How about a moat?

[fromderinside]

Citation needed.

 List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967

Get real.

Palestinian Political Violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence#Overview_and_context

Mine is better but it only covers the period between 1918 and 1947 beyond what you post.

Things really took off when European Jews left Europe in droves as the result of the attempted ethnic cleansing by most all countries there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

 List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967

Your source confirms the point made by Crazy Eddie.

It lists 5 attacks in 1966, one in the West Bank, 3 on the border with Syria, and one where the location is not specified.

In other words, they had no infiltration or tunnelling problem in 1966, and were not suffering from constant attacks from Palestine.

1) You're looking at basically the end of the period of overt attacks--IDF warplanes were removing their bases by then. Even then their attacks were causing more deaths than the rockets do now.

2) For a better picture look earlier before the IDF could strike their camps. Many more attacks.

 

[Togo]

 List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967

Get real.

Palestinian Political Violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence#Overview_and_context

Mine is better but it only covers the period between 1918 and 1947 beyond what you post.

It does cover 1947-1964, but that section mainly deals with violence by Israel against Palestinians.

So.. still no citation that there was extensive Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians in 1966. Do you have a source or not?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Get real.

Palestinian Political Violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence#Overview_and_context

Mine is better but it only covers the period between 1918 and 1947 beyond what you post.

So.. still no citation that there was extensive Palestinians violence against Israeli civilians in 1966. Do you have a source or not?

You're cherrypicking.

Attacks in 1966 were low because their old tactics weren't working very well anymore and they hadn't switched to the new ones yet.

 

[Togo]

So.. still no citation that there was extensive Palestinians violence against Israeli civilians in 1966. Do you have a source or not?

You're cherrypicking.

Attacks in 1966 were low because their old tactics weren't working very well anymore and they hadn't switched to the new ones yet.

Feel free to provide anything from 1956-1966 then. Presumably an entire decade of comparatively peaceful relations isn't cherrypicking?

Or is it just that you never had any evidence for your claim that the attacks occurred before the settlement program?

 

[fromderinside]

Get real.

Palestinian Political Violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence#Overview_and_context

Mine is better but it only covers the period between 1918 and 1947 beyond what you post.

It does cover 1947-1964, but that section mainly deals with violence by Israel against Palestinians.

So.. still no citation that there was extensive Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians in 1966. Do you have a source or not?

way too easy.....

 1966 in Israel

The most prominent Palestinian terror attacks committed against Israelis during 1966 include:

• 25 April - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• 14 July - Armed Palestinian militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval.
• 19 July - Armed Palestinian militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• 27 October - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
• 11 November – An Israeli border patrol vehicle carrying policemen drives over a land minenear the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice line, killing three policemen and wounding six;^[2] the mine is reportedly planted by the PLO subgroup, Fatah.^[3]

<edit>

 

[Togo]

It does cover 1947-1964, but that section mainly deals with violence by Israel against Palestinians.

So.. still no citation that there was extensive Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians in 1966. Do you have a source or not?

way too easy.....

 1966 in Israel

The most prominent Palestinian terror attacks committed against Israelis during 1966 include:

• 25 April - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• 14 July - Armed Palestinian militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval.
• 19 July - Armed Palestinian militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• 27 October - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
• 11 November – An Israeli border patrol vehicle carrying policemen drives over a land minenear the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice line, killing three policemen and wounding six;^[2] the mine is reportedly planted by the PLO subgroup, Fatah.^[3]

bitch slap.

Hardly. Those are the same 5 incidents given by Derec. The first is in a settlement, the train incident doesn't have a location, and the other three are on the borders with other countries. The first source listed them as Syrian and Jordanian incidents. A grand total of two dead and three wounded.

Where's the hoards of Palestinian attacks on Israel that Loren claimed were occurring all along?

You've got several million people living in close proximity with Israel, with no huge separation barrier, and worshipping in close proximity in Jerusalem. And yet there's almost no attacks. Fascinating, isn't it?

 

[fromderinside]

You've got several million people living in close proximity with Israel, with no huge separation barrier, and worshipping in close proximity in Jerusalem. And yet there's almost no attacks. Fascinating, isn't it?

Yeah, close proximity with a 20 foot high wall, armed and gated settlements and borders, dead zones, mines, sea patrols, armed places of worship all necessitated by bus bombings, restaurant bombings, assassinations. Fascinating isn't it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could we have the GOP Caucus go out to inspect the tunnels and then grout them in there? That way Hamas and the GOP Caucus would be subjected to each other, which, in my mind, would a reasonable punishment for both of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're cherrypicking.

