Support NeoGAF

[dripdripsplash]

In my opinion there are only two permanent "solutions" to this entire conflict and i don´t like both of them. My humanist, educated part doesn´t like them but i honestly think they are the only rational options left. One party has to leave. Permanently. And no, i am not talking about genozide, This word is much overused anyway in this whole context. But let me explain why before you rip me apart.

There is no option for peace. I always have to laugh if anyone brings up "peace talks". Why? Because the invisible man in the sky tells them so. Israel is surrounded by countries who litteraly believe its their holy mission to wipe the jews from the face of earth. And thats not the opinion of some peasants.. it´s the leaders who use this rhetoric again and again over the last 50 years. And there is not a single doubt they would try it immidiately if they feel powerful enough to do so. Thats the reason why Israel won´t allow any nukes around them - for good reason. You can´t make peace with someone who believes you are eating children and other horror stories. (Or believes in jewish nwo and other nonsense).

Occupied palestine? Their country? Please. I am not even remotely connected to either side but this whole argumentation is hillarious. It´s a religious hotspot and many ethnic groups claim it to be their "home" but there never was something like a state palestine. Those people claim to be refugees for what, 50 years now? Thats like 3 generations worth of people, with litterally billions of aid over the years and yet they elected a fanatic gropu to be their leaders and focus on a fight you can´t win instead of building a society. And please don´t use the word genocide anymore. I know these people are suffering and i honestly feel bad for both sides but using this word is disrespectful to the groups actually suffering from it. There are killings on both sides, but no genocide. It would be the worst genocide ever with an exploding population.

So what to do? Two states? Won´t happen - why? Because both sides wouldn´t be satisfied with it. Israel leaving? Not going to happen either. I honestly believe "moving" gaza to egypt or another country would be the hardest but ultimatly best solution. And yes i am aware of the "ironic" historical situation this would create. The whole wolrd (except the USA) hates Israel either way - nothing would change here, All the neighbouring countries would still like to nuke israel from the face of earth, nothing would change.

But the killing would stop, and thats the point.

I apologize if i offended someone with this and i really know how difficult this whole topic is. The whole situation is fucked up and i feel sorry for both sides. But if nothing happens this will go on forever. The first thing that dies in the middle east is the truth. And then the people follow. The only thing blooming there is hate and thats a tragedy.

Tldr: Pls don´t kill me.

This post is trash.

You're basically advocating the same thing that right wing settler nutjobs do: "The Palestinian people doesn't even exist!" "They should just move to Jordan/Egypt or any other Arab country!"

Bolded part is wrong too because the conflict is only religious on the side of the Orthodox Jews who believes that the Torah tells them that all of the land is theirs and they are the chosen people by God. For the Palestinians and Arabs at large it's a matter of land and refugees.

 

[Interceptor]

This post is trash.

You're basically advocating the same thing that right wing settler nutjobs do: "The Palestinian people doesn't even exist!" "They should just move to Jordan/Egypt or any other Arab country!"

Bolded part is wrong too because the conflict is only religious on the side of the Orthodox Jews who believes that the Torah tells them that all of the land is theirs and they are the chosen people by God. For the Palestinians and Arabs at large it's a matter of land and refugees.

Nah. Of course the people exist. Plenty of them. I am not denying them. Just their historical state. Neither did a jewish state. But they are there now. And my part about the invisible man was not exclusive to one side either. Thats my main reasoning why there is no chance for an ultimate peace.

 

[dripdripsplash]

Nah. Of course the people exist. Plenty of them. I am not denying them. Just their historical state. Neither did a jewish state. But they are there now. And my part about the invisible man was not exclusive to one side either. Thats my main reasoning why there is no chance for an ultimate peace.

Also the point you make about occupied territory is flat out wrong too.

Heres an article that gives a great overview of the state of occupied territory looking at it through the lens of international law:

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8807/is-gaza-still-occupied-and-why-does-it-matter

Yes, the Gaza Strip is still occupied. Despite official Israeli remonstrations that the unilateral disengagement of 2005, which removed Israeli military bases and Jewish settlers, transformed Gaza into “no longer occupied territory,” neither those changes nor anything that has transpired since has ended the occupation.

“Occupation” is a legal designation of an international nature. Israel’s occupation of Gaza continues to the present day because (a) Israel continues to exercise “effective control” over this area, (b) the conflict that produced the occupation has not ended, and (c) an occupying state cannot unilaterally (and without international/diplomatic agreement) transform the international status of occupied territory except, perhaps, if that unilateral action terminates all manner of effective control.

Now read this Whitechocolatekrispies:

Why Does It Matter That Gaza Is Still Occupied?

International law is not a panacea for the harms and ills of conflict. However, international law provides a standard against which empirical realities can be judged and an instrumental means through which consequences for violations can be pursued. For stateless peoples, including those living under occupation, international law is exceptionally important because they have no national law-based alternative to assert, let alone exercise, their right of self-determination. International law provides the point of reference for that and all the other rights they can claim by virtue of being humans.

