[EmperorMagus]

I want to hear other people's opinion about the war in Gaza, because I realize I'm biased.
IMHO, Israel is occupying land illegally, is unjustified in kicking people out of their homes and is committing war crimes by targeting civilian's homes.
So I would like answers to these general questions:
1. Is Israel justified in considering Palestine theirs?
2. Do you think they are rightfully bombing Gaza right now?
3. Do the people of Palestine have a right to fight back against Israelis ?

[Terez]

I am not incredibly knowledgeable on this subject, but it seems to me that the creation of the state of Israel was perhaps the biggest diplomatic mistake in modern history. As for the current troubles, it all seems to be a ridiculous regression of "We were here first!" and "They started it!" But it is obvious which side has suffered the most in this particular situation. (And Palestinians can hardly be blamed for Nazi Germany.)

[Illuyankas]

1. Nope
2. Definitely not, in any way
3. Not a 'right', it's understandable how they'd lash out at literally their apartheid oppressors but sending rockets - even piss and sugar-powered quassam rockets, which have killed less Israelis ever than the Palestinians killed by the IDF airstrikes in the last week alone - at civilian populations is still (obviously) wrong. That said, the rightwing government of Israel has proven that even when offered literally everything they wanted, all of Jerusalem, disarmament, the works, they'd reject it in favour of keeping the Palestinians around as an omnipresent threat to bolster their hold on Israeli politics. The parties with the most control over Palestine would accept a two-state solution eagerly, it's just the government of Israel isn't listening. Ideally Israel could retry the successful ceasefire with HAMAS and not break it this time. And, you know, stop committing war crimes and bombing hospitals and schools and disabled recuperation centres and the homes of police chiefs and apartment blocks (and no they don't have to bomb them, nothing justifies bombing a hospital). And undo the embargo that prevents such dangerous goods as cement (so the hospitals and power plant get damaged and then cannot be fixed, let alone the houses), or chocolate, and keeps Palestinian children malnourished and under food insecurity wilfully. There's a lot of stuff Israel can do, and definitely do to Palestine, to Gaza and the West Bank, and there's almost nothing they can do in return. Hell, half the reason for the rockets is probably just so they have something they can bring to the bargaining table as a concession, as fucked as that sounds.

The rightwingers in charge of Israel, the ones exploiting the Palestinians for their own purposes? Complete bastards. I have to specify this because experience proves that condemning Israel's actions in any field of discussion brings out the calls of antisemitism, and I want to make perfectly clear I'm condemning the actions of their government and not the people, and it's insane that I have to do this.

(yep, it's a testy subject everywhere)

[Obdigore]

 EmperorMagus, on 16 July 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

I want to hear other people's opinion about the war in Gaza, because I realize I'm biased.
IMHO, Israel is occupying land illegally, is unjustified in kicking people out of their homes and is committing war crimes by targeting civilian's homes.
So I would like answers to these general questions:
1. Is Israel justified in considering Palestine theirs?
2. Do you think they are rightfully bombing Gaza right now?
3. Do the people of Palestine have a right to fight back against Israelis ?

1) Well I mean... right of conquest. I don't agree with it, but other people might. As far as I'm aware, when a country in control of a region gives control to another country, that second country has more of a right to it than someone else. Also, in Realpolitik terms, Israel could control the entire area if they wanted to. Hamas doesn't have the ability to do so.
2) Rightfully? No. Do they have excuses, because certain people *cough* Hamas *cough* keep firing rockets into Israel from hospitals/apartments in Gaza, so either Israel can't strike back or, if they do, they are hurting these civilians. That said, bombing civilian centers is never a good, and almost never a 'right' option. I don't believe it is in this case.
3) Both sides have made amazingly fucked up mistakes, neither side is in the right. If I could prevent the leaders from both sides from ever having any influence again, I certainly would.

It's a fucked up area because of religion, nationalism, and hatred. It will continue to be so until it's turned to glass, one side purges the other, or the first two things I listed no longer matter.

[Mentalist]

You know, if you asked me about 4 months ago, I'd have been very much on the Palestine side of the debate (I'm not terribly familiar with the history of the area post-creation of Israel, short of the fact that it used to be much smaller and took a decent chunk of land from its neighbours during mostly defensive wars).

