If Israel really wants to stop the rockets, it isn't going to do it by destroying rocket launchers... the militants will just build more. It needs to treat the Palestinian people with respect, allow them basic dignities such as freedom of movement, protect their homes and livelihood, allow proper export, and heaven forbid even consider Right of Return. That way you'll dry up the militant recruiters, get more and more moderate Palestinians on your side and get a lot more sympathy abroad.

Either that or continue on this hard hard line approach, but don't be surprised if the rockets come again after a lull.

Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3

The Exchange

Anklebiter - when your country fights, it's usualy half a world away. However, about a fourth of the citizens in Israel can hear the "boom!" whenever a missile explodes (that's an exeggaration but you get the point). It's tighter confiens around here and hiding things is most difficult. You doubt the sincerity of the IDF but don't doubt the sincerity of other sources, many of which have an intrest in portraying Israel in a negative way. I'm bringing another conflict into this, but think of the Marmara, they first protest sail to try and breach the sea blockaded around Gaza. There are videos that can't be interpreted in more than one way showing people on that ship preparing to assault IDF marines, and then videos of the attack itself. Some people died there and some IDF soldiers very nearly died. I know in person one of those people, he told me himself exactly what went on around there. Yet, the world media presented the Marmara crew as victims with no bad intentions at all. There are sources that are out to get Israel (just as there are sources out to get most western countries). Crediting them too much is not wise.

Please, respond to this (a qoute from a previous post of mine):
"I'll tell you exactly what "precision targeting" means: it means more than 1,500 aerial strikes against the most densely populated area in the world, while being forced to attack problematic targets like mosques and public schools (because that's where Hamas keep their weapons), and killing less than 60 civilians. That's less than 1 innocent man killed per 20 attacks. Sorry to tell you, but given the circumstances, it's nearly impossible to do any better. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about what Israel is doing"

You can claim that the IDF does little to prevent civilian life but, I am pretty durn sure, avidance is against you on this one.

The Exchange

Mark Sweetman wrote:

Lord Snow - the persecution of the Palestinian people in the West Bank essentially disempowers and impoverishes them. Combine that with some unpunished settler violence and torching of olive fields and it reinforces that the Israeli security forces and government are doing nothing to protect them. Land and livelihood taken away, homes destroyed and an occupying force who treats them poorly - it's understandable how Hamas and other extreme groups survive and thrive.

If Israel really wants to stop the rockets, it isn't going to do it by destroying rocket launchers... the militants will just build more. It needs to treat the Palestinian people with respect, allow them basic dignities such as freedom of movement, protect their homes and livelihood, allow proper export, and heaven forbid even consider Right of Return. That way you'll dry up the militant recruiters, get more and more moderate Palestinians on your side and get a lot more sympathy abroad.

Either that or continue on this hard hard line approach, but don't be surprised if the rockets come again after a lull.

Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3

If noly that was possible, but you are oversimplifying the situation. Put yourself in an imaginary position of power - you are now the prime minister of Israel. Hamas, a section of the Muslim Brothers with known ties to Syria and Iran, is only one of the armed groups in Gaza that are not looking for peace but are looking to harm Israel in evrey way possible. Now you give the order to allow Palestinians more freedom of movement. Just this week there was a terrorist strike on a bus in the middle of Tel Aviv, to which Hamas claimed to be responsible. Go ahead, just allow your troops to be less strict on the border.

About the Right of Return - maybe (hopefuly) there will be a way to achieve the rest of the commandable things you mentioned. But count on me, this will never happen. No one but the most radical left wing people is willing to have this - if you support the Right of Return, that probably means you are either an Arab or a radical with all sorts of other baggage (like being an anarchist or something). I am saying this from personal expirience.


Quote from UN Inquiry Report on the Flotilla Raid

117. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred;
b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent so as to minimize casualties.

And specific to the vessel in question:
133. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
134. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.
Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.

From the initial summary:
There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.