Palestinians may achieve their rights (or not) through political, diplomatic or military means. But that does not alter the fact that as long as the occupation continues—which it will until there is peace and sovereignty and self-determination—what happens in Gaza and in the West Bank are matters of international law, and therefore of international concern.

If international law did not matter, Israel would not have gone to such lengths to concoct alternative interpretations in order to cover its intentions and policies in the territories from the time they were conquered in 1967 until today. Those concocted interpretations defy international consensus and authoritative interpretations of international law.

I believe that it is important for people to understand that gap between what international law demands or allows and what Israel does and asserts as its right vis-à-vis Palestinians and the territories occupied since 1967. Why? Because understanding international law is a means of showing respect for the humanitarian norms and human rights that were hard fought to establish. Understanding is a step to making international law into an effective standard and instrument for rights and for justice. Absorbing and spreading that understanding is more than some abstract “cause;” it is a project and an invitation to make the law matter to the lives of those who need it most, and to the lives of those who disregard and violate it.

Read the rest of the article for a detailed article on the state of occupied palestinian territories looking at the laws regarding it all.

 

[ThreeBeta]

This post is trash.
Bolded part is wrong too because the conflict is only religious on the side of the Orthodox Jews who believes that the Torah tells them that all of the land is theirs and they are the chosen people by God. For the Palestinians and Arabs at large it's a matter of land and refugees.

Really?
Have you read the Hamas Charter? It's states Jihad (Religious War) every two sentences...
Jihad to free Palestine.
It is a religious conflict for the Palestinians.

 

[dripdripsplash]

Really?
Have you read the Hamas Charter? It's states Jihad (Religious War) every two sentences...
Jihad to free Palestine.
It is a religious conflict for the Palestinians.

Hamas is not all Palestinians.

And if you read my post it said Arabs at large. It is not a "holy conflict" for Arabs and Palestinians at large but one with the target of returning once held land.

Throughout history it has always been secular too. The jihad aspect of it is relatively new but is always trumphed by the arguments of self determination and a state for the palestinian people and not an caliphate for example.

 

[Interceptor]

Really?
Have you read the Hamas Charter? It's states Jihad (Religious War) every two sentences...
Jihad to free Palestine.
It is a religious conflict for the Palestinians.

Exactly.
You can´t solve a religious conflict with peace talks. Thats the whole tragedy in the middle east.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Current results of this military operation according to an article from German state media:

Palestinians:

30 dead | 130 injured

Israelis:

0 dead | 0 injured


"Self-defense"

 

[theignoramus]

Nah. Of course the people exist. Plenty of them. I am not denying them. Just their historical state. Neither did a jewish state. But they are there now. And my part about the invisible man was not exclusive to one side either. Thats my main reasoning why there is no chance for an ultimate peace.

You really think a country like Jordan feels "wiping jews off the face of the earth" is its holy mission? Do you know about the Arab Peace Initiative from the early 2000s? Half the countries in the Arab League want to normalize relations with Israel and would have done so already if they thought it wouldnt undermine the dictatorial regimes they have over their own populations.

 

[Partial Gamification]

Maybe more livable area could be created. There is that gas reserve in the Mediterranean for power, solar technology is making huge gains. Why not seriously consider building floating cities and extending the land West into the Mediterranean? this is not an immediate solution.

Dubai’s ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum has unveiled plans for the Mall of the World — a 48 million-sq.-ft. (4.5 million sq m) shopping center, to be the world’s largest, which will also form the world’s first temperature-controlled “city.”

Designed by developers Dubai Holding, the complex will be modeled on the cultural district around New York’s Broadway and Oxford Street in London, and is expected to draw 180 million visitors to the city annually — even during the sweltering 104°F (40°C) summer. (The complex will be opened to the elements during tamer winter months to allow fresh air to circulate.)
[...]
The ambitious project will include the world’s largest indoor amusement park and shopping mall, 100 hotels and serviced apartment complexes, an entertainment center to host 15,000 people, and a 3 million-sq.-ft. (300,000 sq m) “wellness district” for medical tourism. Buildings in the city will be connected by promenades stretching 4.5 miles (7 km). The plan is Dubai’s latest attempt to mark itself as the economic hub of the Islamic world; the UAE’s most populous city already boasts the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, which stands at 2,722 ft. (829.8 m).
[...]
The cost and timeline of the project have yet to be released, but it is expected to be a highlight at the UAE World Expo trade fair in 2020.
http://time.com/2964797/dubai-to-build-worlds-first-temperature-controlled-indoor-city/

Cheaper Desalination

In 2011 the US national resources Council reported that the cost of traditional sources of water are from $.90 to $2.50 per 1000 gallons produced. The cost of desalination on the other hand ranges from $1.50 to $8.00 for the same amount of water. These costs prevent some utilities from implementing desalination on a large scale.