But then the Ukraine-Russia "strange war" started. and now I read daily reports about people I consider terrorists (because they take hostages and terrorize local populce wthrough extortion, robbery and intimidation) settting up firebases and sniper nests in residential districts to attract retaliatory fire, so that they can yell on Russian TV about "the horrible atrocities perpetrated by the fascist junta", and as much as I dislike it, I must admit that Israel's position must have at least SOME merit to it.

That doesn't mean I don't think the situation's not completely fucked, but still: AFAIK, Hamas are the elected leaders of Gaza, no? as such, they act with support of the people in Gaza. which to me means that US, Israel and anyone else labeling them as terrorists is plain out disrespecting the wishes of those people who vote them in.

Do I see a solution? no, not really. I'm too unfamiliar with the area's specifics to be in a position to talk about one. But there are a few baseline things that must be recognised by both sides in order to reach an accomodation

1) There will be an Israel in the Middle East-simply because there's no way to destroy it

2) There must be a change to the state in which Palestine exists, in order to allow it to become a proper functioning state (this will likely involve border shifts)

3) There's absolutely no excuse for either side to target any civilians.

4) The conflict is between Israel and Palestine and they must treat each other as equals. The involvelemt of other states and their interests is possible only as mediators, but they have no right to push their political agendas until the conflict is resolved.

From this baseline, there need to be protracted negotiations, that will allow the two sides to coexist as neighbouring fully independent states.

[Andorion]

The original basis for israel was, if i remember correctly, that there used to be a Jewish State 2000+ years before and should be again. This argument of course ignored the fact that the land in question had served as the home of millions of Arabs in the meantime. Israel was established in a way so as to displace millions of people who were turned into refugees. I do not condone violence. The wars the Arab states like Egypt and Syria waged with Israel only mad e things worse. But the Israeli state has te recognise that the Palestinians should have an independent state of their own, which would be equal in status to every other state of the world The Israeli right-wing extremists need to be reined in and the Palestinians need to be given the chance for a normal life. Having said this, the Palestinans need to rein in their own extrmeist. Israel is a political reality. It cannot be destroyed. Once Palestinians get and keep full statehood they too should refrain form acts of violence.

[Obdigore]

 Andorion, on 17 July 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

The original basis for israel was, if i remember correctly, that there used to be a Jewish State 2000+ years before and should be again. This argument of course ignored the fact that the land in question had served as the home of millions of Arabs in the meantime. Israel was established in a way so as to displace millions of people who were turned into refugees. I do not condone violence. The wars the Arab states like Egypt and Syria waged with Israel only mad e things worse. But the Israeli state has te recognise that the Palestinians should have an independent state of their own, which would be equal in status to every other state of the world The Israeli right-wing extremists need to be reined in and the Palestinians need to be given the chance for a normal life. Having said this, the Palestinans need to rein in their own extrmeist. Israel is a political reality. It cannot be destroyed. Once Palestinians get and keep full statehood they too should refrain form acts of violence.

Well no. The original 'vision' in 47 was for Jews to have a state and Palestine/Arabs to become an independent state, instead of being under the sway of whatever power was in charge of the area at the time. (And that the city of Jerusalem would be a separate and autonomous entity). England could no longer maintain (nor wanted to) its control over the area, and so brought to the UN that they should setup an independent state for Israel in territory they controlled. There were already a large number of Jews in the area (and a large number of Arabs of numerous faith, but mainly Muslims). There had never been an independent Palestine, it has always been controlled by larger neighboring empires.

The Israel that came to be wouldn't put undue stress upon other faiths, and I don't think that was ever their attempt. The vast majority of Israel never attempted to run Arabs/Muslims/Whatever out of their homes. Some left, many more were forced out by the invading Arabic armies.

After the Brits left and before Israel was founded, a large number of Arabic Peoples (who boycotted the UN meetings involved with how the lines were going to be drawn in this area) attacking the fledgling Israel. Israel won. Israel has defended itself ever since from the Arabic peoples around it. Israel is also used as a stalking horse for the West in the Middle East area.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 17 July 2014 - 05:46 AM

[Gothos]

I've always had mixed feelings about Israel. It IS our (The West's) foot in the middle east, and I'd rather them than Saudi Arabia, but... the methods and scale of their retaliations are utterly barbaric. It's either ancient era barbarism, or 19th century colonialist imperialism in their actions, and either way I wouldn't consider them part of the western world - not that anyone cares about it, though.