Lord Snow wrote:
Anklebiter - when your country fights, it's usualy half a world away. However, about a fourth of the citizens in Israel can hear the "boom!" whenever a missile explodes (that's an exeggaration but you get the point). It's tighter confiens around here and hiding things is most difficult. You doubt the sincerity of the IDF but don't doubt the sincerity of other sources, many of which have an intrest in portraying Israel in a negative way.

I'll respond after you substantiate the claim that I "don't doubt the sincerity of other sources, many of which have an interest in portraying Israel in a negative way."

It's probably easy to do, but I want to see how you do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Anklebiter - when your country fights, it's usualy half a world away. However, about a fourth of the citizens in Israel can hear the "boom!" whenever a missile explodes (that's an exeggaration but you get the point). It's tighter confiens around here and hiding things is most difficult.

As for this, yes, it is easier for me, here in New Hampshire, the land of freedom.

And yet, there are Israelis (and Palestinians) who are opposed to what your government is doing and what Hamas is doing. I read somewhere that even on the first day of this stuff, there were hundreds demonstrating in Tel Aviv and Haifa (I think) against the airstrikes. There has been a thread, tenuous at times but never broken, of efforts at cross-sectarian Arab/Hebrew-speaking solidarity. I'd like to believe that if I lived there, I'd be part of it, but I don't live there, so it is only hypothetical and, perhaps, therefore cheap.

On the other hand, I'm not the one who started this thread. If you thought you were going to get a free pass, you haven't been paying attention to this place.

Stay safe and move to America as quick as possible. And bring your girlfriend with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
If noly that was possible, but you are oversimplifying the situation.

Oversimplifying perhaps, but it doesn't mean it isn't a valid approach to some degree.

Again I'd repeat, systematic oppression and disempowerment in the occupied territories is only going to make it easier for the militant recruiters. A stronger economy where there are real opportunities to live, learn and work in Palestine will help immensely in reducing the tension and violence.

Either that or abandon the charade of a moderate approach and come out in full battle armor rattling the saber and un-repentently accept the role of the aggressor and oppressor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:


By your measurment, the U.S just killed 1 while loosing 0, therefore they killed more. Al-Qaeda could preseant this as aggrssion.

This "analogy" is completely off. Nothing fits, at all.

Israel has killed ~60 civilians in operation pillar of defense in addition to the militants. Civilians. You cannot, as your analogy attempts to, pretend that the only people you're hitting deserve to die. You cannot pretend that the math works out in your favor. The CIA in your example killed 1 to save many. You're killing many to save few.

Israel is killing civilians when you launch missiles. Ya'll don't mean to, but you know damn well its inevitable. Yes, any other country would do the same thing but by all that is holy at least have the guts to face up to what you're deciding to do rather than coming up with some self righteous fiction that absolves you of any sort of moral quandary.

158 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict by 22 November, including 102 civilians, 55 militants and one policeman-wiki.

Quote:
I think it is obvious to you why that logic is faulty.

I think its obvious even to you that the logic in your analogy isn't remotely my logic.

Quote:
The fact that the CIA gives excellent training to it's field agents means they are more likely to survive a fight, so they will kill more than get killed, but there is no doubt the agressor in this...

They.were.civilians! Not every palastinian deserves to die.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Sweetman wrote:

Quote from UN Inquiry Report on the Flotilla Raid

Lets not forget some other quotes shall we?

ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is
subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces
a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade
was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons
from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the
requirements of international law.

iii. The flotilla was a non-governmental endeavour, involving vessels and
participants from a number of countries.
iv. Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted
recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the
flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions
about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers,
particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential
for escalation.

There were missteps made all around. But a major part of it is this. The flotilla had no buisness being there. They also share the blame for what happened that day. If you're going to chalk this up as another of Israel's list of atrocities, you'll also have to accept that they were placed in a bad situation by the reckless actions of whoever organized that boat trip. And as to why they were there in the first place, that question remains not completely answered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
I mean, it's like you are not even noticing that you are talking about shooting rockets at civilians. Yes, I get it, it's very upsetting that people in Gaza are denied some basic human rights (seriously, I mean it, it upsets me), but that dosen't, and NEVER shaould, justify firing rockets at people.

