| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opinion within Israel is far from unanimous. There are certainly some who would approve. Some who believe in the Jewish destiny for Greater Israel for religious reasons. Some who live in fear of Palestinian attack and cannot see any solution but such a final one.
But there are also many who do not. Many who do not support even the current occupation and many many more who are torn, but certainly would not accept something so horrendous.
Any blatant attempt at ethnic cleansing or genocide would topple the Israeli government immediately as those in the middle would grow too horrified. Sadly any real attempt at a fair solution would do the same.
I think it says a lot that they haven't already, grown too horrified that is.
How any so-called "democracy" can support the constant expansion and harassment of Palestinians either speaks to an apathetic populace or a populace that agrees with such measure.I'm constantly dismayed that a population who seeks to portray themselves as victims of violent history has no problem perpetrating many of the same horrors on others - while still claiming to be victims.
Recent history has also shown that in the modern era, going in and stomping all resistance doesn't work very well.
In the modern era? When in the modern era has the resistance been utterly defeated?
No one has the resolve to do that in the modern era. We move in, kill a bunch, lose the taste for it, and leave. Or we try to assassinate key leaders and hope it just falls apart. Either way, it comes up again in a few short months, rinse repeat.As I said, they could probably kill everyone in Palestine.
They might even be able to move in with force, kill everyone actively resisting, brutalize the population and impose strict enough controls to keep the rest down, but it would be awful beyond anything we've seen in a long time. I don't think a democratic society could survive it any longer.More directly: It's not a matter of resolve. It's a matter of how do you do it. Unless by resolve, you mean what I described above. Genocide or permanent subjugation.
What do you mean by "go in and stomp all resistance"?
Well, US history would tell us this means kill all the enemies' food, destroy their way of life, defeat them so utterly that they sign a ridiculous treaty, let you round them up and put them in huge camps and assure them despite this, they are still a sovereign nation.
It's not the best solution, by far. I wish that people on both sides hadn't made choices that led to that being the only real option left to them at the time.
Same thing could very well happen in the middle east, if Israel is pushed too far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the best solution, by far. I wish that people on both sides hadn't made choices that led to that being the only real option left to them at the time.
Same thing could very well happen in the middle east, if Israel is pushed too far.
I know I'm breaking my word, but I have to comment on this.
The problem is that neither side made the choice. The British are the ones who made the choices that put them at conflict.
Pretty much, the British made a stupid choice: They promised the Palestinians their ancestral homeland, what is now Israel and Palestine, when the Palestinians finally get their freedom; as far as the Palestinians were concerned, the land was their's. And then the British gave it to the Jews. Naturally, the Palestinians didn't take giving away what was their land for generations to what in their eyes amounted to a group of foreigners.
Now, why was it the Palestinian homeland? Because the Romans took Jerusalem away from the Hebrews and gave it to what are now the Palestinians (who, in turn, were later conquered by the Arabs). Why? Because the Romans wanted to deny the Hebrews access to Jerusalem (it was in response to be a revolt).
So, yes, this really is all about the city.
Edit: Corrected part to sound clearer.
Well, US history would tell us this means kill all the enemies' food, destroy their way of life, defeat them so utterly that they sign a ridiculous treaty, let you round them up and put them in huge camps and assure them despite this, they are still a sovereign nation.
This only worked because of (mostly passive) biological warfare.
And I won't even address "people on both sides hadn't made choices that led to that being the only...
I didn't say that to imply both sides were equally complicit.
And yeah, forgot about the blankets.
It's not the best solution, by far. I wish that people on both sides hadn't made choices that led to that being the only real option left to them at the time.
Same thing could very well happen in the middle east, if Israel is pushed too far.I know I'm breaking my word, but I have to comment on this.
The problem is that neither side made the choice. The British are the ones who made the choices that put them at conflict.
Pretty much, the British made a stupid choice: They promised the Palestinians their ancestral homeland, what is now Israel and Palestine, when the Palestinians finally get their freedom; as far as the Palestinians were concerned, the land was their's. And then the British gave it to the Jews. Naturally, the Palestinians didn't take giving away what was their land for generations to what in their eyes amounted to a group of foreigners.
Now, why was it the Palestinian homeland? Because the Romans took Jerusalem away from the Hebrews and gave it to what are now the Palestinians (who, in turn, were later conquered by the Arabs). Why? Because the Romans wanted to deny the Hebrews access to Jerusalem (it was in response to be a revolt).
So, yes, this really is all about the city.
Edit: Corrected part to sound clearer.
Blame Rome!