Still, what they do is like killing someone's entire bloodline for spitting on your feet.

[Obdigore]

Aaaaaand apparently the cease fire lasted all of 2 hours before Hamas fired mortars into Israel (according to Israeli Military).

Hooray for peace!

[Cause]

I think many of you are offering opinions on a subject you have very little knowledge on. Illyunkas when you say its Israel that is solely responsible for blocking a two state solution you are out of your mind. Hamas is/was the democratically elected government of Gaza and their stated aim is to destroy Israel and make it all into Palestine. The Palestinians were offered a two state solution in 1948 and rejected it. They have Gaza, they have the west bank and various offers have been made and rejected over the years. Its true Israel sticking point is west Jerusalem but try ask Saudia Arabia to give up half of Mecca. I can't believe a government that will keep its people stateless over half a city really have their interests at heart.

The problem is complex but also hardly beyond understanding. Yet if one side shows up to the negotiating table with the stated aim of annihilating the other one, we should not expect reasonable dialogue or meaningful progress. Almost the entirety of their reasonable ambition could be achieved today in fact if they dropped west Jerusalem from their demands.

s also true that whether the Jews/Israelis have a claim to the land of Israel today is complex (Though also completely moot since the facts on the ground are what they are). Yet so too must we understand that the claim of a 'Palestinian people' arguable only existing for 70-200 years depending on how generous we choose to be to the land of Palestine is also tenuous. The modern borders are a fiction of political expediency. Palestine has at various times included Israel, Jordan Syria and the Sinai as Palestina Primus, Secundus, Salutaris and Syria and Mandate Palestine. The people are named for the land not the other way around and possess no meaningful religious, ethnic or linguistic difference from their neighbours, not surprising for territories that have been under the thumb of one empire or the other for thousands of years. Its interesting that for 20 years under Jordanian rule the West bank never sought independence and similarly Gaza never sought independence from Egypt. Their choice of land then being exactly what is today the state of Israel is a curious geopolitical outcome.

In fact if you want to see Apartheid look at the kingdom of Jordan (which is 50-70% Palestinian, they stopped doing a census to hide the exact numbers) and the way they structure their military, civil service and 'democracy' to keep Palestinians from taking power. Google black September and Google how war refugees from Syria are divided into Palestinians and non Palestinians and kept in separate camps. King Hussein used to say Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan but when he realized that they didn't feel they needed to keep him around his monarchy switched tracks.

Quote

Still, what they do is like killing someone's entire bloodline for spitting on your feet.

I have never understood this attitude. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 Hamas and like minded groups have shot over 8000 rockets at Israel. Just because their aim is ineffectual and Israelis Missile defence shield actually seems to work these days does not mean Israel can just ignore them. It also does not mean that Hamas does not have the intent to kill civilians with every rocket. It's the same with the 'Apartheid' wall Israel built that everyone gave them flack for, well it turns out it actually does an amazing job of stopping of suicide bombers.

War is not a mathematical exercise, Israel is not going to wait for a rocket to actually hit something before they respond. No country in the world would behave differently. Also google videos of the Hamas leaders asking people to behave as human shields and you will see why the casualties are they way they are. Israel phones the houses they plan to target and asks people to evacuate. They also often drop a dummy ordnance first, again to let people have time to run. Obviously its not always effective but what further steps would you ask of them? For 6 hours they held their fire and kept to the Egyptian negotiated cease fire while hamas continued to fire. Again should Israel just not respond?

Both sides act foolishly, but one side is not worse then the other because it has strength. The only thing that stops Hamas (the definition of terrorists, not militants) from doing worse is that they can't.

The conflict is also exacerbated used as it is by outside influence as a type of proxy war and political bargaining chip. By the Axis and Allies in WW2, Russia and America during the cold war, and the west and Arab Block today for example. Its very nice how Syria, Lebanon and Jordan for instance purposefully keep the palestinians stateless so they can one day go home. Its not done for their benefit but

@Illy-Its nor insane at all already a member of my government has been caught with a picture of Hitler on her facebook feed that read ' I left some allive so you will know why I wanted to kill them'. That is racism. Not pro-palestinian.