I think it does. Someone shows up, takes your land, packs you like sardines into unlivable conditions, won't even let you leave, sucks up all the resources and routinely carries out a military occupation is inviting an armed resistance.

Quote:
this is actualy a kind of racism, you know? for some reason, it is acceptable to you that Hamas shoots in order to kill, aiming exclusivley at bystanders, bcause the people in Gaza are opressed Arabs, and how else are opressed Arabs to behave?

Race has nothing to do with it. Its all about power disparity.

Quote:
However somehow, when Israel (with it's much more western culture) reacts to the opression that rocket fire creates by attacking, that's unjustified, because they are not ARABS. It's not like they can't control themselves.

Israel has other options. The Palestinians do not.

Quote:
If you would have felt that the U.S govrenment is constantly opressing you, would you buy a gun and shoot people to death in the street? do you know anyone who you think will do so? no? good.

We have an entire ammendment in our constitution specifically to allow for that possibility of having to do that. If the government was treating me like Israel was treating the Palestinians i would in fact be shooting people to object. I would probably try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum rather than a maximum though.

Quote:
That's because that kind of behavior is monstrous and unacceptable.

Until you win. Then kids get off from school on your birthday. How is that not what Yitzhak Shamir and George Washington did?

Quote:
Arabs are humans like you and your family and friends. The same kind of people, really. That's why when some of them start doing that kind of thing, it's also unacceptable, it's still a crime. Expect of them what you expect of yourself.

I do not expect people to just lie down and die when they're oppressed. The only problem I can see is that they're focusing more on indiscriminate/civilian targets.


Yakman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
points
You are not going to get the Israelis to take down their security checkpoints until they are assured of their own security.

The checkpoints I'm speaking of are the ones in the west bank. There shouldn't be any green in between the yellows to secure.

Quote:
You cannot get them to withdraw from the West Bank until they feel secure enough to make the hard domestic choices.

They did it in Gaza.

Quote:
But it is the Israelis who have to feel secure enough to start connecting those islands

.. NO. No islands. They will never work. The best way for the people currently in the green to be secure is to GET OUT.

and to do that, the US, the EU, and others are spending millions to build up the "Capacity" of the Palestinian Authority so that it can function as an effective government. That takes a long time and an enormous amount of trust that has to be built between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Quote:
Then you can talk about final borders.

There is nothing that would ever cause the settlers living in the west bank to feel secure. The Palestinians taking control of their own water resources would scare them. You need a border between the two and the settlers need to be on the other side of it or nothing you're suggesting can happen.


Lazarx - quotes were not forgotten, and you'll note that I linked the article for interested parties to read, as you did. Sure there is responsibility on both sides I don't and didn't deny that.

If anything I think it depicts Israel's bigger stick approach pretty well. There is a tendency to respond with an excess of force that while it demonstrates the resolve... also tends to result in some disparity of outcome.

I'd also note that one of the outcomes was a relaxation of the blockade - which is a positive reaction from Israel.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What I'm suggesting is what's happening.

Israel left the Gaza - and got a ton of criticism for it because they did so unilaterally, w/o consulting the Palestinians.

To ensure that Israel is politically able to leave the West Bank, the Palestinians have become more capable of self-government. They are getting there.

You cannot persuade the Israelis to leave immediately - the settlers vote, the people on the borders vote, etc. It has to start slow. Trust has to be built. That's the path to peace, at least in the West Bank: Palestinians secure, Israelis secure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:

What I'm suggesting is what's happening.

Israel left the Gaza - and got a ton of criticism for it because they did so unilaterally, w/o consulting the Palestinians.

To ensure that Israel is politically able to leave the West Bank, the Palestinians have become more capable of self-government. They are getting there.