With the new Graphene technology the cost of desalination will now be comparable to traditional sources of water. Lockheed Martin is planning to increase production of its graphing filters and deal with some of the issues such as Thin Film Composite (TFC) sheet tears.
http://www.industrytap.com/water-desalination-using-99-less-energy-with-pefrorene/2745

Throwing it out there as a vague outline (much to fill in for figuring out how practical this is that's beyond me):
Make compost and start creating fertile soil on a large scale for the new land mass or arid lands with huge irrigation/humility systems (wind turbines[?]), at what rate can this be done? Make grain for chickens and have those mobile trailer-coups to cycle nutrients back into the soil. Get the cycle of life on an much larger scale. Make the desert really bloom.

I don't know how fast it could be done but if there was more for all then maybe the disputed areas would become less of an issue. Its a little simplistic but I think the root of the conflict is misunderstanding (allowing the cycle of death and injury).

Another wild one would be for the Palestinians to apply to be annexed by the United States of America. It would be interesting to see how it played out, Congress would have to ratify but its possible, not that the issue would even likely be taken up. I'm not in any way suggesting this is viable, just putting it out there.

In the same vein, move the NYC UN HQ to Jerusalem and yield the city to international authority (arguably this would not work and I accept the current geopolitical reality) with the municipality actually run by a local council of elders or to be determined by the people that wanted to stay in the city -forcing people to leave this city is too contentions for me to think it would be possible.

 

[dripdripsplash]

Exactly.
You can´t solve a religious conflict with peace talks. Thats the whole tragedy in the middle east.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

Let me reccomend a book for you, giving a runthrough of Middle East modern history: The Arabs: A History by Eugene Rogan

It's not a religious conflict. It is a conflict of displaced refugees and land.

"Nothing more, nothing less".

The Palestinian cause has historically always been a secular cause rooted in the struggle for a state. Jihad rethoric has never been the main point looking at it from the Palestinian side, whereas the religious aspect is a main point looking at it from settler and ultra orthodox jew side.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Current results of this military operation according to an article from German state media:

Palestinians:

30 dead | 130 injured

Israelis:

0 dead | 0 injured


"Self-defense"

Terrorist sites targeted by Israel: 550

 

[Interceptor]

Current results of this military operation according to an article from German state media:

Palestinians:

30 dead | 130 injured

Israelis:

0 dead | 0 injured


"Self-defense"

No reports does not equal no casualties. You also missed the part about the 225 rockets fired on israel (just in one night). Unguided rockets. aka as "lol i don´t care who gets hit"-rockets. The 30 dead are the retaliation to this. And according to german media as well a well calculated retaliation by the hamas too. Hamas is losing ground among its own people and uses this whole escalation to fuel the hatred and support from palestinians. Again, according to german media.

 

[Dude Abides]

Pretty much ever conquering force in our entire history?

The war isn't over until one side concedes. Why should Israel when it's practically won?

That's the real blunt truth here no one wants to accept. Don't hate me for pointing out the obvious.

This is correct. However you are wrong to say that the Palestinians need to "prove themselves to us" to get what they want.

No land-hungry state has ever abandoned its aims because the occupants of the desired land proved how nice they could be. This should be obvious as well.

 

[ThreeBeta]

Hamas is not all Palestinians.

And if you read my post it said Arabs at large. It is not a "holy conflict" for Arabs and Palestinians at large but one with the target of returning once held land.

Actually Hamas is the government right now right along with Phatach.
They were elected by the Palestinians to represent them.
And they do not recognize Israel's right to exist.
So maybe for most Arabs it's not a religious conflict but for most Palestinians it is, since they freely elected the Hamas as their leaders.

 

[ThreeBeta]

Current results of this military operation according to an article from German state media:

Palestinians:

30 dead | 130 injured

Israelis:

0 dead | 0 injured


"Self-defense"

So what? so you say Israel should keep getting fired by rockets until they are some casualties? Then they can start defending themselves?

 

[Spineker]

I wonder if the Israeli Government sees the irony in how far right of centre they have drifted in modern times.

 

[Jag]

This issue of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque (the third holiest site in Islam) is most definitely a holy issue for Arabs as well as Jews. To say religion doesn't play into this on both sides is disingenuous.

 

[yarden24]

I totally agree that economic prosperity has to be a priority of any solution, prosperous people don't put on suicide vests.
But the problem that Israel showed the Palestinians time and time again that it only understands force.
Look at the west bank, you have a reasonable moderate leadership, you have relative quiet, and what did they get for that?
More settlements.

oh, and were settlements not built when they were advocating terrorist attacks? wasn't aware of that.

 

[RustyNails]

If someone has a gun to your head, you don't try and punch them in the gut.

I would, especially when I see a ditch dug out in front of me.

 

[nib95]

So what? so you say Israel should keep getting fired by rockets until they are some casualties? Then they can start defending themselves?

Edited: Due to incorrect understanding of Iron Domes effective capacity.