[Illuyankas]

@Obdi: You know the ceasefire was with Fatah and not Hamas, right? I don't think they even spoke to them, just bombed them and everyone around them while accusing them of killing those three teenagers without proof and while another faction claimed responsiblity.


Here's the ten conditions that Hamas and Islamic Jihad (who would be much worse for Palestine if they were in charge, which is why the IDF is hammering Hamas so hard since they're the reasonable ones in comparison) for a proper ceasefire and a ten year deal:

Quote

Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.

Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].

Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.

Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.

Expansion of the maritime fishing zone to 10 kms and supplying fishermen with larger fishing and cargo vessels.

Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.

Signing a 10-year truce agreement and deployment of international monitors to the borders.

A commitment by the occupation government not to violate Palestinian airspace and easing of conditions for worshipers in al-Aqsa mosque.

The occupation will not interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian government and will not hinder national reconciliation.

Restoration of the border industrial areas and their protection and development.

Doesn't mention the settlements or Jerusalem, seems a pretty good deal, so of course Israel is going to reject it in favour of more bombing.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 17 July 2014 - 10:19 AM

[Obdigore]

 Illuyankas, on 17 July 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

@Obdi: You know the ceasefire was with Fatah and not Hamas, right? I don't think they even spoke to them, just bombed them and everyone around them while accusing them of killing those three teenagers without proof and while another faction claimed responsiblity.

Well no, that just isn't true.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-28334219

Quote

Gaza ceasefire between Hamas and Israel begins

[Illuyankas]

 Cause, on 17 July 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

I think many of you are offering opinions on a subject you have very little knowledge on. Illyunkas when you say its Israel that is solely responsible for blocking a two state solution you are out of your mind. Hamas is/was the democratically elected government of Gaza and their stated aim is to destroy Israel and make it all into Palestine. The Palestinians were offered a two state solution in 1948 and rejected it. They have Gaza, they have the west bank and various offers have been made and rejected over the years. Its true Israel sticking point is west Jerusalem but try ask Saudia Arabia to give up half of Mecca. I can't believe a government that will keep its people stateless over half a city really have their interests at heart.

The problem is complex but also hardly beyond understanding. Yet if one side shows up to the negotiating table with the stated aim of annihilating the other one, we should not expect reasonable dialogue or meaningful progress. Almost the entirety of their reasonable ambition could be achieved today in fact if they dropped west Jerusalem from their demands.

s also true that whether the Jews/Israelis have a claim to the land of Israel today is complex (Though also completely moot since the facts on the ground are what they are). Yet so too must we understand that the claim of a 'Palestinian people' arguable only existing for 70-200 years depending on how generous we choose to be to the land of Palestine is also tenuous. The modern borders are a fiction of political expediency. Palestine has at various times included Israel, Jordan Syria and the Sinai as Palestina Primus, Secundus, Salutaris and Syria and Mandate Palestine. The people are named for the land not the other way around and possess no meaningful religious, ethnic or linguistic difference from their neighbours, not surprising for territories that have been under the thumb of one empire or the other for thousands of years. Its interesting that for 20 years under Jordanian rule the West bank never sought independence and similarly Gaza never sought independence from Egypt. Their choice of land then being exactly what is today the state of Israel is a curious geopolitical outcome.

In fact if you want to see Apartheid look at the kingdom of Jordan (which is 50-70% Palestinian, they stopped doing a census to hide the exact numbers) and the way they structure their military, civil service and 'democracy' to keep Palestinians from taking power. Google black September and Google how war refugees from Syria are divided into Palestinians and non Palestinians and kept in separate camps. King Hussein used to say Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan but when he realized that they didn't feel they needed to keep him around his monarchy switched tracks.

Quote

Still, what they do is like killing someone's entire bloodline for spitting on your feet.