Israel-Palestine: Netanyahu government fuels wave of protest
"Extracts and updates from a series of articles on the website of Socialist Struggle Movement, the Israel-Palestine section of the CWI," which I can't read, but I can link it nevertheless.
Every so often, a country has to deal with complicated situations. And if they choose the wrong way to do it, it isn't always fixable afterward. Certain situations require generations of work to correct. Now, every country has been there, more or less. And some of these situations have already happened. Mistakes are not easily dealt with.
In the case of the Middle East, the West has had a monstrous policy. Again and again, countries on the verge of democracy and prosperity, countries that could have been valuable friends and allies given a little more time, have been thrown into wars and revolutions that ruined them. It was probably a result of the fear of prosperous oil-producing countries - but the price is one everyone is still paying. It's like the treatment of Germany after WWI. Not every mistake can be fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, you want them to assault army bases instead? Israel has what, the sixth largest military in the world?
28th (20th counting reserves and others) behind Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Eritria, amongst others.
Oh, my mistake. :)
Israel's army exists for a reason other than bullying Palestinians is my point.
But they're so good at it....
|
here's always a choice, as the peaceful uplifting of South Africa rather recently proved
I might have missed your point, but from what I know, the MKs activities were not only comparatively much smaller in scale than those of Hamas, they were also not at all the reason that the apartheid eventually failed... the actual solution there was peaceful talks and international pressure, not murdering kids and teaching hateful propaganda to your own people's kids. In fact, other than the fact that both Hamas and MK are considered terrorists, I see no similarities between their methods, motivation, and role in the larger relations between the opposing groups.
The bottom line is that any violence displayed by Hamas is as futile as that used by Israel. Neither side has a chance to break the other's back, and any real resolution will have to come from another direction. An armed resistance might be natural, but it is ultimately harmful to everyone involved and reduces the chances of peace.
|
|
I was using the word "terrorist" to signify that Hamas are specifically and intentionally targeting their violence against civilians, and are ruthless when it comes to sacrificing their own civilians for the slightest of edges. The argument that they "don't have a choice" is both meaningless and condescending - there's always a choice, as the peaceful uplifting of South Africa rather recently proved. And not holding Palestinians responsible to their actions is not treating them as equal humans to Israelis. Every man or woman has to answer for their own actions, and Hamas has accumulated quite a bit of that.What, you want them to assault army bases instead? Israel has what, the sixth largest military in the world? Face it, the only thing they can affect is civilian targets. Against military targets, they have nothing, no chance, no hope. And due to their lack of resources, their operations WILL cost them people. I find criticizing them on that basis a bit... odd. The alternative is to stop fighting back, which is as impossible to them as it is to the Israeli by now. And no, as was pointed out earlier, the change in South Africa was hardly a peaceful revolution. I maintain: The lives the could live, the change the majority of them would want, given that they are human beings, ARE out of their grasp, because of security measures put in place because "the Palestinians can't be trusted".
Finally: If every man and woman must answer for their own actions, why are the Israeli setting all Palestinians to answer for what the suicide bombers and rocket-flingers do?
To your first point - I think that murdering citizens is just that. Murder. I do not expect anyone to fight a pointless, hopeless war against a much larger army - but that just means that violence is not an option. Not that you have any sort of justification to murder.
And for examples of a less abhorrent armed resistance - Israel's own past of fighting against the British is a solid example. While several atrocities were performed - assassinations of high ranking officials and the terrorist attack against the King David hotel, for example - most of the resistance was focused on blowing up bridges and such. A disruptive sort of protest, less a murderous one.To clarify, I am well aware that some elements in the pre-Israel Jewish resistance were as bad as the Hamas... but most of them really weren't.
As to your second point: officially, Israel does NOT hold all Palestinians responsible for the crimes of Hamas. They are currently quarantined and isolated because when they weren't, Hamas was capable of much more effective attacks, and thousands died. Specifically the casualty count in Israel was much, much higher.
Of course, that is only in the context of the conflict with Hamas. The larger picture is that regardless of Hamas, Israel is a racist, forceful country that attempts territorial expansion at the expense of Palestinians. That is unforgivable and should be stopped. It does not, however, justify any murder or attempted murder performed by Hamas.
I have no idea how the proto-Israeli terrorists compare with Hamas, but why does your list only include terrorist attacks against the Britishizoid authorities?
List of Irgun attacks as compiled by wikipedia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might have missed your point, but from what I know, the MKs activities were not only comparatively much smaller in scale than those of Hamas, they were also not at all the reason that the apartheid eventually failed...