It is unlikely they have casualties from the rockets. Iron Dome according to Israeli officials has an effective percentage of around between 75% to 95%. Though that still leaves a dangerous enough margin. I doubt they count rockets hitting the outer non habituated or non lethal areas in the that figure. Iron Dome is supposedly programmed to only intercept dangerous rockets and let the rest hit targets. Important to note though that Palestinians literally have no defence against Israeli air strikes, drones, fighter jets, high spec military, tanks, satellite equipment and all the rest.

The analogy of a fly versus a lion here is pretty damn apt.

 

[ThreeBeta]

I wonder if the Israeli Government sees the irony in how far right of centre they have drifted in modern times.

Nope.
But the Israeli people are seeing that.
It's too bad that fascism is addicting :/

 

[dripdripsplash]

Actually Hamas is the government right now right along with Phatach.
They were elected by the Palestinians to represent them.
And they do not recognize Israel's right to exist.
So maybe for most Arabs it's not a religious conflict but for most Palestinians it is, since they freely elected the Hamas as their leaders.

Hamas leader says he'll move to a peaceful path contingent on the "end of the occupation" and Palestinian statehood.

Hamas: We’ll recognize Israel within '67 borders
Faction's spokesman at Palestinian parliament voices pragmatic, surprising declarations during Ramallah conference; 'we, Hamas, are committed to calm up to this moment,' he says

They won with a vote of 44.45%

Even if we make the completely ludicrous and insane statement that all the 44.45% want to destroy Israel there is about 55.55% that didn't vote for Hamas.

All in all I still disagree with you that it is in its core a religious conflict.

You just have to open a history book too see what I'm talking about. The narrative of jihad and the retaking of Jerusalem using religious arguments has always been trumphed by the problems that the conflict originated from. A question of land.

There is no Muslims that state that Palestine is only for Muslims. This line of thought simply doesn't exist in Islam. It is not mentioned in the Quran nor in the Hadith.

This issue of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque (the third holiest site in Islam) is most definitely a holy issue for Arabs as well as Jews. To say religion doesn't play into this on both sides is disingenuous.

Oh I'm not arguing with you that there is an religious perspective to it looking at it from the Muslim side, but that this side has always been trumphed by the narrative of the problems at hand. Which is the question of land, state and refugees which is largely secular problems.

 

[ThreeBeta]

It is incredibly unlikely they have casualties from the rockets, unless someone is in one of the stray far out areas that the iron done systems let's rockets drop in to. But the missile defence system Israel has is one of the most advanced in the world. Very unlikely a rocket gets passed it (though in extremely rare instance it can happen), whereas Palestinians literally have no defence against Israeli air strikes, drones, fighter jets, high spec military, tanks, satellite equipment and all the rest.

The analogy of a fly versus a lion here is pretty damn apt.

The Iron Dome isn't perfect and has a limit on how many rockets it can handle in any given time. And that's the tactic the Hamas is trying right now, launching a barrage of many rockets in order to bypass the Iron Dome.

But your'e not answering the question. How many civilians have to die so Israel can defend itself?

 

[Interceptor]

It is incredibly unlikely they have casualties from the rockets, unless someone is in one of the stray far out areas that the iron dome system let's rockets drop in to. But the missile defence system Israel has is one of the most advanced in the world. Very unlikely a rocket gets passed it (though in extremely rare instance it can happen), whereas Palestinians literally have no defence against Israeli air strikes, drones, fighter jets, high spec military, tanks, satellite equipment and all the rest.

The analogy of a fly versus a lion here is pretty damn apt.

225 rockets fired on Israel - 40 of them got cought by the defense system. Not that "extremly rare" as you believe. The Palestinians have actually the very best defense there is in the world against air strikes: Don´t attack first. '(And don´t put your rocket launcher in the middle of a urban area "by accident" if your care for your people just a little bit)

 

[ThreeBeta]

Hamas leader says he'll move to a peaceful path contingent on the "end of the occupation" and Palestinian statehood.

Hamas: We’ll recognize Israel within '67 borders
Faction's spokesman at Palestinian parliament voices pragmatic, surprising declarations during Ramallah conference; 'we, Hamas, are committed to calm up to this moment,' he says

That was in 2006...
from this year: Recognizing Israel a 'Red Line' for Hamas Says Abu Marzouk

Oh I'm not arguing with you that there is an religious perspective to it looking at it from the Muslim side, but that this side has always been trumphed by the narrative of the problems at hand. Which is the question of land, state and refugees which is largely secular problems.

I wish it were true, but I think that returning to the 67' borders will not solve the conflict.
After that, there will be conflict for returning to the 48' borders. and after that...

In order for the 67' borders to be a solution, both side must abandon the religious side of the conflict.

 

[soundahfekz]

If someone has a gun to your head, you don't try and punch them in the gut.

I feel like no one understands the undeniable fact that Israel has won. They dictate the conditions not the Palestinians. Both sides are not equal. Israel has won this outright. All the rockets and violence from the Palestinians amounts to someone struggling in handcuffs. They can struggle all they like, but they won't break free. If they struggle to hard, they might occasionally get beat down (ergo this latest operation).