You cannot persuade the Israelis to leave immediately - the settlers vote, the people on the borders vote, etc. It has to start slow. Trust has to be built. That's the path to peace, at least in the West Bank: Palestinians secure, Israelis secure.

How about just stopping the expansion of settlements? You know, as a first step and a sign they were serious. That doesn't need to wait for Palestinians to be capable of self-government.

The settlers don't vote against dismantling the settlements because they're not secure. If it was security they wanted, they wouldn't be where they are.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm 100% behind you. A settlement freeze - a meaningful one - has to be done.

It's super hard to do in the context of Israeli politics. They try it, and they need 10,000 soldiers to move 50 people out of an illegal outpost because thousands of protesters show up.

Very difficult stuff to do in a democracy... and that's not even talking about the developed suburbs around Jerusalem that have 100,000 people living in them: this is a hilltop deep in the West Bank with some cinderblock houses and a diesel generator or two.

But like I said, hard, hard, hard work. This is what the Israelis have to do, just as the Palestinians do their part. None of it is easy.


Yakman wrote:


To ensure that Israel is politically able to leave the West Bank, the Palestinians have become more capable of self-government. They are getting there.

Its not self government that Israel is worried about: its how a Palestinian government would deal with some reaaaaaly angry Palestinians and the Jewish settlers.. ie, how Palestinians would govern someone else.

At worst, you're looking at torches and pitch forks.

More likely, the palastinians would take the water for themselves and drive the settlers out.

Even the best case, fair solution of redistributing the water would draw violent if not armed objection from the settlers that the Israeli army would wind up resolving in favor of the settlers.

Quote:
You cannot persuade the Israelis to leave immediately - the settlers vote, the people on the borders vote, etc. It has to start slow. Trust has to be built. That's the path to peace, at least in the West Bank: Palestinians secure, Israelis secure.

The advantage of removal is that it doesn't require trust.

That level of trust simply isn't possible. Saying "Wait for trust to build" is pretty much the same as saying keep things as they are until the heat death of the universe. The way they are is not acceptable.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Peace requires trust. Bottom line. Israel has to trust that whatever Palestinian state emerges it will fight against terror. Palestinians have to trust that the Israelis will not continue to oppress them. Palestinians have to trust their gov't. These things take a lot of time.

What is happening in Gaza right now might actually be advantageous to the Peace Process, such as it is. Fatah, on the West Bank, is doing the right thing - Hamas is doing the wrong thing.

Hopefully Fatah reaps the benefits. We'll have to see.

The Palestinian gov't such as it will be, will not govern Jewish settlers unless those settlers wish to remain. The IDF will have to forcibly remove many of the settlers, and Israel will have to give them money to get them to leave. A handful of fanatics might stay, but this is not the step we are at in the process.

Do I think the Israeli gov't has to take a stronger line on the settlers? Yes. But like I've said before, those people vote and they have a constituency far beyond their numbers. For the peace process to move forward, Israel has to stop the expansion of settlements and at least begin to move against the more egregious examples of outposts and such.

I've always felt that to get the process moving in a serious, substantive direction that Israel has to move first, but both sides have to also move together.


Yakman wrote:

I'm 100% behind you. A settlement freeze - a meaningful one - has to be done.

It's super hard to do in the context of Israeli politics. They try it, and they need 10,000 soldiers to move 50 people out of an illegal outpost because thousands of protesters show up.

Very difficult stuff to do in a democracy... and that's not even talking about the developed suburbs around Jerusalem that have 100,000 people living in them: this is a hilltop deep in the West Bank with some cinderblock houses and a diesel generator or two.

But like I said, hard, hard, hard work. This is what the Israelis have to do, just as the Palestinians do their part. None of it is easy.

Well, turn it around: How politically difficult is it for the Palestinians to remain peaceful while armed foreigners take more of their land?

Any country in the world would use force to stop that. And against the country to that supported it.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I repeat:

"But like I said, hard, hard, hard work."


Yakman wrote:

I repeat:

"But like I said, hard, hard, hard work."