I have never understood this attitude. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 Hamas and like minded groups have shot over 8000 rockets at Israel. Just because their aim is ineffectual and Israelis Missile defence shield actually seems to work these days does not mean Israel can just ignore them. It also does not mean that Hamas does not have the intent to kill civilians with every rocket. It's the same with the 'Apartheid' wall Israel built that everyone gave them flack for, well it turns out it actually does an amazing job of stopping of suicide bombers.

War is not a mathematical exercise, Israel is not going to wait for a rocket to actually hit something before they respond. No country in the world would behave differently. Also google videos of the Hamas leaders asking people to behave as human shields and you will see why the casualties are they way they are. Israel phones the houses they plan to target and asks people to evacuate. They also often drop a dummy ordnance first, again to let people have time to run. Obviously its not always effective but what further steps would you ask of them? For 6 hours they held their fire and kept to the Egyptian negotiated cease fire while hamas continued to fire. Again should Israel just not respond?

Both sides act foolishly, but one side is not worse then the other because it has strength. The only thing that stops Hamas (the definition of terrorists, not militants) from doing worse is that they can't.

The conflict is also exacerbated used as it is by outside influence as a type of proxy war and political bargaining chip. By the Axis and Allies in WW2, Russia and America during the cold war, and the west and Arab Block today for example. Its very nice how Syria, Lebanon and Jordan for instance purposefully keep the palestinians stateless so they can one day go home. Its not done for their benefit but

@Illy-Its nor insane at all already a member of my government has been caught with a picture of Hitler on her facebook feed that read ' I left some allive so you will know why I wanted to kill them'. That is racism. Not pro-palestinian.

Recently Fatah-Hamas offered Israel everything they wanted, including all of Jerusalem, and were rejected. Bibi has stated that the occupation will be permanent. Israel has all the power here.

The fact that they're kept in the world's largest open air prison, where their movement and food are restricted and they're prevented from forming their own state and bombed extremely efficiently might have something to do with their 'sudden' appeal for independence.

Considering the typical payload and destructive power of the vast majority, the ordinance coming into Israel is a fraction of the outgoing. Remember that the initial few days of Israeli strikes, in retaliation for three dead teenagers (when they killed half a dozen and arrested hundreds while searching for the culprits), killed more Palestinians than every single Hamas rocket ever. They killed more children than 'dissidents'. They're still killing children, too! They ring up places like hospitals, give them a little time to leave - not long enough to remove the injured - and then bomb anyway. Directed air strikes against a hospital and I'm supposed to think these are the good guys? The ones who prevent freaking construction materials to repair and rebuild houses and hospitals - oh, and schools - because of the fear of 'bunkers' as opposed to bomb shelters? And what about targetting that civilian police chief and killing 22 members of his family? What point did that serve, other than weaken Fatah and Hamas and strengthen Islamic Jihad and the other much worse factions involved, the ones who haven't successfully cut rocket fire for months at a time before Israel broke that ceasefire?

All Israel would have to do as an alternative to the war crimes they're currently doing is simple. End the blockade, stop the settlements, stop the bombings, set up an internationally-moderated reconciliation tribunal. Start following international law. Hamas is already willing to concede Jerusalem while resuming the '67 borders.


Oh, and yeah, there are some people condemning Israel who are racist antisemites, your point?

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 17 July 2014 - 10:44 AM

[Illuyankas]

 Obdigore, on 17 July 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

 Illuyankas, on 17 July 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

@Obdi: You know the ceasefire was with Fatah and not Hamas, right? I don't think they even spoke to them, just bombed them and everyone around them while accusing them of killing those three teenagers without proof and while another faction claimed responsiblity.

Well no, that just isn't true.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-28334219

Quote

Gaza ceasefire between Hamas and Israel begins

Ah, appears they did another ceasefire proposal after the Egyptian-led one that left out Hamas fell through, or looks like. That's a shame, hopefully the ten year plan gets some traction.

[Obdigore]

 Illuyankas, on 17 July 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

 Obdigore, on 17 July 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

 Illuyankas, on 17 July 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

@Obdi: You know the ceasefire was with Fatah and not Hamas, right? I don't think they even spoke to them, just bombed them and everyone around them while accusing them of killing those three teenagers without proof and while another faction claimed responsiblity.