Right now all they have is Israels mercy. All they can do is sit down and shut up, and earn their freedom in Israel's eyes. Struggling and spitting in their face will only make the cuffs tighter.

Israel won. They are a modern and progressive enough country that we (western world) are happy to leave it as that. The Palestinians have aligned themselves to many times with or enemies for us to care enough to change this or try and help them.

For things to change you all want Israel to back off, to conceed land, to open itself up to more risk and threats. Israel laughs at your ideas. Why would the reigning champion listen to you when it holds all the cards.

So where does that leave us? Oh right the Palestinians are the only ones left that can help themselves, because Israel sure as shit ain't. The Palestinians have to prove to us they are worth siding with.

Bane is that you?

 

[dripdripsplash]

In order for the 67' borders to be a solution, both side must abandon the religious side of the conflict.

I think we're running in circles here. I do not acknowledge that the core problem from the Palestinian side is religious. It is one of LAND, STATE and REFUGEES.

If 67' borders was made, a Palestinian state with E Jerusalem as it's capital you would see two of the problems (LAND and STATE) vanish.

 

[nib95]

The Iron Dome isn't perfect and has a limit on how many rockets it can handle in any given time. And that's the tactic the Hamas is trying right now, launching a barrage of many rockets in order to bypass the Iron Dome.

But your'e not answering the question. How many civilians have to die so Israel can defend itself?

I apologise, I didn't actually realise that was the case and it has a limitation per se on the number of rockets it can deal with at a time. That is interesting to me. Does look like there have been no casualties so far, but there certainly have been in the past. Just read an article now that states Israeli officials claim Iron Dome has an effectiveness percentage of around 85%, which still leaves a dangerous margin.

 

[ThreeBeta]

I think we're running in circles here. I do not acknowledge that the core problem from the Palestinian side is religious. It is one of LAND, STATE and REFUGEES.

If 67' borders was made, a Palestinian state with E Jerusalem as it's capital you would see two of the problems (LAND and STATE) vanish.

I disagree.
But let's agree to disagree.

 

[ThreeBeta]

I apologise, I didn't actually realise that was the case and it has a limitation per se on the number of rockets it can deal with at a time. That is interesting to me. Does look like there have been no casualties so far, but there certainly have been in the past. Just read an article now that states Israeli officials claim Iron Dome has an effectiveness percentage of around 85%, which still leaves a dangerous margin.

1 Hamas rocket costs 10$
1 Iron Dome rocket costs 50000$

Hamas has over 10,000 rockets at their dispose and they get them for free.
So a lion can protect it self quite easily against one fly, but against a horde of them? The lion will get hurt eventually.

 

[Whitechocolatekrispies]

This is correct. However you are wrong to say that the Palestinians need to "prove themselves to us" to get what they want.

No land-hungry state has ever abandoned its aims because the occupants of the desired land proved how nice they could be. This should be obvious as well.

... Haha!

That's funny. That really is. Considering Israel has done exactly what you just said it would never do about 40 years ago with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

They withdrew from hard earned land in exchange for peace. Last time I checked Israel hasn't been kicking off (bar the Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon) with these guys and in fact they have mostly have quite stable peace treaties.

There was one group that refused to partake in these negotiations... Surprise surprise who they are ...

 

[nib95]

1 Hamas rocket costs 10$
1 Iron Dome rocket costs 50000$

Hamas has over 10,000 rockets at their dispose and they get them for free.
So a lion can protect it self quite easily against one fly, but against a horde of them? The lion will get hurt eventually.

Still only a scratch in comparison to Palestines casualties and destruction though. As in, not in the same league of comparison.

Here's what wiki has to say about Iron Domes effectiveness btw.

In November 2012, during Operation Pillar of Defense, the Iron Dome's effectiveness was estimated by Israeli officials at between 75 and 95 percent.[88] According to Israeli officials, of the approximately 1,000 missiles and rockets fired into Israel by Hamas from the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense up to 17 November 2012, Iron Dome identified two thirds as not posing a threat and intercepted 90 percent of the remaining 300.[89] During this period the only Israeli casualties were three individuals killed in missile attacks after a malfunction of the Iron Dome system.

Seems most rockets fired out of Palestine are unidentified as non lethal, which is why counting just the number of rockets fired doesn't paint a very clear picture. Most rockets Hamas fires don't actually pose a threat, presumably because they're not very accurate and shoot off target. Of those that do, the danger is still present but it's not close to the level playing field some media likes to present.

 

[Forsete]

225 rockets fired on Israel - 40 of them got cought by the defense system. Not that "extremly rare" as you believe. The Palestinians have actually the very best defense there is in the world against air strikes: Don´t attack first. '(And don´t put your rocket launcher in the middle of a urban area "by accident" if your care for your people just a little bit)

225 rockets? Thats quite a lot. And they dont care who gets hit either.
Hopefully Israel manages to take them out ASAP.