Bootstrap levitation isn't going to happen.

The Palestinians aren't in a position to DO anything. They can't stop iran from sending their mal contents rockets: they don't control their own borders. They can't remove the settlers, they have nothing to work with in order to build an economy , and they can't even leave.

Lets say tommorow you were made the head of Hamas (apparently hamas has its elections in florida). What could you do ?


Yakman wrote:

What is happening in Gaza right now might actually be advantageous to the Peace Process, such as it is. Fatah, on the West Bank, is doing the right thing - Hamas is doing the wrong thing.

Hopefully Fatah reaps the benefits. We'll have to see.

Doesn't seem to be working.

The Exchange

Mark Sweetman wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
If noly that was possible, but you are oversimplifying the situation.

Oversimplifying perhaps, but it doesn't mean it isn't a valid approach to some degree.

Again I'd repeat, systematic oppression and disempowerment in the occupied territories is only going to make it easier for the militant recruiters. A stronger economy where there are real opportunities to live, learn and work in Palestine will help immensely in reducing the tension and violence.

Either that or abandon the charade of a moderate approach and come out in full battle armor rattling the saber and un-repentently accept the role of the aggressor and oppressor.

A moderate approach means I do not wish harm to anyone, I do not consider everything "my" side does as justified, and I strive to be objective wherever I can.

And, being objective, I can see both sides of the dangerous coin - neither side can get the other one to back out by using military force (Israel can't wipe out Hamas and Hamas is certainly incapable of intimidating Israel into any sort of submission), and on the other hand any sort of move towards peace and cooperation is negated by mutual distrust. Israel simply cannot trust Hamas not to abuse any sort of freedom Palestinians in Gaza get, while Hamas is pressured by it's overseas backers to keep hostility even at the cost of suffering to the locals, creating a situation where neither side can make the first move safetly.

I am not objecting to the principals behind your idea, I'm providing an explanation of why these good ideas are not impelmented. It's a complex reality in the middle east and I'm sure neither you nor I are even remotley awere to all the factors behind every move each power performes, so just declaring that peace is good for the region is not helpful.

Meanwhile, with no long term solution on the horizon, Israel cannot opt to sit idly by as Hamas attacks, which to me justifies this recent operation.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yakman wrote:

I repeat:

"But like I said, hard, hard, hard work."

Bootstrap levitation isn't going to happen.

The Palestinians aren't in a position to DO anything. They can't stop iran from sending their mal contents rockets: they don't control their own borders. They can't remove the settlers, they have nothing to work with in order to build an economy , and they can't even leave.

I'll repeat myself from a few posts up:

"I've always felt that to get the process moving in a serious, substantive direction that Israel has to move first, but both sides have to also move together."

Quote:
Lets say tommorow you were made the head of Hamas (apparently hamas has its elections in florida). What could you do ?

I'd shoot rockets at Israel.

Hamas is solidifying its jihadi reputation, garnering int'l aid, and testing the relationship between Cairo and Tel Aviv. Whether or not they kill Israelis is not important - whether or not they look like the standard-bearers of resistance is. It is all about local politics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:


A moderate approach means I do not wish harm to anyone, I do not consider everything "my" side does as justified, and I strive to be objective wherever I can.

And, being objective, I can see both sides of the dangerous coin - neither side can get the other one to back out by using military force (Israel can't wipe out Hamas and Hamas is certainly incapable of intimidating Israel into any sort of submission), and on the other hand any sort of move towards peace and cooperation is negated by mutual distrust. Israel simply cannot trust Hamas not to abuse any sort of freedom Palestinians in Gaza get, while Hamas is pressured by it's overseas backers to keep hostility even at the cost of suffering to the locals, creating a situation where neither side can make the first move safetly.

I am not objecting to the principals behind your idea, I'm providing an explanation of why these good ideas are not impelmented. It's a complex reality in the middle east and I'm sure neither you nor I are even remotley awere to all the factors behind every move each power performes, so just declaring that peace is good for the region is not helpful.

