What should Israel do?

[Derec]

Not exactly. The blockade isn't there simply to block weapons and explosives. It's part of a larger policy of containment and isolation designed to keep the Gazans suppressed, compliant, and utterly dependent on Israel for basic needs like food and water. That's been the plan since Gaza was captured in 1967.

Wrong. Israel would have been happy to get rid of Gaza but Egypt didn't want it back. And turning it loose to a bunch of terrorists hellbent on destroying Israel wasn't an option. Until 2005 when that was tried, with disastrous consequences. Terrorists hellbent on destroying Israel took over, started terrorizing Israel and the result was the 2007 blockade that endures until the present day.
The future of Gaza is in the hand of Gazans. They must get rid of Hamas, renounce terrorism and seek peace. And that means not demand that Ashkelon and Ashdod are "Palestinian territory".

The military rule of Gaza began immediately.

And terrorism from Gaza was a problem even before 1967.

A blockade of goods wasn't possible until Gaza was isolated.

A blockade of Gaza wouldn't have been needed had it not been for Hamas campaign of terrorism.

Israel began that undertaking in 1994 with the construction of concrete walls topped with concertina wire, and the construction of blockhouses, sniper nests, and gun emplacements.

Imagine Israel trying to protect its border from terrorists. The monsters!

The last segment of wall cutting Gaza off from Egypt went up in 2005. This was when the Zionist settlers and IDF were repositioned to the Israeli side of the barrier. Hamas came to power in 2006, riding a wave of resentment against Fatah leaders that sat by and did nothing while the Gazans were imprisoned. The blockade went into effect in 2007, when Hamas kicked Fatah's ass in the battle for control of the territory.

You are ignoring terrorist attacks from Gaza against Israel. In 2006 more than 1,700 rockets were shot at Israel resulting in 2 deaths and 300+ injured. That is what led to the blockade and the three major IDF operations (Cast Lead, Pillar of Cloud, Protective Edge) since.

Remember when Hamas blew up part of the wall and happy Gazans flooded into Egypt to go shopping for groceries? That was Hamas doing a public service for their constituents.

Blowing up another country's border fortifications is "service to its constituents"? I guess shooting rockets is such a service as well in your view.

That was them telling the Gazans that if they just hold on to faith, hope, and courage it will someday be possible to throw off their oppressors. That's the situation in which Gazans live.

How has that worked for Gazans? I think Gazans should throw off their real oppressors, namely the Hamas thugs!

Gazans don't blame Hamas for something that was done to them years before Hamas came to power. They blame the ones who did it.

That is contradictory as it's Hamas who did it. No Hamas (et al) terrorism, no IDF attacks within Gaza.

I know, right? Prisoners aren't supposed to have sex with other prisoners. That's just wrong.

Well two things I leaned from this board is that prisoners by definition are not able to consent to sex and that it is possible for two people to mutually rape each other even if both think themselves consenting.
Seriously though I am not talking about fucking per se, but reproducing. Gaza has, propaganda aside, access to modern medicine which means low death rate (especially infant and childhood mortality) so that unprotected sex results in unsustainable population growth. Our fertility evolved when we were subject to levels of disease and predation that are no longer relevant. So we must modulate our fertility to compensate. Gazans are not doing that. Liberals love to make fun and attack the Christian quiverfull movement and I join in with that but the fact is their numbers are small and thus not affecting the society that much. Not so in Gaza. There pretty much everyone is quiverfull but liberals are silent on that.
So the fact is that the overcrowding of Gaza is due to their high birth rates. If not curtailed the population will continue to rise exponentially. It is almost 2 million now but how soon until it reaches 3 million, or 4 or 5?

Maybe Israel should lace the water supply with crushed birth control pills.

No one said the genocide was over and done. Some posters are saying it's underway.

All the evidence speaks against it. Even if the death toll of the current operation reaches 1,800 it will only bring the death rate to 4/1000/year. Still very very low.

No, the point wasn't moral equivalence. The point was the lessons of history being forgotten, or at least overlooked. The European Jews who founded Israel know very well what it means to have an entire community imprisoned. They know the prisoners will dig tunnels, chip holes in the walls, follow sewer lines and storm drains, and otherwise establish ways to come and go without attracting the attention of the guards. I'm not just talking about the Holocaust here. Have you ever heard of the Roman Ghetto? Jews were locked in at night for 300 years. Do you think they all stayed put, night after night?

Your examples are very different from the Gaza situation. Gazans had a chance to renounce terrorism and go legit as it were in 2005. That is very different than these examples you give. The aim of Hamas is to destroy Israel, not freedom or prosperity for Gaza because Gaza could have had that without Hamas.