Attacks in 1966 were low because their old tactics weren't working very well anymore and they hadn't switched to the new ones yet.

Feel free to provide anything from 1956-1966 then. Presumably an entire decade of comparatively peaceful relations isn't cherrypicking?

Or is it just that you never had any evidence for your claim that the attacks occurred before the settlement program?

The link that was provided also has the time period in question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

way too easy.....

 1966 in Israel

The most prominent Palestinian terror attacks committed against Israelis during 1966 include:

• 25 April - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• 14 July - Armed Palestinian militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval.
• 19 July - Armed Palestinian militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• 27 October - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
• 11 November – An Israeli border patrol vehicle carrying policemen drives over a land minenear the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice line, killing three policemen and wounding six;^[2] the mine is reportedly planted by the PLO subgroup, Fatah.^[3]

bitch slap.

Hardly. Those are the same 5 incidents given by Derec. The first is in a settlement, the train incident doesn't have a location, and the other three are on the borders with other countries. The first source listed them as Syrian and Jordanian incidents. A grand total of two dead and three wounded.

Where's the hoards of Palestinian attacks on Israel that Loren claimed were occurring all along?

You've got several million people living in close proximity with Israel, with no huge separation barrier, and worshipping in close proximity in Jerusalem. And yet there's almost no attacks. Fascinating, isn't it?

Interesting that something occurred in a settlement before the settlements existed!


Or you're taking the Palestinian's word for what are settlements--they consider everything in Israel to be settlements.

 

[Togo]

...all necessitated by bus bombings, restaurant bombings, assassinations. Fascinating isn't it.

Those aren't showing up in the stats being cited.

Feel free to provide anything from 1956-1966 then. Presumably an entire decade of comparatively peaceful relations isn't cherrypicking?

Or is it just that you never had any evidence for your claim that the attacks occurred before the settlement program?

The link that was provided also has the time period in question.

And in that time period, doesn't feature the hoards of attacks you were describing. You're proving yourself wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those aren't showing up in the stats being cited.

Feel free to provide anything from 1956-1966 then. Presumably an entire decade of comparatively peaceful relations isn't cherrypicking?

Or is it just that you never had any evidence for your claim that the attacks occurred before the settlement program?

The link that was provided also has the time period in question.

And in that time period, doesn't feature the hoards of attacks you were describing. You're proving yourself wrong.

1) Count the deaths, not the attacks. That's what Israel really cares about.

2) The world economy has grown a lot since then. They have a lot more to spend on weapons.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Your source confirms the point made by Crazy Eddie.

It lists 5 attacks in 1966, one in the West Bank, 3 on the border with Syria, and one where the location is not specified.

In other words, they had no infiltration or tunnelling problem in 1966, and were not suffering from constant attacks from Palestine.

The point is, there were attacks even before 1967

Yes. But not IN ISRAEL. Almost all of the attacks during the 1960s were committed in what is now the Palestinian territories with the intention of driving Israeli (and Jordanian, for that matter) forces out. This by the PLO, who at the time were a small splinter group little more sophisticated than a street gang.

Second, one can not go back to status quo ante in Gaza even if one wanted. For one, there are many more people living there now (1.8 million vs. 370,000 in 1970), due to Palestinians breeding like rabbits. Even during these latest hostilities there were more than twice as many births as there have been deaths.
Also, Egypt doesn't want to take Gaza back and who could blame them?

The Israelis have tried just about everything to end this conflict. They've tried ignoring the Palestinians, they've tried occupying them, they've tried abusing them, they've tried arresting them, they've tried bribing them, they've tried insulting them, they've tried killing them, and in this latest phase they've even tried starving them.

None of these tactics have reduced instances of terrorism among Palestinians, in fact they have almost always had the opposite effect.

So if violating the rights of Palestinians makes them angry, perhaps RESPECTING their rights would make them less angry?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is, there were attacks even before 1967

Yes. But not IN ISRAEL. Almost all of the attacks during the 1960s were committed in what is now the Palestinian territories with the intention of driving Israeli (and Jordanian, for that matter) forces out. This by the PLO, who at the time were a small splinter group little more sophisticated than a street gang.

You're assuming things not in evidence--namely, that there was an occupation before there was an occupation.

And it's irrelevant the nature of the PLO at the time. We have seen various organizations take the lead in fighting Israel but it's the same forces behind them.

The Israelis have tried just about everything to end this conflict. They've tried ignoring the Palestinians, they've tried occupying them, they've tried abusing them, they've tried arresting them, they've tried bribing them, they've tried insulting them, they've tried killing them, and in this latest phase they've even tried starving them.

