What should Israel do?

[Derec]

They haven't tried letting Palestinians form their own state on their own land.

Just to be clear, can you elucidate what you mean by "their own land".

 

[arkirk]

They haven't tried letting Palestinians form their own state on their own land.

Just to be clear, can you elucidate what you mean by "their own land".

The very fact you deny they can ever own any land makes you part of a chorus of Israel lovers who have yet to justify their position as anything but supporters ethnic cleansing. When you just spout the notion of dog eat dog, it is hard to think of you as anything but one of your imagined dogs. Maybe you need to examine your understandings about human beings. Someday, your philosophy could come back to bite you...and you would be dearly offended at being told your home just went to a bigger dog...and it was perfectly fair that it also kill all your puppies.

 

[Togo]

They haven't tried letting Palestinians form their own state on their own land.

Just to be clear, can you elucidate what you mean by "their own land".

I'm not sure what you're asking. I'll guess that it's where should the Palestinian state be. I'd suggest that it be where most of the world thinks it should be - on their side of the green line. I think that the Arab-backed Hamas peace proposal was probably the best - do some land swaps to create a more sensible border based on the Green Line, get some international governance in for areas where the two sides would be living very close together, such as Jerusalem/East Jerusalem, and arrange for some kind of recognition of the Right to Return on both sides, heavily slanted towards a cash payment to avoid demographic problems, and subsidised by the Arab League states. The details can be negotiatied if they're a problem.

You'd need foreign peacekeepers on the border, of course, at least at first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a terrorist shooting at you while holding a baby. Do you shoot back or do you die?

Whose baby is it? His or mine?

How many babies are ok to shoot through to get him? Is there a specific number? If he holes up in a daycare center, is it ok to bomb the center?

Just curious to know if you think there's a line at all.

I'm talking about what Hamas is actually doing, you're trying to muddy the waters with hypotheticals.

IDF soldiers in Gaza are facing attacks from baby-carrying Hamas troops.

Hamas soldiers are attacking IDF soldiers with babies strapped to their chests? Ok. I hadn't read that yet. Sorry for assuming you were presenting a hypothetical.

Nah, babies carried in the off arm.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they're already doing basically all they can.

They haven't tried letting Palestinians form their own state on their own land.

What was the Gaza pullout but an offer to do just that?

Besides, the Palestinian Authority waddles and quacks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A point made by Derek and Loren that is absolutely not true is the notion that the IDF allows Palestinians to leave Gaza. They are NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE.

They are not allowed to leave by Hamas. The Egyptian crossing is there, they could leave that way. They don't.

How quickly we forget when the IDF stopped an unarmed international humanitarian flotilla on its way to Gaza killing people on one of the ships.

1) It was armed.

2) There was very little humanitarian aid on that flotilla. In fact, Hamas refused to accept the aid that was there. All they were interested in was the stuff Israel wasn't allowing in. The whole thing was a sham.

Gaza is under siege and has been for many years.

That's what tends to happen when you choose the path of war. The people still choose that path.

Gaza is a witches brew of human hatred constructed by Israel and the IDF. We never hear from the war mongers here how to fix the sewage system or the water supply or the other ruined infrastructure in Gaza. If Israel cannot turn away from this violence against unarmed people, it is headed for the same general condemnation the world had for the Nazis at the end of WWII.

If Gaza won't build the facilities (and there have been offers of donated stuff) there's not really much Israel can do about it. Hamas makes the people suffer, you blame Israel.

Loren is right. I do not participate in his alleged "strategic thinking" because I have patiently watched for over sixty years as it has torn up whole nations, polluted the environment, and now is running us all off the cliff with environmental consequences of this thinking and action...not to mention the decivilizing effect it has had on the world's population.

The problem is your approach does even worse.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Just to be clear, can you elucidate what you mean by "their own land".

The very fact you deny they can ever own any land makes you part of a chorus of Israel lovers who have yet to justify their position as anything but supporters ethnic cleansing. When you just spout the notion of dog eat dog, it is hard to think of you as anything but one of your imagined dogs. Maybe you need to examine your understandings about human beings. Someday, your philosophy could come back to bite you...and you would be dearly offended at being told your home just went to a bigger dog...and it was perfectly fair that it also kill all your puppies.

You never let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

Did Israel attack in 1948? --- NO

Did Israel attack in 1967? --- NO

Did Israel offer to give back the land in 1967? --- YES

Was the offer accepted? --- NO

Did Israel attack in 1973? --- NO

Did Israel give back the Sinai in return for peace? --- YYES

The idea that Israel is the school yard bully throwing their weight around is nonsense.