And when Israels own version of apartheid eventually fails they will say the exact same thing. We didn't stop because of these people blowing stuff up, we stopped because this saint finally offered us a non violent solution and then *cough cough* ignore that the saint in questioni may also have blown up a few things and killed a few people
In fact, other than the fact that both Hamas and MK are considered terrorists, I see no similarities between their methods, motivation, and role in the larger relations between the opposing groups.
Really? A group of people with no legal rights having their land taken and being arrested and detained indefinitely without trial doesn't seem a little familiar?
The bottom line is that any violence displayed by Hamas is as futile as that used by Israel.
Its almost as futile as saying "Hey, we're human beings we'd like our rights"
An armed resistance might be natural, but it is ultimately harmful to everyone involved and reduces the chances of peace.
I think this is difficult to say. Has any government ever taken the carrot without someone else using the stick?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no justification, Lord Snow. It is murder, and it is never okay. However, if you deny a whole population ways of living in peace and relative prosperity, armed resistance WILL happen. This kind of situation can only be resolved from the point of the stronger group - that is Israel, like it or not.
I think it says a lot that they haven't already, grown too horrified that is.
How any so-called "democracy" can support the constant expansion and harassment of Palestinians either speaks to an apathetic populace or a populace that agrees with such measure.
I'm constantly dismayed that a population who seeks to portray themselves as victims of violent history has no problem perpetrating many of the same horrors on others - while still claiming to be victims.Do you live in the US? Though I suppose you could consider us an apathetic populace or one that agrees.
Propaganda. A constant reminder that they are the victims, they are the ones under attack. Helped by the fact that they are. Far safer than the Palestinians and certainly not subjected to the regular abuse and humiliation, but still threatened.
As I understand it, there's far more open debate about the occupation in Israel than there is here in the US. At least as of a few years ago. I haven't been paying as close attention. It's too depressing and I can't see any endings that aren't horrible.
No, I don't live in the US and yes, the US can to a degree be called just as apathetic or agreeing with current policy, considering the voter turnout. Incidentally it seems like the voter turnout in Israel is on par with the US (contrast that with the voter turnout in my country).
There's no doubt that Palestinian groups are attacking Israel, I don't think anyone would claim otherwise. The scale and why are wholly different, though.As Lord Snow is an example of, there are most certainly also Israelis who are sick of the whole thing and want things to stop. Since they haven't pressured their own government to stop they are either lacking in numbers or conviction - at least if Israel still wants to call itself a democracy.
The US also has a hand in this as they/you are the largest contributor and ally of Israel. Your tax dollars help fuel the constant occupation.
The bullied has now become the bully.
|
|
There is no justification, Lord Snow. It is murder, and it is never okay. However, if you deny a whole population ways of living in peace and relative prosperity, armed resistance WILL happen. This kind of situation can only be resolved from the point of the stronger group - that is Israel, like it or not.
Agreed completely. A resistance is understandable, predictable and unavoidable. It is still not forgivable.
And yes, any solution will have to come from Israel's side.
@Wolf - I can only tell you what I see from my viewpoint. Whenever Hamas initiates any sort of attack against Israel - be it launching missiles as civilians, attempting to kidnap or murder, or even publicly announcing that it intends harm for Israel, everyone in Israel tends to unite against them. The government gets away with doing horrible things and killing hundreds when engaged in a war with Hamas without suffering any backlash. For example, a research someone did lately showed that if the government announces that it is funding new illegal settlemtns in Palestinian territories right after a Hamas attack they tend to get support from the Israeli population, while if they just announce it out of the blue they get criticized.
When Hamas attacks, it makes the Palestinians a foe of Israel in the people's mind, rather than a victim. This kind of external threat makes people harden their resolve to fight, rather than look for an end to the conflict.
This is not theory crafting here, either. It's the actual fact. I experience it daily. Any empathy for the Palestinian cause tends to evaporate around here when Hamas kidnaps and murders children.
You know what does cause people in Israel to fidget uncomfortably and talk seriously about finding an end to the conflict? diplomatic and economic international pressure from the west. Whenever some dreary professor from some small university half a world away refuses to attend an academic convention in Tel Aviv because he considers Israel and apartheid state, people get really nervous. Whenever a large company cancels a trade agreement with Israel because it disagrees with the illegal settlements, the media and social media is filled with people who claim that the time to end the occupation has come. The threat of Hamas is understood to be manageable. The threat of economic isolation, that will severely impact our standards of living is considered much more dangerous and hard to fight. Ironically, the way to defeat the Jewish state is to threaten their wallets. (This is ironic, because people are usually not rational enough to figure out that fighting Hamas is costing us billions of dollars per year, and that an end to the war would cause a vast improvement in our country's economy as resources could be diverted to places other than the army).