None of these tactics have reduced instances of terrorism among Palestinians, in fact they have almost always had the opposite effect.

So if violating the rights of Palestinians makes them angry, perhaps RESPECTING their rights would make them less angry?

As you say it doesn't matter what Israel does, things go badly. The one pattern we see is that good behavior generally has a worse outcome for Israel than bad behavior.

And what "respecting" do you want that isn't covered by ignoring?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes. But not IN ISRAEL. Almost all of the attacks during the 1960s were committed in what is now the Palestinian territories with the intention of driving Israeli (and Jordanian, for that matter) forces out. This by the PLO, who at the time were a small splinter group little more sophisticated than a street gang.

You're assuming things not in evidence--namely, that there was an occupation before there was an occupation.

That Jordan controlled the West Bank at the time is a matter of historical fact, not an assumption. The same is true of Egypt's control of Gaza. That Israel seized both regions and occupied them in 1967 is ALSO a matter of historical fact; neither region was controlled by the PALESTINIANS at that time.

The Israelis have tried just about everything to end this conflict. They've tried ignoring the Palestinians, they've tried occupying them, they've tried abusing them, they've tried arresting them, they've tried bribing them, they've tried insulting them, they've tried killing them, and in this latest phase they've even tried starving them.

None of these tactics have reduced instances of terrorism among Palestinians, in fact they have almost always had the opposite effect.

So if violating the rights of Palestinians makes them angry, perhaps RESPECTING their rights would make them less angry?

As you say it doesn't matter what Israel does, things go badly.

Which is mainly because the only thing Israel ever does is escalate the conflict, hoping to BEAT the Palestinians into an agreement. That has not and will not ever work.

The one pattern we see is that good behavior generally has a worse outcome for Israel than bad behavior.

Incorrect. Israel refrained from retaliating against rocket fire for most of the previous two years and Hamas responded by continuing to limit those attacks in the mean time. Significantly, the relative peace in Gaza and the West Bank allowed for enough stability to take hold that Hamas and Fatah were able to mostly reconcile their differences and form a unity government:

In a 2012 CNN interview, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal said the group would "resort to a peaceful way" if Israel would agree to the creation of a Palestinian state. Hamas also agreed to a Palestinian unity government in June that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said would recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by the Oslo Accords, which called for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Which is exactly what happened a week before the crackdown. Given the relative lack of rocket fire throughout 2014, and given that the current round of rocket fire BEGAN with a violent and sweeping Israeli crackdown specifically designed to disrupt the unity government, there's only one pattern in evidence here: If Israel wants Hamas to renounce violence, all they have to do is LET THEM.

And what "respecting" do you want that isn't covered by ignoring?

Ignoring someone's rights is pretty much the OPPOSITE of respecting them. It's kind of like how women have the right to refuse to have sex with you even if you ask them really really forcefully; if you ignore that right, you don't get to complain when that woman stabs you in the neck with a screwdriver. That the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves as well is one Israel has ignored for a very long time; that they have a right to refuse aggression by the Israeli government is another.

But that, too, seems to be a concept that Israeli politicians have struggled with in the past.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming things not in evidence--namely, that there was an occupation before there was an occupation.

That Jordan controlled the West Bank at the time is a matter of historical fact, not an assumption. The same is true of Egypt's control of Gaza. That Israel seized both regions and occupied them in 1967 is ALSO a matter of historical fact; neither region was controlled by the PALESTINIANS at that time.

I've never said the Palestinians controlled territory at that time. The point is Israel wasn't occupying Jordan or Egypt so how were they being attacked there???

Which is mainly because the only thing Israel ever does is escalate the conflict, hoping to BEAT the Palestinians into an agreement. That has not and will not ever work.

Things were going pretty well before the second intifada.

The one pattern we see is that good behavior generally has a worse outcome for Israel than bad behavior.

Incorrect. Israel refrained from retaliating against rocket fire for most of the previous two years and Hamas responded by continuing to limit those attacks in the mean time. Significantly, the relative peace in Gaza and the West Bank allowed for enough stability to take hold that Hamas and Fatah were able to mostly reconcile their differences and form a unity government:

When Hamas was trying to control rocket fire not shooting back made sense. When Hamas shoots there's no reason not to shoot back.

In a 2012 CNN interview, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal said the group would "resort to a peaceful way" if Israel would agree to the creation of a Palestinian state. Hamas also agreed to a Palestinian unity government in June that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said would recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by the Oslo Accords, which called for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

They have admitted their strategy is to get a two-state solution and then continue the conflict. They're not going to abide by the peace treaty.