Well no, that just isn't true.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-28334219

Quote

Gaza ceasefire between Hamas and Israel begins

Ah, appears they did another ceasefire proposal after the Egyptian-led one that left out Hamas fell through, or looks like. That's a shame, hopefully the ten year plan gets some traction.

Yea the 'first' one from Egypt was not agreed to by Hamas. There was a like 10 hour humanitarian relief one that both sides agreed to. And then...
http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

Quote

At least three mortars were fired from Gaza into southern Israel on Thursday morning, some two hours after a temporary lull in hostilities went into effect to allow humanitarian supplies into the area.

Hooray!

[Illuyankas]

It is important to note that it may not have been Hamas, for example:



This graph shows the incoming fire during the 2008 ceasefire Hamas agreed to - note that the incoming rockets and mortars are hugely decreased, but not zero? Hamas has considerable, but definitely not total control over its forces, and there are plenty of splinter groups and other radicals who wouldn't accept an Israeli deal to stop firing. The reduction is still incredible though, and extremely promising.

Of course it could have been Hamas firing stuff during 2008's ceasefire, and a chance that Hamas fired those mortars at this ceasefire, and we might never know. But the fact it even worked at all is a huge step towards a solution that doesn't end in more missiles or rockets.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 17 July 2014 - 10:55 AM

[Cause]

Quote

@Obdi: You know the ceasefire was with Fatah and not Hamas, right? I don't think they even spoke to them, just bombed them and everyone around them while accusing them of killing those three teenagers without proof and while another faction claimed responsiblity.

You mean that Fatah and Hamas two sides of the new Palestinian unity government don't talk to each other? You mean Israel must negotiate separate agreements with two factions? You mean to tell me their president has no control over Hamas and yet Israel must negotiate with them in good faith? Exactly which should should the new Palestinian country be granted to? and When Gaza and the west bank go to war with each other again with Israel in the middle what should Israel do?

Quote

Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
-Yes the pull-out of Gaza led to ten years of peace?

Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
-Thy can't even use the word Israel in their demands? Not promising. Also releasing terrorists (yes I am sure many are not that hardcore) has seldom worked in Israel interest

Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
-They accidentally bombed the Israeli power station that supplies them with power already! Also Israel has an interest in denying them construction material which they repeatedly use to build rocket tubes, bomb shelters and tunnels into Israel for attacks and into Egypt for arms smuggling. Israel has never starved Gaza either, even during this fighting they allow in all medical aid, food and large amounts of petrol

Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
-Does Israel forbid the reconstruction of their airport? I confess ignorance on this point, I suppose it would allow Gaza to violate the blockade so I guess so.

Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
-So impartial but biased countries? Too bad they have already burnt their bridge with Egypt

Also am I to understand Hamas, whose has the palestinians interests at heart, negotiating position is give in to our demands or we will force you to kill more of our civilians?

Quote

Recently Fatah-Hamas offered Israel everything they wanted, including all of Jerusalem, and were rejected. Bibi has stated that the occupation will be permanent. Israel has all the power here.

I am investigating. If this is true I am very very sad. (Can you provide a link or more info)

Quote

The fact that they're kept in the world's largest open air prison, where their movement and food are restricted and they're prevented from forming their own state and bombed extremely efficiently might have something to do with their 'sudden' appeal for independence.

Your confusing today with at least 65 years of history. Also an open air prison they can leave? And which has borders with both Egypt and Israel? Both countries keep the borders tightly monitored and for the same reasons

Quote

Considering the typical payload and destructive power of the vast majority, the ordinance coming into Israel is a fraction of the outgoing. Remember that the initial few days of Israeli strikes, in retaliation for three dead teenagers (when they killed half a dozen and arrested hundreds while searching for the culprits), killed more Palestinians than every single Hamas rocket ever. They killed more children than 'dissidents'. They're still killing children, too! They ring up places like hospitals, give them a little time to leave - not long enough to remove the injured - and then bomb anyway. Directed air strikes against a hospital and I'm supposed to think these are the good guys? The ones who prevent freaking construction materials to repair and rebuild houses and hospitals - oh, and schools - because of the fear of 'bunkers' as opposed to bomb shelters? And what about targetting that civilian police chief and killing 22 members of his family? What point did that serve, other than weaken Fatah and Hamas and strengthen Islamic Jihad and the other much worse factions involved, the ones who haven't successfully cut rocket fire for months at a time before Israel broke that ceasefire?