When somebody shoots at you, you shoot back - especially if you are much stronger. This is not like with the U.S and Iraq, where at a certain point the price to pay in blood to keep American interests there was not enough. Israel itself is under attack, not some remote colony. Our homes, our lives, our families. That's a bit too personal to forgive. However, faced with international pressure from the people we would want to consider as allies - the EU, the U.S - we feel uncomfortable because we know they have a point, and we know that they have the power to shut us off from the modern world.
So, maybe universally you are right, and maybe an armed resistance can sometimes encourage a government to change things. However in this case (and, I remain convinced, in the case of South Africa), international pressure is the way to go, and violence will mostly get in the way.
|
|
I have no idea how the proto-Israeli terrorists compare with Hamas, but why does your list only include terrorist attacks against the Britishizoid authorities?
List of Irgun attacks as compiled by wikipedia.
Because I didn't know of the attacks against Arabs. Somehow the education system in Israel failed to mention them.
Even still, I think the point I made still stands - the attacks against Arabs, while atrocious acts of terrorism, were not directed against the ruling government (the British). They are seemingly more like wars between two native tribes than an act of rebellion - after all, the British were not going to retreat because the natives were killing each other.
What was discussed was just how effective armed resistance is, and is there an option to resist in ways that are less murderous than those exhibited by Hamas. So, I think, only attacks directed against the powerful authorities count. To rebel against the British, Jews directed most of their violence to causing an annoyance, not kill and terrorize. Disrupt railways, smuggle goods (and people), and all around make a loud scene. Had Hamas been satisfied with being disruptive in a similar way, I feel confident more people would have taken their side.
By the way, according to Wikipedia at least, South Africa's own MK were established with that purpose in mind:
Operating through a cell structure, MK agreed to acts of sabotage to exert maximum pressure on the government with minimum casualties, bombing military installations, power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night, when civilians were not present. Mandela stated that they chose sabotage not only because it was the least harmful action, but also "because it did not involve loss of life [and] it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward." He noted that "strict instructions were given to members of MK that we would countenance no loss of life", but should these tactics fail, MK would resort to "guerilla warfare and terrorism".
That's not how it turned out, but I think the political idea of being disruptive rather than murderous is the correct one.
@Wolf - I can only tell you what I see from my viewpoint. Whenever Hamas initiates any sort of attack against Israel - be it launching missiles as civilians, attempting to kidnap or murder, or even publicly announcing that it intends harm for Israel, everyone in Israel tends to unite against them. The government gets away with doing horrible things and killing hundreds when engaged in a war with Hamas without suffering any backlash.
Insert MK for hamas and tell me what doesn't fit. (i suppose you'd have to swap landminds for rockets as well)
Also, you need every single palastinian to put up with it. Every. single. one. A rocket attack can be put together by one person in a garage. Even IF the palastinians vote to put up with it, you have the problem of composition where [the palastinians] are not [every palastinian]. Considering their treatment you are going to get people violently lashing out, and [the palastinians] couldn't stop them even if they were so inclined. Their police forces can't cross the patchwork of isreali only road blocks, and the weapons the police are permited to have by israel aren't going to hold up to the armament the iranian guy is selling the dissidents from under his trench coat. [the palastinians] cannot grant israel anything: it is simply not in their power to stop the attacks.
Israel needs to stay the course because Israel has no other alternative if it wants to maintain the racist/religious ideal of a jewish state: it cannot absorb the territories without being voted out of existence at some point down the line.
|
|
Of course, you could make the exact same argument about the effect on Palestinians of every aggressive action on Israel's part. Every missile strike. Every demolishment. Every assassination. All the collateral damage. I know, I know. It's different. Israel doesn't target civilians. It just kills them. If the casualties are your relatives and friends, I don't think it makes much difference.
And that's not to mention the constant expansion of settlements and loss of Palestinian land. Or the constant harassment and humiliation of checkpoints and the general misery of the blockade.
If only the Palestinians would just put up with all that and just be peaceful and good maybe Israelis would feel better about them and someday actually lift the occupation. How many years do you think they would have to wait? How much provocation should they endure?
If I may quote myself from my response to BigNorseWolf:
The bottom line is that any violence displayed by Hamas is as futile as that used by Israel. Neither side has a chance to break the other's back, and any real resolution will have to come from another direction.
So, I agree. my issue is that usually all criticism is directed at Israel, while the actions of Hamas are shrugged off as "understandable". What most people fail to mention is that there's a difference between "understandable" and "justifiable".