I'll ask you a simple question as someone who has thought about this for a long time and is a student of world affairs:

Scenario One: Israel lays down all of it's arms and disbands it's army tomorrow: You tell me what happens.

Scenario Two: Hamas lays down it's arms and disbands it's army of fighters: You tell me what happens.

 

[Jayjay]

You never let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

Did Israel attack in 1948? --- NO

YES. Not other Arab countries outside the former British Mandate of Palestine, but they had declared a state and expanded beyond the UN partition plan borders (which were non-viable to begin with).

Did Israel attack in 1967? --- NO

YES. Pre-emptive strike. Contrast this with the 1948 Arab invasion... is the one who starts the war the one who fires the first shot, or the one who takes the gun out of the cabinet and starts loading it? If the former, then clearly, Israel started the 1967 war. If the latter, then Israel (and the Zionist agency before that) clearly started the 1948 war.

Did Israel offer to give back the land in 1967? --- YES

NO. Israel made an offer to return Golan, Sinai and Gaza, but they never offered East Jerusalem and the entire West Bank. Arabs at the time likely would have rejected the offer anyway, but your statement is still inaccurate.

I'll ask you a simple question as someone who has thought about this for a long time and is a student of world affairs:

Scenario One: Israel lays down all of it's arms and disbands it's army tomorrow: You tell me what happens.

Scenario Two: Hamas lays down it's arms and disbands it's army of fighters: You tell me what happens.

Scenario One: Israeli government will be taken over by the extremists, who reinstitute the army with minor disruption. Or if you are suggesting that nobody in Israel will pick up a rifle, which is a ridiculous notion, then the UN or the USA would cover them. The life for the settlers would be more difficult of course and they would have to move back to Israel proper. A Palestinian state would be formed and there would be peace.

Scenario Two: Other groups like Islamic Jihad will continue to fire rockets at Israel. Fatah gains a liittle bit more foothold in Gaza. Israel expands in West Bank and continues its oppression of Palestinians as before.

Here is a third scenario for you: what would happen if Israel were to withdraw from West Bank tomorrow?

 

[bleubird]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/24/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Arctish]

The very fact you deny they can ever own any land makes you part of a chorus of Israel lovers who have yet to justify their position as anything but supporters ethnic cleansing. When you just spout the notion of dog eat dog, it is hard to think of you as anything but one of your imagined dogs. Maybe you need to examine your understandings about human beings. Someday, your philosophy could come back to bite you...and you would be dearly offended at being told your home just went to a bigger dog...and it was perfectly fair that it also kill all your puppies.

You never let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

Did Israel attack in 1948? --- NO

This is a half-truth. Israel did not exist prior to 1948, but the militant Zionists that founded it had been attacking since the 1930s. The list of their attacks is long and gruesome. In 1948 the largest terrorist groups, Irgun and Lehi, joined forces with the quasi-terrorist paramilitary groups Haganah and Palmach to carry out Plan Dalet, a large scale assault on Palestinian towns and villages aimed at ethnic cleansing and conquest. The goal of Plan Dalet was securing additional territory for the planned Jewish State beyond what the Partition Plan allowed, and driving out the non-jews before declaring the formation of the State of Israel later that year.

So, while it's technically true Israel did not attack until after it was announced to exist, the fighting that surrounded it's formation was most certainly instigated by the people forming it. The Zionists attacked the Palestinians long before the Arab states got involved in the fighting.

Did Israel attack in 1967? --- NO

There was a significant amount of cross border raiding, air strikes, and provocation coming from both sides in the months and years leading up to the war. And it should be noted that Israel's first move was a surprise attack on Egypt's air force.

Israel's first and most critical move was a surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force. Initially, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[h]

On June 5 at 7:45 Israeli time, as civil defense sirens sounded all over Israel, the IAF launched Operation Focus (Moked). All but 12 of its nearly 200 operational jets[136] launched a mass attack against Egypt's airfields.[137] The Egyptian defensive infrastructure was extremely poor, and no airfields were yet equipped with hardened aircraft shelters capable of protecting Egypt's warplanes. Most of the Israeli warplanes headed out over the Mediterranean Sea, flying low to avoid radar detection, before turning toward Egypt. Others flew over the Red Sea.[138]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Israel started the war with Egypt in 1967 the exact same way Japan started a war with the US back in 1941. That in turn ignited the larger conflict involving Jordan and Syria, just as Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor led to the US going to war against Germany and Italy.