 

[Quotient]

225 rockets fired on Israel - 40 of them got cought by the defense system. Not that "extremly rare" as you believe. The Palestinians have actually the very best defense there is in the world against air strikes: Don´t attack first. '(And don´t put your rocket launcher in the middle of a urban area "by accident" if your care for your people just a little bit)

This is text book technique of Islamic militants - place ammunitions, rocket launchers etc in dense residential areas. It makes it hard to destroy them and results in large civilian deaths which they can use to rally up more support and hatred.

 

[michaelius]

Seems most rockets fired out of Palestine are unidentified as non lethal, which is why counting just the number of rockets fired doesn't paint a very clear picture. Most rockets Hamas fires don't actually pose a threat, presumably because they're not very accurate and shoot off target. Of those that do, the danger is still present but it's not close to the level playing field some media likes to present.

So what's your point ?

Israel should ignore rockets because there's only small chance they kill someone ?

 

[MacNille]

Current results of this military operation according to an article from German state media:

Palestinians:

30 dead | 130 injured

Israelis:

0 dead | 0 injured


"Self-defense"

It is not lack of trying by Hamas. They are firing rockets all the god damn time at Israel, but thanks to Iron dome, most of the rockets don't make it. So it counts as self defense when Israel are firing back.

 

[nib95]

... Haha!

That's funny. That really is. Considering Israel has done exactly what you just said it would never do about 40 years ago with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

They withdrew from hard earned land in exchange for peace. Last time I checked Israel hasn't been kicking off (bar the Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon) with these guys and in fact they have mostly have quite stable peace treaties.

There was one group that refused to partake in these negotiations... Surprise surprise who they are ...

It should be noted that according to UN stats, there have been several periods of peace where there has been a short but sustained ceasefire between the two parties, but in such instances Israel still, after a short break, during the ceasefire, proceeded with its aggressive occupation expansion policies which I'd imagine ultimately drew the actions that ended the ceasefires.

The point is, a ceasefire or the notion of peace is pointless until Israel stops its illegal settlement expansion programmes and stops destroying Palestinian structures and with it, displacing Palestinians. This seems to be the number one catalyst for anger and retaliation with Palestinians. If you get driven out of your home, to hunger and homelessness, the chances of you turning to Hamas or revenge go up and astronomical amount.

The occupation and continued expansion projects are first and foremost the most important aspects of this conflict, and likely the biggest causes for resentment and/or anger among Palestinians.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

This is true brutality, just because Israil has the upper military hand a long with the support of most 1st world countries dosen't mean that they have wipeout all Palestinians in Gaza Strip. Somebody needs to step up this is a shame that such a thing is happening in this day and age.

 

[ThreeBeta]

Most rockets Hamas fires don't actually pose a threat, presumably because they're not very accurate and shoot off target. Of those that do, the danger is still present but it's not close to the level playing field some media likes to present.

Just today,over 6 rockets have landed inside settlements. One person was slightly injured and there is are damages to apartment buildings where people live.
Most casualties are prevented because people stay inside their bomb shelter most of the day.

Settlements that located 40 kilometers (Israel is a small country) near Gaza the people that live there are in bomb shelters all day. No work, no school.

Last night a squad of five Hamas soldiers has infiltrated a beach near a small village in Israel, their plan was to enter the village and kill civilians. they were heavily armed.
They were intercepted by the IDF

Also, at the same time a group of eight Hamas soldiers tried to infiltrate another village via an underground tunnel they've prepared in advance from Gaza.
They had a malfunction in their explosives and the tunnel collapsed on their heads when they were near the village on their way to kill civilians.

So yeah, It's not a leveled playing field, but the danger is very real, and people do get hurt.

 

[nib95]

So what's your point ?

Israel should ignore rockets because there's only small chance they kill someone ?

The point is that the danger and constant threat faced by Palestine is still in an entirely different league. And that Israel should not expect Hamas to cease retaliatory measures until Israel itself stops it's illegal expansion programmes (which continue on a week by week basis and have done for years with few breaks in between).

People often pin the blame on Hamas for breaking ceasefire or peace negotiations, but ignore the UN reports that quite clearly show that the main cause for the retaliation was no less than further demolitions and expansion by Israel, and the displacement of more Palestinians.

The last time a big ceasefire was breached, much of the Western media blamed Hamas, but failed to report on the UN reports that showed Israel had destroyed hundreds of Palestinian structures, and displaced more, in the weeks running up to it.

 

[RustyNails]

That was in 2006...
from this year: Recognizing Israel a 'Red Line' for Hamas Says Abu Marzouk



I wish it were true, but I think that returning to the 67' borders will not solve the conflict.
After that, there will be conflict for returning to the 48' borders. and after that...

In order for the 67' borders to be a solution, both side must abandon the religious side of the conflict.

There is a religious aspect to it, but that's not the driver of conflict from Palestinian side. You are feigning willful blindness if you believe Palestinians are solely driven by religion. Its completely disregarding the status of refugees and the natives being kicked out of their land for the past 60 years.