And, I didn't say Palestinians didn't have the right to fight back. I was suggesting that there are ways to do that without murdering children and shooting at civilians, or sending your own people to suicide. Such as causing property damage - blowing stuff up - like bridges, tunnels, electrical lines, telephone poles, antennas, roads, non occupied government buildings at night... Things that will get noticed by Israeli civilians without actually spilling blood. I'm pretty certain that if that was the scope of the resistance, Hamas would have had both a better chance of winning freedom for their people, and of loosing far fewer Palestinian lives in the process. When the IDF bombs a house, killing several civilians along with the Hamas operatives inside, it gets to claim it had to in order to kill terrorists. If those "terrorists" did nothing worse than causing property damage, that justification would never hold water, and such attacks will have to stop.
|
|
@Wolf - I can only tell you what I see from my viewpoint. Whenever Hamas initiates any sort of attack against Israel - be it launching missiles as civilians, attempting to kidnap or murder, or even publicly announcing that it intends harm for Israel, everyone in Israel tends to unite against them. The government gets away with doing horrible things and killing hundreds when engaged in a war with Hamas without suffering any backlash.Insert MK for hamas and tell me what doesn't fit. (i suppose you'd have to swap landminds for rockets as well)
My claim is that MK did more harm than good in the process of securing freedom for blacks in South Africa. You and I are obviously in a disagreement about the point. I claim to have more authority in this specific case, because I get to see plenty of reactions in real time to Hamas attacks - have been able to see the results for over a dozen years now. The same thing happens every single time - Palestinians attacks are followed by a dramatic strengthening of right wing politicians and a shameful folding of left wing activists from their stands and, eventually, puts Palestinians in a worse point than before they shot. More illegal settlements are built after most attacks and as a direct result of those attacks. Forces in Israel are waiting for such opportunities when the people are united against Hamas to further their racist agendas. It's what happens. As empirical as you'd like it. If the more you do of something the worse things get, than the something probably isn't part of the solution.
Also, you need every single palastinian to put up with it. Every. single. one. A rocket attack can be put together by one person in a garage. Even IF the palastinians vote to put up with it, you have the problem of composition where [the palastinians] are not [every palastinian]. Considering their treatment you are going to get people violently lashing out, and [the palastinians] couldn't stop them even if they were so inclined. Their police forces can't cross the patchwork of isreali only road blocks, and the weapons the police are permited to have by israel aren't going to hold up to the armament the iranian guy is selling the dissidents from under his trench coat. [the palastinians] cannot grant israel anything: it is simply not in their power to stop the attacks.Israel needs to stay the course because Israel has no other alternative if it wants to maintain the racist/religious ideal of a jewish state: it cannot absorb the territories without being voted out of existence at some point down the line.
That's a good point, and you didn't even mention the worse parts - that hostile, fanatic World Jihad forces are infiltrating Gaza and operating against Hamas direction to incite the area, shooting into Israeli territories specifically to provoke an escalation in the conflict - Hamas often has to stop them on it's own, and occasionally fails to do so.
This is why I (and most sane people) support the two-state-solution to the conflict - Palestinians get to gain independence, illegal settlements are either destroyed or become part of the new Palestinian state and the two nations declare a ceasefire. After such a solution takes place, remaining terrorists who decide to act against Israel on their own volition will be jointly handled by the two countries. A similar in agreement is in effect between Israel and Egypt, and it works rather well.
This is why I (and most sane people) support the two-state-solution to the conflict - Palestinians get to gain independence, illegal settlements are either destroyed or become part of the new Palestinian state and the two nations declare a ceasefire. After such a solution takes place, remaining terrorists who decide to act against Israel on their own volition will be jointly handled by the two countries. A similar in agreement is in effect between Israel and Egypt, and it works rather well.
It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord snow: even the "legal" settlements are going to get run out of palistine on a rail if a genuine palastinian state becomes a reality. They're using 60% of the regions water, on top of what Israel diverts for its own use. That situation couldn't be maintained with a democratically elected palastinian government.
This is why I (and most sane people) support the two-state-solution to the conflict - Palestinians get to gain independence, illegal settlements are either destroyed or become part of the new Palestinian state and the two nations declare a ceasefire. After such a solution takes place, remaining terrorists who decide to act against Israel on their own volition will be jointly handled by the two countries. A similar in agreement is in effect between Israel and Egypt, and it works rather well.It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.Israel is well aware. And they never really considered Egypt a friend anyway. Just an untrusted partner.
It's also a little much to blame the US for that one. I suppose we could have done more to prop up Mubarak, but that would have been a short term solution at best.
The U.S. could have done more in a lot of areas. From what I hear, the current government of Egypt isn't American-friendly.