There was no blockade until a blockade was possible, and it took a lot of time, effort, and money to make it possible. It took years of planning, construction, and negotiations with Egypt. I think it's a mistake to discount just how much it took to isolate Gaza. And it think it's a mistake to discount how vindictive and petty the blockade was at it's height, or how crippling it's been in the long run.

Wrong. There was no blockade until it was necessary, and it became necessary when Hamas et al shot 1,700+ rockets against Israel in 2006 alone.

There was no need to block the importation of chocolate, dried fruit, coriander, cheese, chemotherapy drugs, and wheelchairs but Israel felt like punishing the Gazans, so Raisinettes became contraband and fried rice became a rich man's supper.

Source?

 

[Togo]

Source: http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf

 

[Jayjay]

The last act of ethnic cleansing took place in the summer of 2005 when the Israeli government gave in to international pressure by forcibly evicting all the Jews from the Gaza Strip. Even the graves were dug up.

Oh please. How many Jews were there in Gaza in 1967? All of the Jews there were recent invaders bent on stealing land, and I've never heard of withdrawal of an invading army being called "ethnic cleansing".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Would it be appropriate to shoot through the baby to get the guy holding it?

That's not a rebuttal. How about addressing what Hamas has actually been doing?

So, you are arguing that there are things that Hamas is doing that make it justifiable to shoot through the human shields to get to them? I'm just trying to understand your position about the relative morality of civilian casualties in combat. It seems as though you are saying it is ok to kill some civilians as long as you are aiming at really bad people. Please correct me if I'm not understanding your position. You see, I've seen other positions stated that seem like they're saying that the civilians aren't really innocent because they either: voted for Hamas, are supporting Hamas, aren't speaking out against Hamas, teaching their children to hate Israel, aren't getting out of the way of the incoming missiles... These all end up being presented as if they are justifiable reasons for killing them. The position presented in the video that Derec posted is simply that civilian death is an unavoidable consequence of attacking the enemy in dense urban environments and if they weren't so careful and precise there would be even more civilian death. I'm not saying that anyone's position is wrong, per se, I just want to know what people think and what rationales they use for justifying civilian deaths in war.

 

[Jayjay]

Now if the Jews came into your homeland and ran you off your own property for a "settlement," .

After Germany lost WWII Poles (among others) gained some territory, pushed many Germans out into remaining German territory and settled in hitherto German territory. Mind you, the war was started by Germany. Why are the 1967 and 1973 wars different?

Germany conceded the territory voluntarily as part of a peace treaty. The Palestinians have not done so as of yet. What Israel is engaged in is closer to what Germany did during the war when it cleansed the areas it conquered and settled in German citizens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was no need to block the importation of chocolate, dried fruit, coriander, cheese, chemotherapy drugs, and wheelchairs but Israel felt like punishing the Gazans, so Raisinettes became contraband and fried rice became a rich man's supper. Meanwhile, the beating will continue until morale improves and the Gazans learn the proper way to welcome their new overlords.

The only thing on that list that was actually blocked was the wheelchairs--and that was because of the batteries. That flotilla had a whole bunch of donated crap that was just thrown in the ships and a bunch of dual-use stuff Hamas wanted.

Hamas refused to accept the crap, they only wanted the dual-use stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

What, like the West Bank? Who haven't been firing rockets, have been living in comparative peace, and have far less sovereignty than Gaza does.

This is such an important point, and so often it's merely brushed aside.

Fatah has chosen to abandon the tactics of violence and seek a diplomatic solution. The West Bank hasn't been firing rockets or sending strike teams into Israel. So where is the payoff? Israel continues to expand the settlements, there's no lessening of the Occupation or the oppression. Palestinian water is still being diverted away from Palestinian farms and into Israeli settlements and Israel proper. Recognition of the rights of Palestinians to live in Palestine is nowhere to be seen.

The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist decades ago. Where is the Israeli recognition of the right of the Palestinian State to exist?

Where is the progress?

Continuing to repeat these allegations doesn't make them true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what is the opinion of the anti-Israel posters on the many tunnels Hamas dug into Israel and which it uses to infiltrate into Israeli territory?
Note especially that these tunnels must have been dug over a lengthy period of time and that they take a lot of cement to reinforce, which Gazans claim they desperately need for "civilian" projects.

I thought cement was banned from being imported for that very reason. Methinks it's been smuggled in by hamas. [From now on I shall not be using a capital letter to name hamas]

Cement was restricted, not banned. Gaza couldn't import it but NGOs operating in Gaza could so long as it was going into a civilian project. Apparently Israel was wrong to trust the NGOs as they obviously permitted massive diversion of the cement. (Which doesn't surprise me. The price of operating in Gaza is to do what Hamas wants.)