Life and death matters do no call for proportional response. And similarly all your graph shows is that Hamas can't control all its forces and so can't guarantee ten years of peace. It does not matter if its some other group. Hamas claims responsibility for Gaza and so they must enforce peace in Gaza.

This post has been edited by Cause: 17 July 2014 - 11:21 AM

[D'iversify]

 Cause, on 17 July 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

s also true that whether the Jews/Israelis have a claim to the land of Israel today is complex (Though also completely moot since the facts on the ground are what they are). Yet so too must we understand that the claim of a 'Palestinian people' arguable only existing for 70-200 years depending on how generous we choose to be to the land of Palestine is also tenuous. The modern borders are a fiction of political expediency. Palestine has at various times included Israel, Jordan Syria and the Sinai as Palestina Primus, Secundus, Salutaris and Syria and Mandate Palestine. The people are named for the land not the other way around and possess no meaningful religious, ethnic or linguistic difference from their neighbours, not surprising for territories that have been under the thumb of one empire or the other for thousands of years. Its interesting that for 20 years under Jordanian rule the West bank never sought independence and similarly Gaza never sought independence from Egypt. Their choice of land then being exactly what is today the state of Israel is a curious geopolitical outcome.

This comes close at times to the argument of the Palestinians not being a 'real' cultural group, and that being Arabs they have plenty of other countries to go to. I'm not saying you are making that argument, but I will use your quote as a springboard. The argument as it is ignores the fact that 'Israeli' (as opposed to 'Jew') is also a recent cultural identity that did not really exist before '48. Yes, there were Jews in the region before '48, and they did refer to the land as 'Israel', but in the same manner there were plenty of Arabs in the region who referred ot the land as 'Palestine'. Now, just because these are recent cultural identities does not take anything away from their validity. Cultural identity is in constant evolution and in the case of recently established nation states, the sense of a group cultural identity tied to that state usually follows the establishment of the state or the idea of a state itself. Now in the case of the Palestinians, their sense of cultural identity and identification has largely been forged in the context of their being tied to particular regions of land which have been occupied and/or claimed by Israel. They did not identify as particularly different from Jordanians and Egyptians post '48 on the grounds that before '67 the boundaries that had existed between these states and Palestine had been largely administrative as opposed to cultural, first as parts of the Ottoman Empire, then as British adminstered mandates (the divide between Gaza and Egypt may be argued to have been more substantial given Egypt's lengthier independence form the Ottomans and greater autonomy under later British rule). Much of the notion of Palestinians as different came not from themselves but from Jordanians who considered them immigrants. But pre-'67 was a period in which pan-Arab ideology was still strong, so it was only towards the end of Jordanian rule, when worries of political power shifting from East to West Bank arose among Jordanian elites, that tensions between the two Arab groups began increasing. The establishment of a unitary Palestinian identity has thus been by and large a product of the post-'67 occupation, though the collapse of pan-Arab identification following the humiliation of the Six Day War also played a role (the failure of the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria in 1962 had already began moving Arab nationalism away from Pan-Arabism towards a nation-based one of wataniya). But this is not unusual if it is compared with the historical development of nation-based cultural identities in colonial Africa and Asia. The Ghanaian identity, for instance, is very much in origin the product of a reaction to British colonisation and adminstration. The name 'Ghana' chosen after independence refers to an old African empire the territory of which did not coincide with the modern nation state. And still today there are competing identities other than Ghanaian within the nation, e.g. Asante. But this does not mean that Ghanaian does not constitute a legitimate cultural identity. Equally, I would argue that the Palestinian identity can very much be rooted in specific recent historical processes, but that the same is ultimately true of all cultural identities to a certain extent and theirs should not be denigrated on this basis.

[Terez]

 Cause, on 17 July 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

I think many of you are offering opinions on a subject you have very little knowledge on.

At least a couple of us even said so, but in the mostly-democratic first world, even ignorant opinions are relevant. If you think people are wrong, then it falls to you to convince them, and ^^ is not a good way to start.