And what "respecting" do you want that isn't covered by ignoring?

Ignoring someone's rights is pretty much the OPPOSITE of respecting them. It's kind of like how women have the right to refuse to have sex with you even if you ask them really really forcefully; if you ignore that right, you don't get to complain when that woman stabs you in the neck with a screwdriver. That the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves as well is one Israel has ignored for a very long time; that they have a right to refuse aggression by the Israeli government is another.

The Palestinians are in their area. Ignoring them means nothing bad happens to them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That Jordan controlled the West Bank at the time is a matter of historical fact, not an assumption. The same is true of Egypt's control of Gaza. That Israel seized both regions and occupied them in 1967 is ALSO a matter of historical fact; neither region was controlled by the PALESTINIANS at that time.

I've never said the Palestinians controlled territory at that time. The point is Israel wasn't occupying Jordan or Egypt so how were they being attacked there???

Use your brain, LP. Those attacks took place WITHIN the west bank while Jordanian forces were in control of it. What do YOU suppose those Israelis were doing there in the first place?

Things were going pretty well before the second intifada.

Of course they were, just not for the Palestinians.

When Hamas was trying to control rocket fire not shooting back made sense.

Exactly. Israel toned down its aggressive policies, and Hamas responded by becoming cooperative, arguably even constructive. In THIS case, Israel chose to respond to the (it turns out imaginary) provocation of the kidnapped teenagers by attempting to crush Hamas in the West Bank and then attacking the Gaza strip, which prompted Hamas to launch rockets at Israel for the first time in almost two years. At least as far as the conflict in Gaza, ISRAEL drew first blood.

When Hamas shoots there's no reason not to shoot back.

So what's the Palestinians' reason not to shoot back?

They have admitted their strategy is to get a two-state solution and then continue the conflict.

Only in your sourceless racist imagination.

The Palestinians are in their area. Ignoring them means nothing bad happens to them.

So I break into your house, handcuff you to a radiator and then steal everything of value from your house. I'm not violating your rights. You're in your area. Ignoring you means nothing bad happens to you. Right?

Great. So I'll be along next Tuesday night to collect your things.

 

[Jayjay]

Israel toned down its aggressive policies, and Hamas responded by becoming cooperative, arguably even constructive. In THIS case, Israel chose to respond to the (it turns out imaginary) provocation of the kidnapped teenagers by attempting to crush Hamas in the West Bank and then attacking the Gaza strip, which prompted Hamas to launch rockets at Israel for the first time in almost two years. At least as far as the conflict in Gaza, ISRAEL drew first blood.

How do you figure that? The article you linked does not seem to say that at all:

The air force attack on Khan Younis Sunday night came minutes after Palestinians in the coastal enclave fired a volley of rockets at southwestern Israel. The Iron Dome defense system shot down two of the projectiles — Grad rockets — over Netivot. There were no reports of injury or damage in the rocket attack.

Early Sunday morning, air force planes struck 12 sites in Gaza in response to rockets fired over the weekend. Two rockets hit the town of Sderot, close to the border with Gaza, late Saturday, causing a massive fire that destroyed a paint factory.

If there was an Israeli strike in Gaza before June 28th, I'm not aware of it.

 

[Togo]

How do you figure that? The article you linked does not seem to say that at all:

The air force attack on Khan Younis Sunday night came minutes after Palestinians in the coastal enclave fired a volley of rockets at southwestern Israel. The Iron Dome defense system shot down two of the projectiles — Grad rockets — over Netivot. There were no reports of injury or damage in the rocket attack.

Early Sunday morning, air force planes struck 12 sites in Gaza in response to rockets fired over the weekend. Two rockets hit the town of Sderot, close to the border with Gaza, late Saturday, causing a massive fire that destroyed a paint factory.

If there was an Israeli strike in Gaza before June 28th, I'm not aware of it.

It's discussed in the article from the Israel Times, the one you dismissed. The IDF launched an air strike to assassinate someone, and the rockets fired by Hamas were a few hours later.

At least 16 rockets were fired at Israel Monday morning, most of them hitting open areas in the Eshkol region, the army said.

The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.

A member of Hamas’s militant wing was killed in the attack, Gaza health official Ashraf al-Kidra said.

While Israel has maintained it holds Hamas responsible for all rocket attacks, officials have said that smaller groups, such as Islamic Jihad, are usually behind the rocket attacks, while Hamas squads generally attempt to thwart the rocket fire.

Hamas hasn’t fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012,...