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yeah, I get that. That justification is used all the time during war. So, you are saying that it's ok to kill civilians who are near militants as long as your intent is to kill the militant and not the civilians.

It's called "collateral damage "a term coined by ex President Bush. In no way similar to deliberate targeting of civilians as hamas does!

I know that it is called "collateral damage" -- it's a nice euphemism to make the ugliness of war more palatable to those who are financing it. And I agree that it is not the same as purposefully targeting civilians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

^^^Perhaps some of us have studied the history of problem?

Exactly. Pay attention to the facts, not the emotional manipulation that dominates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Source: http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf

False and they should know it.

The problem is such lists were compiled by looking at what transactions were approve and what were blocked without considering that Israel was basing the block decision on the recipient as well as the product.

Thus anything that Hamas tried to import ended up on the blocked list despite there being no block of the item.

- - - Updated - - -

The last act of ethnic cleansing took place in the summer of 2005 when the Israeli government gave in to international pressure by forcibly evicting all the Jews from the Gaza Strip. Even the graves were dug up.

Oh please. How many Jews were there in Gaza in 1967? All of the Jews there were recent invaders bent on stealing land, and I've never heard of withdrawal of an invading army being called "ethnic cleansing".

There were no Jews in Gaza in 1967 because they had already been ethnically cleansed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not a rebuttal. How about addressing what Hamas has actually been doing?

So, you are arguing that there are things that Hamas is doing that make it justifiable to shoot through the human shields to get to them?

Yes. If you don't shoot when faced with human shield tactics you'll just be dead. Even the police shoot in that situation. Legally and morally the death lies with the side that used the human shield.

The real world isn't some fantasy land where there is always a good solution if you look hard enough. Sometimes the only option is to choose the lesser evil. When you reject choosing the lesser evil you generally end up choosing the greater evil through inaction.

The position presented in the video that Derec posted is simply that civilian death is an unavoidable consequence of attacking the enemy in dense urban environments and if they weren't so careful and precise there would be even more civilian death. I'm not saying that anyone's position is wrong, per se, I just want to know what people think and what rationales they use for justifying civilian deaths in war.

We understand the reality that there is no good answer.

 

[arkirk]

And there comes again the inflammatory canard portraying criticisms against Israeli policies being motivated by "more like antisemitism". By doing so, you have attributed to "The Left" and all associated to "The Left" the motive of antisemitism being what directs their criticisms against Israeli policies. You have, not once, built a case that such group is motivated by "more like antisemitism". It is just some hyperbolic inflammatory crap you throw about.

"Criticism of Israeli policies" by itself is not antisemitism. But judging Israel on a much stricter standard than all the other countries in the world is. Compare how Israeli defensive actions in Gaza are portrayed by the Left compared to actions of say Syria or even of the US military in places like Pakistan (which the Left abhors as well, but not nearly as much as Israel).
Furthermore, we see that anti-Israel protests (and how many military actions throughout the world draw so many protesters in the first place) in Europe are taking an undeniably antisemitic tone. Chanting of "gas the Jews" or attacks on synagogues are part of these "protests" as well.

You have yet to suggest anything but more Israeli violence and killing as a "solution" to the current situation. You are dead wrong regarding the nation of Israel. According to Netanyahu, this is about keeping Israel a "Jewish state." He does not mince words about that. In doing that, there must be some suppression of atheism in the country. Judaism and atheism are not compatible beliefs.

No self respecting Atheist should ever support a Zionist nation...or in fact, any form of religious nationalism. Israeli citizenship is dependent on swearing a loyalty oath to the "Jewish state." This is a matter of Jewish law. The law was shoved through the Knesset by Netanyahu. It is the law of their land. Quit supporting this. It is not for you. It is also not for any person who is not Jewish. In Israel itself, there has not been one new Arab settlement since Israel was founded, though 20% of its population is of Arab ethnicity. Israel is a shining example of religious nationalism. For that matter, so is Hamas, but however fanatical Hamas may be, Israel outpaces even them with its racism.

U.S. support for Israel is actually a product of AIPAC investment in and intimidation of American politicians. I recall Obama relating that we (meaning the American public) were lock step with Israel during his campaigns. He clearly does not speak for me and millions of other Americans who are not rich enough to influence politics. Our country has chosen the path of violent enforcement of its strategic interests and has abandoned humanistic considerations on both sides of the Democratic/Republican divide. If you are a humanist, you cannot support either side in this matter, yet we hear from AIPAC sponsored political bullies a constant stream of lies supporting Israel.