 

[Yasir]

So what? so you say Israel should keep getting fired by rockets until they are some casualties? Then they can start defending themselves?

Yeah, those children where sure gonna fuck Israel up huh.

 

[Dude Abides]

... Haha!

That's funny. That really is. Considering Israel has done exactly what you just said it would never do about 40 years ago with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

They withdrew from hard earned land in exchange for peace. Last time I checked Israel hasn't been kicking off (bar the Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon) with these guys and in fact they have mostly have quite stable peace treaties.

There was one group that refused to partake in these negotiations... Surprise surprise who they are ...

Oh, I see, you're a hardcore Israeli partisan. I thought you were an objective observer.

The Sinai isn't considered part of Eretz Israel. And Israel likely couldn't have held it indefinitely. And of course the Golan was effectively annexed.

So no, Israel is not a benevolent uptopia that only wishes peace with its neighbors and has no desire to expand.

 

[Interceptor]

This is true brutality, just because Israil has the upper military hand a long with the support of most 1st world countries dosen't mean that they have wipeout all Palestinians in Gaza Strip. Somebody needs to step up this is a shame that such a thing is happening in this day and age.

They are trying to wipe them out? Geez, worst genocide ever with a drastically grwoing population. Seriously. Stop this nonsense propaganda. No one is trying to "wipe them out".

Yeah, those children where sure gonna fuck Israel up huh.

Always the children... It´s as if Israeli rockets only target children. Maybe blame the person who put the rocket launcher right next to the child in the first place. Because this person knew what would happen - and he counted on it.

 

[falastini]

I wish it were true, but I think that returning to the 67' borders will not solve the conflict.
After that, there will be conflict for returning to the 48' borders. and after that...

In order for the 67' borders to be a solution, both side must abandon the religious side of the conflict.

Your basing this on what? Hamas' mostly symbolic (though admittedly stupid) line in their charter? Have you spoken to any actual Palestinians? Have you conducted a survey? I can tell you, as a Palestinian, that I literally don't know one person who wouldn't be ecstatic if there was suddenly an independent Palestine tomorrow based on the 67' borders with E.Jerusalem. There wouldn't be any push for expansion beyond that. If there was any fringe extremists trying to reject or push for more, they would be admonished by other Palestinians for trying to ruin what we have desperately longed for all these years. And don't fall for the "poor Israel surrounded by enemies" dialog. Even if the surrounding countries decided to ally and attack Israel, they would be hilariously demolished. Israel is secure as a country. I imagine they would encounter more Israeli extremist terrorism, than otherwise, if they dismantled settlements and seceded to the 67' borders

Nobody realistically believes in the destruction of Israel. I doubt if even the most fervent Hamas believe it.

Yes. Hamas was elected once, but not because of their charter. They are popularized because of their charity and humanitarian work. Also, because they actually present a resistance front. Who doesn't like seeing somebody stand up for you, when those around you are suffering? A lot of people were just curious to see if any other political party could do things better, since Fatah had been ineffective for decades and widely known to be corrupt.


Also, rockets suck. Israeli citizens shouldn't have to deal with that. But you cannot (by definition) be defending yourself, when your occupying another people. The problem here is the occupation, not the rockets.

 

[Cromat]

You don't even know what you're talking about.

Let me reccomend a book for you, giving a runthrough of Middle East modern history: The Arabs: A History by Eugene Rogan

It's not a religious conflict. It is a conflict of displaced refugees and land.

"Nothing more, nothing less".

The Palestinian cause has historically always been a secular cause rooted in the struggle for a state. Jihad rethoric has never been the main point looking at it from the Palestinian side, whereas the religious aspect is a main point looking at it from settler and ultra orthodox jew side.

From the Israeli point of view it's security first, land second. I agree with your analysis that this conflict is mostly about very tangible things: land, security, refugees. It is polluted by religion, not motivated by it. However, what I think most people here ignore is the distinct possibility that the occupation can end, a Palestinian state established and there still won't be peace or security for Israel. What then? What if Israel ends up with no land and even less security (see Gaza)? A lawless and hostile West Bank has the potential of absolutely crippling the Israeli state, and the terrorist organizations know this. Israel is required to make a large gamble on its future security to achieve a peace deal, and it does not serve the interest of peace for people to ignore this. The kind of demonization and hypocrisy Israel faces also raises serious doubts about whether anyone except the USA will be at our side in case a peace deal goes wrong.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

They are trying to wipe them out? Geez, worst genocide ever with a drastically grwoing population. Seriously. Stop this nonsense propaganda. No one is trying to "wipe them out".


Always the children... It´s as if Israeli rockets only target children. Maybe blame the person who put the rocket launcher right next to the child in the first place. Because this person knew what would happen - and he counted on it.