The U.S. could have done more in a lot of areas. From what I hear, the current government of Egypt isn't American-friendly.This is why I (and most sane people) support the two-state-solution to the conflict - Palestinians get to gain independence, illegal settlements are either destroyed or become part of the new Palestinian state and the two nations declare a ceasefire. After such a solution takes place, remaining terrorists who decide to act against Israel on their own volition will be jointly handled by the two countries. A similar in agreement is in effect between Israel and Egypt, and it works rather well.It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.Israel is well aware. And they never really considered Egypt a friend anyway. Just an untrusted partner.
It's also a little much to blame the US for that one. I suppose we could have done more to prop up Mubarak, but that would have been a short term solution at best.
The US is justly to blame for enough trouble.
I prefer not to blame them for not doing enough to prop up a dictator against a popular rebellion or for not doing enough to make sure the ensuing government was US (or Israel) friendly.
Which is not say I'm that fond of the results of the revolution in Egypt, but installing/supporting US friendly dictators against the will of their populace is the source of good deal of our problems around the world. Even if it's in our interests in the short term.
We still could have not supported the guy in the first place and still done more to help Egypt with its government change. The people would not have been entirely happy, and our people would not have been entirely happy, but it could have been justified by the President going on stage and saying we will support and aid our allies, even in difficult times, and that it is how we show the world that no matter our economic situation we are still great. Yes, it would have been playing to pride, but he would have gotten a lot more support for it. And by working with Egypt, we could have helped shape its new government to be Israel-friendly.
As it stands, we pretty much set up Gulf War 3 and maybe even World War 3. So while short-term thinking for supporting a dictator wouldn't do any good, the short-term thinking behind why we didn't support him and what actions we did take are definitely not doing any good either.
Yeah, I'm sure Hamas realizes there is a line, that if they cross it, there will be no Hamas left by the time the dust settles. So they're probably trying to reign it in before it gets there.And to Snow, peace to you and your family.
It's bad enough here when the tornado sirens go off, that feeling of dread and uncertainty that happens when you wonder if your house will get hit, or pass you by. I can't imagine what living in a war zone must be like.
Hope the Lord protects you and keeps you safe!Thank you :)
So far things seem much calmer than I feared. A ground invasion by Israel seems like a very remote possibility, and the leadership has been surprisingly restrained today. From what I've been able to gather Hamas is trying hard to scale down the aggression. I hope things might settle down soon.
Its actually more likely that Israel makes sure not to totally destroy Hamas. Hamas has an address - you can call them up and broker a cease fire. If you destroy Hamas you don't destroy the resistance movement - you simply splinter it into a bunch of tiny factions...ones without an address and whom it is impossible to broker deals with.
In fact that is part of what happened here. Hamas did not perform the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers from the Gush Etzion Settlement (which is in the West Bank, not the Gaza Strip and therefore not in territory really controlled by Hamas) - or at least their central command did not. The group involved is the Qawasmeh Clan which is loosely identified with Hamas but generally acts on its own - often in defiance of Hamas...which is likely what happened here as Hamas and and the PLO where just getting down to the details of a unified government...that just got essentially scuttled by recent events.
|
|
Lord snow: even the "legal" settlements are going to get run out of palistine on a rail if a genuine palastinian state becomes a reality. They're using 60% of the regions water, on top of what Israel diverts for its own use. That situation couldn't be maintained with a democratically elected palastinian government.
The definitions on "legal" here might be a bit hazy - those settlments that yank all the waters and resources, I consider them illegal too. Maybe not illegal in the strict sense, but there has to be a law somewhere from which you derive that doing that is forbidden. And yes, I expect most settlements to come scuttling back to Israeli territory in case of a two state solution. I expect those who chose to remain (some said they would, because they care more about ensuring a Jewish presence in the land promised by God or something, than about under which government exactly they live) are somewhat delusional and think they can still live like kings. Frankly I'd be surprised if they wouldn't get lynched within 2 hours of the Israeli army vacating the premise.
It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.
Actually, the new Egyptian government still maintains ties with Israel and remains about as "friendly" as the previous one - in particular, it had declared the Muslim Brothers (the parent organization that started Hamas) as terrorists and are fighting them all over the Sinai desert - which happens to ensure relative safety for Israel from that direction. There is quite a lively debate going on in Egypt right now, of weather they should move to stop Israel from attacking in Gaza (out of solidarity for Palestinians) or stand aside and let Israel hurt Hamas for them.
Actually, the new Egyptian government still maintains ties with Israel and remains about as "friendly" as the previous one - in particular, it had declared the Muslim Brothers (the parent organization that started Hamas) as terrorists and are fighting them all over the Sinai desert - which happens to ensure relative safety for Israel from that direction. There is quite a lively debate going on in Egypt right now, of weather they should move to stop Israel from attacking in Gaza (out of solidarity for Palestinians) or stand aside and let Israel hurt Hamas for them.