Meanwhile, with no long term solution on the horizon, Israel cannot opt to sit idly by as Hamas attacks, which to me justifies this recent operation.

I'm not at all sure it's just "overseas backers" pushing Hamas to attack. It may be simple logic.

What other negotiating tool do they have? The Israeli government doesn't want anything from the Palestinians that it can't just take. Except peace.
Hamas is negotiating from a position of extreme weakness. Other than meaningless rhetoric, like acknowledging Israel's right to exist or giving up the right of return, what can Hamas offer Israel?
Nothing but peace. Which means they can't just stop attacking and then try to negotiate, without at least periodically reminding Israel that they do have the ability to attack. Otherwise, all Israel has to do is pretend to negotiate and never actually come to a deal. All the while continuing to blockade Gaza and change the "facts on the ground" (expand settlements) in the West Bank. While Hamas is peaceful, they've got everything they want.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf -

The U.S was founded on grounds claimed by Europian countries. The revolution against Britain that led to it's indapendance is a little similar to how the Zionist of the mid 20th century fought against the British (but on a larger scale, I think). Those two revolutions had something very important in common that the Hamas agression lacks - they were revolutions against some of the most remote outpost of a great imperialistic nation. The interest Britain had of holding grounds on America or in what was called Palestine back at that time was one of power and finance, or of pride or something (never did figure out the emotional arguments for imperialism, it just seems silly).

However, Hamas is attacking Israel on it's home ground. Many of the places Hamas wishes to "liberate" have been captured so early on by the newly founded Israel that for all intents and purposes they are now part of it - Israelis, not Palestinians, where the ones constructing the cities and creating the agriculture and the civilian Infrastructure. Palestinians living in Gaza today have never actualy been to the cities they claim are theirs by right.

I don't want to discuss who has the moral highgroung about being the "legitimate" owner of these lands because frankly both sides of the argument seem silly to me. However you look at it, Hamas is not trying to shake an empire of a piece of god forsaken, far away land. They are trying to take the houses where people grew up - citizens in Israel have actual, real connections to these places.

And that's why the attacks Hamas launches are all but pointless. They will never be enough (on their own) to make Israel concede those lands. If there is to be any chance at all for the Palestinians to reclaim even part of their lands, it'll have to be through diplomacy. It's a way that seems impossible for now and it requires much to change before it can work, but it's the only way.

My point? The attacks initiated by Hamas are every bit as pointless as those initiated by Israel. They are inaffective at achieving thier supposed target and only succed in making things worse by forcing Israel to retaliate, furthering the war and costing more lives.


Lord Snow - By moderate I meant more politically centrist - and less hard-line / extreme.

On another note - the majority of your justification is based on the actions of Hamas and I can concede provocation due to rocket attacks over an extended period.

But what of the West Bank? - which is not in Hamas' hands and from the research I've carried out doesn't carry out rocket attacks. They are subject to the issues and restrictions repeated earlier in the thread.

Could you personally see a 'carrot and stick' approach where Israel actually did something tangible in the West Bank, and then used that as a show of good faith to Gaza to get more leverage in both negotiations as well as international opinion?

Lord Snow - I appreciate you sticking around and engaging with us here, as your insights have put an interesting colour on the discussion.


Lord Snow wrote:

However, Hamas is attacking Israel on it's home ground. Many of the places Hamas wishes to "liberate" have been captured so early on by the newly founded Israel that for all intents and purposes they are now part of it - Israelis, not Palestinians, where the ones constructing the cities and creating the agriculture and the civilian Infrastructure. Palestinians living in Gaza today have never actualy been to the cities they claim are theirs by right.

I don't want to discuss who has the moral highgroung about being the "legitimate" owner of these lands because frankly both sides of the argument seem silly to me. However you look at it, Hamas is not trying to shake an empire of a piece of god forsaken, far away land. They are trying to take the houses where people grew up - citizens in Israel have actual, real connections to these places.