There are better way of dealing with a group that is considered a terrorist threat than launching a full scale aerial and marine attacks on such a small strip especially a country such as Israel that is supported by many. This act has one definition for me cowardness

 

[RustyNails]

I don't watch US news, I know it is shit in general. The BBC has been criticised, with plenty of supposed evidence to support each criticism, by both sides. And it is only an investigation in Anti-Israel bias that has ever been launched. These are facts. Say what you want about shitty American networks, but the BBC can't get a break from either side and I'm the one of us two who isn't ignoring that both sides have presented cases against it. The coverage I've seen this week has been very neutral.

Yeah buddy sure. BBC has documented evidences of showing pro Israel bias, which I have provided you in this very thread which you are still ignoring for the 4th time. You can choose to overlook facts, but you cannot create them from thin air. BBC investigation reviewed their reporting and on the contrary to what you said, the leaked reports said they were pro-Israel in their reporting.

Former BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn wrote in 2004 that the BBC's coverage allowed an Israeli view of the conflict to dominate, as demonstrated by research conducted by the Glasgow Media Group.[47]

Sir Quentin Thomas, the committee found that "apart from individual lapses, there was little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias" in the BBC's reporting of the middle east. However, their coverage had been "inconsistent," "not always providing a complete picture" and "misleading", and that the BBC failed to adequately report the hardships of Palestinians living under occupation.[41][42][43]

In March 2006 a report about the Arab-Israeli conflict on the BBC's online service was criticised in a BBC Governors Report as unbalanced and creating a biased impression. The article's account of a 1967 United Nations resolution about the six-day war between Israel and a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria suggested the UN called for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from territories seized during the six-day war, when in fact, it called for a negotiated "land for peace" settlement between Israel and "every state in the area". The committee considered that by selecting only references to Israel, the article had breached editorial standards on both accuracy and impartiality".[53]

The BBC received intense criticism in January 2009 for its decision not to broadcast a television appeal by aid agencies on behalf of the people of Gaza during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, on the grounds that it could compromise the BBC's journalistic impartiality. A number of protesters asserted that this showed pro-Israeli bias, while some analysts suggested that the BBC's decision in this matter derived from its concern to avoid anti-Israeli bias as analysed in the Balen report.[55] Parties criticising the decision, included Church of England archbishops, British government ministers and even some BBC employees. More than 11,000 complaints were filed in a three-day span. The BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, explained that the corporation had a duty to cover the Gaza dispute in a “balanced, objective way,“ and was concerned about endorsing something that could "suggest the backing one side”[56]

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, protested the BBC's decision by cancelling interviews scheduled with the company; ElBaradei claimed the refusal to air the aid appeal "violates the rules of basic human decency which are there to help vulnerable people irrespective of who is right or wrong."[57] The BBC's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, affirmed the need to broadcast "without affecting and impinging on the audience's perception of our impartiality" and that in this case, it was a "real issue."[58]

I could go on and on, besides the post I made which showed an email from head of the BBC middle east desk emailing staff to downplay Israel's actions. Sure there are a few complaints of anti Israel bias. But their size and scope pale in comparison to all the other instances of pro Israel bias. There is no point in trying to defend BBC. At least you admit US news networks are shit. Trust me, even with all the shit I pointed out against BBC, they are still better than US media.

 

[phalestine]

From the Israeli point of view it's security first, land second. I agree with your analysis that this conflict is mostly about very tangible things: land, security, refugees. It is polluted by religion, not motivated by it. However, what I think most people here ignore is the distinct possibility that the occupation can end, a Palestinian state established and there still won't be peace or security for Israel. What then? What if Israel ends up with no land and even less security (see Gaza)? A lawless and hostile West Bank has the potential of absolutely crippling the Israeli state, and the terrorist organizations know this. Israel is required to make a large gamble on its future security to achieve a peace deal, and it does not serve the interest of peace for people to ignore this. The kind of demonization and hypocrisy Israel faces also raises serious doubts about whether anyone except the USA will be at our side in case a peace deal goes wrong.

So, are you okay with denying millions of people their human rights based off what might happen? And how does the continuous building of settlements help their security??

 

[Terra]

From the Israeli point of view it's security first, land second. I agree with your analysis that this conflict is mostly about very tangible things: land, security, refugees. It is polluted by religion, not motivated by it. However, what I think most people here ignore is the distinct possibility that the occupation can end, a Palestinian state established and there still won't be peace or security for Israel. What then? What if Israel ends up with no land and even less security (see Gaza)? A lawless and hostile West Bank has the potential of absolutely crippling the Israeli state, and the terrorist organizations know this. Israel is required to make a large gamble on its future security to achieve a peace deal, and it does not serve the interest of peace for people to ignore this. The kind of demonization and hypocrisy Israel faces also raises serious doubts about whether anyone except the USA will be at our side in case a peace deal goes wrong.

Therefore, a peace deal needs to be cemented and respected among the palestinian/israeli people.

Anyone extremist NOT respecting the peace treaty needs to be swiftly adressed and dealt with by their own respective government. And maybe even the international community.