It used to work rather well, but the current Egyptian government no longer honors it. You have the U.S. to thank for that scenario going south. Just Israel has been too busy to notice one of its long-time friends is no longer friendly.
The issue with the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with Hamas or Israel; Egypt almost had those people running the country after Mubarak was tossed out and is trying to make certain they are out of the nation. So it's more about making certain the terrorists don't end up in charge of Egypt than it is about helping Israel. And even then, they don't hesitate to push members of it into Israel when they get a chance. Notice Hamas has been getting some new foreign reinforcements lately?
And while Egypt may be debating that, ultimately that is not about defeating Hamas; that is about how best to take out Israel. Israel takes out Hamas, they can cite Israel on genocide and portray them as following in the footsteps of the Nazis. They support Hamas, they can use Palestine to weaken Israel and, in time, maybe even force it to stop existing. They're also using it as a platform to weaken the U.S.'s power in the region.
That's part of why they're not making any real efforts to deal with the new Arab Nation that took a bite out of Iraq.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll pipe up again, since it seems like Lord Snow is single-handedly trying to address every single comment that comes up. (Amusingly enough, in 95% of off-topic discussions I find myself disagreeing with him, but in this case he's being amazingly patient and reasonable.)
Yes, there is a very simple, very reasonable solution: Israel abandons all settlements, returns to its 1967 borders, and refrains from further assaults on the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, as Lord Snow has already pointed out, the Palestinian response to Israeli concessions is to escalate the violence in an attempt to garner more concessions.
So tell me: How long do you honestly believe a democratically-elected Israeli government would be allowed to exist if it:
(1) Forcibly relocated all Israelis from existing settlements (some of which are decades-old) back into "Israel proper".
(2) Ignored all Palestinian (and other) terrorist attacks on its citizens, "turning the other cheek" for "as long as necessary" to allow the Palestinians to re-establish themselves?
The problem is not solely Israel. The problem is not solely Palestine. There are groups all over the world who flock to Palestine to commit terrorist attacks on Israel for a multitude of reasons, some honestly as simple as a desire for genocide. In Israel and beyond, there are many people who feel Palestinians are "vermin who need to be exterminated". (A direct quote from a U.S.-resident Jewish family friend who is very pro-Israel.)
Pretending that there's a simple solution gets us nowhere.
As I said previously, Israel first has to stop any new settlements *and* absorb the attacks this causes with aplomb. This is already a nigh-insurmountable task for any government.
*Then* Palestinian leadership needs to say, "Hey, look! Israel's willing to make concessions! We need to do so as well!"
And good luck with that, considering virtually every Arab leader willing to negotiate with Israel has ended up assassinated.
It's a long, painful road with no easy solutions because there are thoroughly-indoctrinated factions on both sides who honestly, fundamentally, don't want peace. They want genocide. It's a question of both sides accepting civilian casualties in order to secure a lasting peace.
And unfortunately, I don't see that happening with democratically-elected leaders and disruptive elements immigrating from all over the world with a sole purpose of disrupting just such a peaceful solution.
So it's not so much a question of, "How do we solve all of this?" as it is, "Can we possibly find a first step that won't get our government overthrown?"
Ugly all around, through and through.
So it's not so much a question of, "How do we solve all of this?" as it is, "Can we possibly find a first step that won't get our government overthrown?"
Ugly all around, through and through.
Uglier all around; the only viable solution involves a third party willing to stand between the two sides. Which, unfortunately, isn't going to happen thanks to Israel. It gets into something I had PMed to Lord Snow.
The reason why Israel is to blame is because of having announced that, in the event they cannot win a war in which they are being invaded, they won't hesitate to launch nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this means every single military intervention strategy has to come in with the assumption that not only is nuclear warfare on the table, but it's in play. So any nation involved directly has to accept the risk they will see nuclear weapons fired at them.
Unfortunately, the only nations willing to truly accept that risk are all hostile to Israel for one reason to another. Not even the U.S. is willing to accept the risk.
So, that goes back to my deleted comment about nuking Jerusalem; it's on the table as a reasonable solution because Israel's military policy has brought nuclear firepower into the equation and made it very likely this will end in nuclear war. About the only way anyone has come up with to prevent it ending in nuclear war is a preemptive nuclear strike.
I'd argue that Israel is threatening nuclear strikes against a hostile invader.