It is actually in the interest of the American people....in fact all the peoples of the world...that this slaughter in Gaza must stop permanently. Unfortunately the duplicity of American politicians has allowed this cancer on the body of world politics to grow and take on a life of its own and completely overshadow any sense of human decency regarding the Palestinian people.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, you are arguing that there are things that Hamas is doing that make it justifiable to shoot through the human shields to get to them?

Yes. If you don't shoot when faced with human shield tactics you'll just be dead. Even the police shoot in that situation. Legally and morally the death lies with the side that used the human shield.

The real world isn't some fantasy land where there is always a good solution if you look hard enough. Sometimes the only option is to choose the lesser evil. When you reject choosing the lesser evil you generally end up choosing the greater evil through inaction.

I agree that the world isn't a fantasy land. I understand that many believe that innocents may have to die for some kind of "greater good". I also know that people apply this kind of rationalization very unevenly across their myriad beliefs.

 

[arkirk]

So, you are arguing that there are things that Hamas is doing that make it justifiable to shoot through the human shields to get to them?

Yes. If you don't shoot when faced with human shield tactics you'll just be dead. Even the police shoot in that situation. Legally and morally the death lies with the side that used the human shield.

The real world isn't some fantasy land where there is always a good solution if you look hard enough. Sometimes the only option is to choose the lesser evil. When you reject choosing the lesser evil you generally end up choosing the greater evil through inaction.

The position presented in the video that Derec posted is simply that civilian death is an unavoidable consequence of attacking the enemy in dense urban environments and if they weren't so careful and precise there would be even more civilian death. I'm not saying that anyone's position is wrong, per se, I just want to know what people think and what rationales they use for justifying civilian deaths in war.

We understand the reality that there is no good answer.

We understand no such thing, and your suggestion that we let this slaughter continue is nowhere near the best possible action. What we need to do battle with is the hatred and racism that fuels these conflicts. Guns and bombs do not do this. You are skeptical that anybody has better answers to these problems that do not involve killing people at all. In fact, when this conflict ends, if it ever does, it will be because both parties finally figure out they can't win. With you running interference against them and the advance of civic type logic, that could be a long, long time.

Responsible police do not shoot through hostages, Loren. It is contrary to all their policies to shoot through hostages...especially if the hostages are white and people of substance. It is true that some rogue cops shoot and beat up people of color rather regularly but they don't shoot through hostages.
These people being killed in Gaza are civilian prisoners in the world's largest prison, trapped in alleged combat zones by Israeli actions not allowing them to leave.

The "Sorry, but it was necessary." argument does not hold water. It certainly was not necessary.

 

[Jayjay]

There were no Jews in Gaza in 1967 because they had already been ethnically cleansed.

When was there ever a significant Jewish population in Gaza prior to 1967? Gaza used to be the dump where Jews who wanted to steal land evicted the Arabs, as far as I can tell.

 

[untermensche]

The restrictions don't matter--most fish are caught close to shore anyway.

They don't matter to you or the Israeli oppressors, but it is oppression, and the children in Gaza have higher than average malnutrition.

Yes, there are major shortages of medicine. It's shipped in, Hamas seizes the shipments and then sells it even when it was donated to the hospitals.

The fact that Hamas taking a little creates shortages proves there are limits placed on food and medicine.

We aren't objecting to the fact that they fight back. We are objecting to the means they use to do so.

Yes of course. The slaves are perfectly free to resist as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Fight in uniform, fight the IDF rather than civilians.

The oppressor does not get to demand how his oppression is resisted.

The British complained that the Americans didn't meet them on the field and behaved as terrorists.

The oppression is the crime. Resistance to it is not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. If you don't shoot when faced with human shield tactics you'll just be dead. Even the police shoot in that situation. Legally and morally the death lies with the side that used the human shield.

The real world isn't some fantasy land where there is always a good solution if you look hard enough. Sometimes the only option is to choose the lesser evil. When you reject choosing the lesser evil you generally end up choosing the greater evil through inaction.

The position presented in the video that Derec posted is simply that civilian death is an unavoidable consequence of attacking the enemy in dense urban environments and if they weren't so careful and precise there would be even more civilian death. I'm not saying that anyone's position is wrong, per se, I just want to know what people think and what rationales they use for justifying civilian deaths in war.

We understand the reality that there is no good answer.

We understand no such thing,

I was referring to those on our side. I agree, you don't understand it. That's why the left is prone to making bad choices when faced with unpleasant reality.

and your suggestion that we let this slaughter continue is nowhere near the best possible action. What we need to do battle with is the hatred and racism that fuels these conflicts. Guns and bombs do not do this. You are skeptical that anybody has better answers to these problems that do not involve killing people at all. In fact, when this conflict ends, if it ever does, it will be because both parties finally figure out they can't win. With you running interference against them and the advance of civic type logic, that could be a long, long time.