[Illuyankas]

 Cause, on 17 July 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

You mean that Fatah and Hamas two sides of the new Palestinian unity government don't talk to each other? You mean Israel must negotiate separate agreements with two factions? You mean to tell me their president has no control over Hamas and yet Israel must negotiate with them in good faith? Exactly which should should the new Palestinian country be granted to? and When Gaza and the west bank go to war with each other again with Israel in the middle what should Israel do?

They ignored Hamas to attempt a fait accompli of presenting a done deal without their input while targeting their homes, which doesn't speak to good faith to me. Also their elected officials, of course.

Quote

Mutual cessation of the war and withdrawal of tanks to previous locations and the return of farmers to work their land in the agricultural border areas.
-Yes the pull-out of Gaza led to ten years of peace?
Perhaps there would be other factors this time?

Release of all the Palestinians detained since 23 June 2014 and improvement of the conditions of Palestinian prisoners, especially the prisoners from Jerusalem, Gaza and Palestinians of the interior [present-day Israel].
-Thy can't even use the word Israel in their demands? Not promising. Also releasing terrorists (yes I am sure many are not that hardcore) has seldom worked in Israel interest
These are the hundreds of people swept up while searching for the killers of the three teenagers, who are being detained still for literally no reason.

Total lifting of the siege of Gaza and opening the border crossings to goods and people and allowing in all food and industrial supplies and construction of a power plant sufficient to supply all of Gaza.
-They accidentally bombed the Israeli power station that supplies them with power already! Also Israel has an interest in denying them construction material which they repeatedly use to build rocket tubes, bomb shelters and tunnels into Israel for attacks and into Egypt for arms smuggling. Israel has never starved Gaza either, even during this fighting they allow in all medical aid, food and large amounts of petrol
It's almost like the ten year deal will mean they won't feel the need to build those things, and will instead make things better for their people! And if they do build all that stuff, Israel will just blast them to pieces, and neither side is deliberately that stupid. And of course Israel's starved Gaza.

Construction of an international seaport and an international airport supervised by the UN and non-biased countries.
-Does Israel forbid the reconstruction of their airport? I confess ignorance on this point, I suppose it would allow Gaza to violate the blockade so I guess so.
Yes, no airport allowed.

Converting the Rafah crossing into an international crossing under supervision of the UN and Arab and friendly countries.
-So impartial but biased countries? Too bad they have already burnt their bridge with Egypt
[b]I'm sure the UN will actually help out this time.

Quote

Also am I to understand Hamas, whose has the palestinians interests at heart, negotiating position is give in to our demands or we will force you to kill more of our civilians?

No-one's forcing the IDF to kill civilians. Apart from a desire to appear tough on Palestinians, I guess.

Quote

I am investigating. If this is true I am very very sad. (Can you provide a link or more info)

I'm searching for the links I read it off, but man, going backwards through the last negotiations (I believe it's before them by a few years but I'll keep searching) is depressing. Continuing to allow thousands of settlement houses to be constructed during talks is ridiculous, and "Hey we know you said we're a state in 1988 and in the 1993 Oslo Accords we explicitly said we sabotaged but unless you say we're a Jewish state, no dice!" If I can't find my link I'll retract that claim but it's very clear that Israel is hostile to compromise.

Quote

Your confusing today with at least 65 years of history. Also an open air prison they can leave? And which has borders with both Egypt and Israel? Both countries keep the borders tightly monitored and for the same reasons

Quote

Life and death matters do no call for proportional response. And similarly all your graph shows is that Hamas can't control all its forces and so can't guarantee ten years of peace. It does not matter if its some other group. Hamas claims responsibility for Gaza and so they must enforce peace in Gaza.

No, a sense of empathy does though. What justifies blowing up twenty two members of a man's family when you explicitly target him despite being a civilian and a police chief? What justifies killing four children on a beach, then retargeting at the three fleeing kids left alive and firing again? Even if the single rocket a month does continue and doesn't trail off to nothing at the fact the ceasefire was working, isn't that preferable to the deaths of hundreds and the injuring of thousands for no greater reason than Israel doesn't want a Palestinian unity government? To do that much considering they're hardly a sovereign state is a feat in itself, and as bad as Hamas is there are worse waiting in the wings.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 17 July 2014 - 12:05 PM