Suppose the U.S. spent its billions in Israeli aid in instead funding a U.N. peacekeeping force whose sole purpose was to separate the Israelis and Palestinians? Israel most certainly wouldn't nuke them, even though they were a foreign army on Israeli soil.
However, I stand firmly convinced that the anti-peace forces in Palestine would have a field day blowing up inexperienced U.N. peacekeepers to prevent the action from succeeding...
...of course, I'm a pessimist about human nature at heart...
Thing is, Hamas should've learned what Hitler should've learned from the London blitz: you don't break the enemy's back by just bombing all their s@*& on and on ad nausea. You just piss them off royally.
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Well in this case it goes both ways. Admittedly Hamas is not nearly as good at bombing as Israel. Last I looked no Israeli had been seriously injured in a rocket attack while Israels strikes have killed in and about 100 at this point.
I'd argue that Israel is threatening nuclear strikes against a hostile invader.
Suppose the U.S. spent its billions in Israeli aid in instead funding a U.N. peacekeeping force whose sole purpose was to separate the Israelis and Palestinians? Israel most certainly wouldn't nuke them, even though they were a foreign army on Israeli soil.
However, I stand firmly convinced that the anti-peace forces in Palestine would have a field day blowing up inexperienced U.N. peacekeepers to prevent the action from succeeding...
...of course, I'm a pessimist about human nature at heart...
You're also assuming Israel would take a reasonable stance to foreign troops taking up semi-permanent residence on their soil. They've had issues with that in the past, to the point the Pentagon actually has run scenarios of a war between the U.S. and Israel "just in case."
So it's not so much a question of, "How do we solve all of this?" as it is, "Can we possibly find a first step that won't get our government overthrown?"
Ugly all around, through and through.
Uglier all around; the only viable solution involves a third party willing to stand between the two sides. Which, unfortunately, isn't going to happen thanks to Israel. It gets into something I had PMed to Lord Snow.
The reason why Israel is to blame is because of having announced that, in the event they cannot win a war in which they are being invaded, they won't hesitate to launch nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this means every single military intervention strategy has to come in with the assumption that not only is nuclear warfare on the table, but it's in play. So any nation involved directly has to accept the risk they will see nuclear weapons fired at them.
Unfortunately, the only nations willing to truly accept that risk are all hostile to Israel for one reason to another. Not even the U.S. is willing to accept the risk.
So, that goes back to my deleted comment about nuking Jerusalem; it's on the table as a reasonable solution because Israel's military policy has brought nuclear firepower into the equation and made it very likely this will end in nuclear war. About the only way anyone has come up with to prevent it ending in nuclear war is a preemptive nuclear strike.
If that intervention took place entirely within the Palestinian territories and was done by someone who was clearly not going to "drive Israel into the sea", Israel would not resort to nukes. Israel would resort to nukes if they were unable to stop an invasion, because they know what the outcome of losing such a war would be.
A UN and US backed intervention, removing settlers and other Israeli presence back to the '67 borders and assuming responsibility for controlling the border with Palestine, essentially setting up a two-state solution by force and staying long enough (decades) to actually build a workable state in Palestine, might be a workable solution. Israel isn't going to throw nukes or go to war with US unless directly threatened. Palestinian public opinion will be in favor, as long as they see Israel and the settlements being removed, the blockade lifted and some kind of working economy picking up.
Of course, the US would never back such a plan and no one else could do it without us.
It would end up being primarily the U.S. involved if you don't want nukes. Most of the UN wants to solve the issue by sanctioning Israel into poverty; the U.S. is the only reason it hasn't happened yet. So, Israel has good reason not to trust a UN peacekeeping force. And the Pentagon doesn't entirely trust Israel to not fire on American soldiers, either, so the U.S. won't do it unless they have along enough firepower to pacify Israel if need be (which would require bringing along the UN).
[As would the anti-peace forces in Israel. The settlers would fight to keep from being removed.
Yep. As I've said from my first post, there's plenty of blame on both sides. The main point of my post was that people who say that Israel can take some unilateral action that will miraculously defuse things are, in my opinion, misguided. Israel has the strength, and therefore has the lion's share of the responsibility, but it isn't alone.
As I said, it's not going to happen. But worries about Israel attacking US forces aren't the reason.
Israel wouldn't be stupid enough to start a shooting war with the US. Not over losing the Territories.
Some Israelis would fight, primarily settlers. You'd probably want to start with sufficient force.
Problem: U.S. military doesn't believe that. And not just because of the USS Liberty, but because of more recent issues of Israeli troops firing on American soldiers in Iraq. It's not an issue of starting a war, but more an issue of the Pentagon believing some Israeli troops would open fire, they would fire back, and things would escalate from there.