Sure, it would be good to deal with the hatred. Unfortunately, that's not an option. The Palestinians are pawns in this, the true origin of the problem is radical Islam. They're not even at the table, making peace is impossible.

Responsible police do not shoot through hostages, Loren. It is contrary to all their policies to shoot through hostages...especially if the hostages are white and people of substance. It is true that some rogue cops shoot and beat up people of color rather regularly but they don't shoot through hostages.

Responsible police do shoot the hostage taker if that's what's needed to stop them from shooting, even if that means a high risk of hitting the hostage (usually because the hostage taker is shooting at the cops or others.) Such cases are rare but the do happen.

These people being killed in Gaza are civilian prisoners in the world's largest prison, trapped in alleged combat zones by Israeli actions not allowing them to leave.

Israel does nothing to stop them from leaving. It's just the Palestinians have made themselves pariahs with the other nations around there and the other nations want to keep them oppressed anyway to use them as a weapon against Israel.

The "Sorry, but it was necessary." argument does not hold water. It certainly was not necessary.

There's a terrorist shooting at you while holding a baby. Do you shoot back or do you die? You seem to be saying you would choose to die.

Ok, you're dead, now it's your wife that has to make the choice.

How many die before someone does the awful task of shooting back?

- - - Updated - - -

There were no Jews in Gaza in 1967 because they had already been ethnically cleansed.

When was there ever a significant Jewish population in Gaza prior to 1967? Gaza used to be the dump where Jews who wanted to steal land evicted the Arabs, as far as I can tell.

There were never a lot of Jews there but the ethnic cleansing was in 48.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They don't matter to you or the Israeli oppressors, but it is oppression, and the children in Gaza have higher than average malnutrition.

Try again. For an Arab nation they have below average malnutrition.

Yes, there are major shortages of medicine. It's shipped in, Hamas seizes the shipments and then sells it even when it was donated to the hospitals.

The fact that Hamas taking a little creates shortages proves there are limits placed on food and medicine.

1) They take it all.

2) Showing that there are shortages doesn't show that there are limits. Hamas likes to spend it's money on rockets, not on the people. There's a big difference between limiting what goes in and not simply handing it over without payment.

We aren't objecting to the fact that they fight back. We are objecting to the means they use to do so.

Yes of course. The slaves are perfectly free to resist as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Fight in uniform, fight the IDF rather than civilians.

The oppressor does not get to demand how his oppression is resisted.

It's called war crimes.

The British complained that the Americans didn't meet them on the field and behaved as terrorists.

To some extent both sides did. However, most of what they were objecting to was shooting from hiding. That is not terrorism.

The oppression is the crime. Resistance to it is not.

The means used most certainly can be a crime.

 

[arkirk]

Try again. For an Arab nation they have below average malnutrition.

Yes, there are major shortages of medicine. It's shipped in, Hamas seizes the shipments and then sells it even when it was donated to the hospitals.

The fact that Hamas taking a little creates shortages proves there are limits placed on food and medicine.

1) They take it all.

2) Showing that there are shortages doesn't show that there are limits. Hamas likes to spend it's money on rockets, not on the people. There's a big difference between limiting what goes in and not simply handing it over without payment.

We aren't objecting to the fact that they fight back. We are objecting to the means they use to do so.

Yes of course. The slaves are perfectly free to resist as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Fight in uniform, fight the IDF rather than civilians.

The oppressor does not get to demand how his oppression is resisted.

It's called war crimes.

The British complained that the Americans didn't meet them on the field and behaved as terrorists.

To some extent both sides did. However, most of what they were objecting to was shooting from hiding. That is not terrorism.

The oppression is the crime. Resistance to it is not.

The means used most certainly can be a crime.

The title to this thread is "What should Israel Do" You have not made a single suggestion as anything Israel could do that would lower the level of violence. Instead you have made a number of false charges against Hamas, railed against the corrupt Palestinians and done everything humanly possible to keep people hating them. I regard you as a warmonger. That is what warmongers do...create an atmosphere of punitive contempt for any suggestions of actions that could conceivably lead to peace. You have no answers whatever to the OP...so maybe you should try another thread. Nothing you say is relevant to the OP.

 

[untermensche]

It's called war crimes.

This is not a war.

It's decades of oppression and theft, and the natural reaction to it.

The oppression is the crime.

The reaction to the oppression is justified because of the oppression.