And that's why the attacks Hamas launches are all but pointless. They will never be enough (on their own) to make Israel concede those lands. If there is to be any chance at all for the Palestinians to reclaim even part of their lands, it'll have to be through diplomacy. It's a way that seems impossible for now and it requires much to change before it can work, but it's the only way.

My point? The attacks initiated by Hamas are every bit as pointless as those initiated by Israel. They are inaffective at achieving thier supposed target and only succed in making things worse by forcing Israel to retaliate, furthering the war and costing more lives.

So, if Hamas renounced violence and attempted serious diplomacy, what do they have to offer Israel? What terms are they negotiating? What have they got to induce Israel to give them anything?

And of course, how long will they have to remain completely peaceful under the blockade and how many other concessions will they have to make before Israel even is willing to begin talking to them?
In past periods of ceasefire or even relative peace, what has Israel actually given up? Has peace actually worked for the Palestinians?

The only lever they have is the threat of violence. That's sad, but I think it's true. And for the threat of violence to be credible, it has to be used occasionally.

That's my cynical take on the whole thing.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I'm not at all sure it's just "overseas backers" pushing Hamas to attack. It may be simple logic.

What other negotiating tool do they have? The Israeli government doesn't want anything from the Palestinians that it can't just take. Except peace.
Hamas is negotiating from a position of extreme weakness. Other than meaningless rhetoric, like acknowledging Israel's right to exist or giving up the right of return, what can Hamas offer Israel?
Nothing but peace. Which means they can't just stop attacking and then try to negotiate, without at least periodically reminding Israel that they do have the ability to attack. Otherwise, all Israel has to do is pretend to negotiate and never actually come to...

Hamas is not "negotiating" with Israel.

It doesn't expect anything positive to come out of Tel Aviv - it expects war... that's what Hamas wants.

They don't expect that firing rockets will ease the blockade. They don't expect that shooting Israelis will remove the border posts. They aren't stupid - they know that Israel meets force with overwhelming force.

Hamas is launching rockets because it wants to challenge Fatah for leadership of all of Palestine, because it wants to strain the Cairo-Tel Aviv alliance, and because it wants to win greater support and legitimacy in the Islamic World.

Hamas does not benefit from peace... they are horrible administrators. It benefits from war... they are good at making martyrs.


The starting point for Israel is generally a demand that Palestine be completely de-militarised... and only then will Israel come to the table to negotiate.

Which has been mentioned before as essentially wanting the full turkey dinner without giving anything in return.

I believe the Road Map for Peace was the most recent which stated:
Phase I (as early as May 2003): End to Palestinian violence; Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities and freeze on settlement expansion; Palestinian elections.
Phase II (as early as June–December 2003): International Conference to support Palestinian economic recovery and launch a process, leading to establishment of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders; revival of multilateral engagement on issues including regional water resources, environment, economic development, refugees, and arms control issues; Arab states restore pre-intifada links to Israel (trade offices, etc.).
Phase III (as early as 2004–2005): second international conference; permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, clarification of the highly controversial question of the fate of Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab state to agree to peace deals with Israel.

Though there were some Israeli conditions:
The total dismantling of all Palestinian militant groups, collection of all illegal weapons and their destruction
Cessation of violence and incitement against Israel, and that "[a]s in the other mutual frameworks, the Roadmap will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians"
Palestine as a demilitarized state, and Israeli control of the entry and exit of all persons and cargo, plus its airspace and electromagnetic spectrum (Radio, television, radar, etc.)
Declaration of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, as well as the waiver of any right of return of refugees to Israel
Issues pertaining to the final settlement such as Israeli settlement in "Judaea, Samaria" (West Bank) and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts), the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem, and all other matters pertaining to the final settlement will not be discussed prior to the final settlement talks.
No reference other than the key provisions of U.N. Resolution 242 and 338

And it never officially started Phase I as neither side fulfilled it's obligations.

401 to 450 of 668 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Facts about the war in Israel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.