Did Israel offer to give back the land in 1967? --- YES

Was the offer accepted? --- NO

Israel offered to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria. Israel offered to "negotiate" with Jordan over the West Bank territory it had seized. It never offered to return anything to the Palestinians who were still stuck in refugee camps as a result of Israeli ethnic cleansing.

Did Israel attack in 1973? --- NO

Correct. This time it was the Egyptians and Syrians who launched the surprise attack.

Did Israel give back the Sinai in return for peace? --- YYES

Also correct. Israel and Egypt negotiated a peace treaty following the US sponsored Camp David Accords.

The idea that Israel is the school yard bully throwing their weight around is nonsense.

It's not nonsense and it's much worse than bullying. It's ethnic cleansing, the abuse of a captive population, and Occupation.

You have listed the actions of Israel wrt Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. But you have completely overlooked what Israel has done to Palestinians.

I've seen this argument before, usually from Loren. It lumps all of the non-jews of the region together as though there's no real difference between them. But that's a false equivalence. The grievances Egyptians had with Israel were very different from the grievances of the Palestinians. Israeli Zionists never took over Egyptian homes, businesses, orchards, and factories and gave them to Jewish settlers. They never razed Egyptian villages and forced tens of thousands of Egyptians into refugee camps.

The peace treaty Egypt has with Israel isn't a template Palestinians could follow because the issues it resolves are completely different. Zionists claim the lands Palestinians have been living on for centuries are part of Eretz Yisrael. They want to incorporate that land into their Jewish State. They want Israel to have an unassailable Jewish majority, and they want every resource in the region to be developed for the benefit of the Jewish residents. They want the non-jews to fuck off. The Egyptians never had to deal with that, but the Palestinians do.

I'll ask you a simple question as someone who has thought about this for a long time and is a student of world affairs:

Scenario One: Israel lays down all of it's arms and disbands it's army tomorrow: You tell me what happens.

Chaos, anarchy, looting, murder, dogs sleeping with cats, and a whole lot of people wondering why Israelis are so fucking stupid.

Scenario Two: Hamas lays down it's arms and disbands it's army of fighters: You tell me what happens.

Business as usual in the prison called Gaza, except now Israel seizes Gaza's natural gas deposits unopposed. Eventually Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Muslim Bortherhood, ISIS, or some other group get it's act together and the Resistance is reborn.

How about Option 3: Israel takes the PLO up on it's offer to recognize the 1967 boundaries as it's internationally recognized borders, brings its settlers back inside Israel proper, offers the newly emptied settlements to the Palestinian refugees in exchange for any claims to properties within Israel, takes the Arab League up on it's offer to finance the resettlement of the refugees, pays royalties for Palestinian resources (natural gas, minerals, water), works with the PA to jointly patrol borders, airfields, ports, and religious sites, and works with the PA, Interpol, and the FBI to combat terrorism both at home and abroad. Israel also recognizes the right of the Palestinian State to exist in peace and security, just as the PLO has recognized Israel's right to the same.

In exchange the PA declares peace with Israel, guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens and legal residents of the State of Palestine, and runs the place openly and with international oversight for the next 30 years. After that, if all goes well, the two countries finish normalizing their relationship.

Sound good?

 

[angelo]

What a load of poppycock!

No, I'm afraid not. I went through the whole article.

The specific grievances mentioned were three:
i) That Hamas put military personnel and buildings in neighbourhoods that contain civilians, thus encouraging a blurring of the line between military and civilian targets. Unfortunately, the IDF also do this. There simply isn't the space to put large empty spaces between military buildings and civilian houses.
ii) That Hamas don't abide by the rules of war, separating military and civilian targets, and avoiding reprisals on civilian targets for military actions. Again, the IDF, as a matter of public policy, target civilian buildings for bombing on a regular basis, and are particularly fond of punitive attacks - destroying local businesses, power stations, and other buildings outside of active combat.
iii) That Hamas violate articles of the Geneva convention. The Geneva specifically prohibits the actions taken under the settlement program

The difference of course is that hamas deliberately places their arsenal under schools and high civilian density buildings. Furthermore, which other country has ever done this. Israelis warn the civilians to get the fuck out because they are about to get bombed. Cowardly hamas hides behind women and children on purpose.

 

[angelo]

To get back to what Israel should do, how about assassinate Hamas leaders, first and foremost Khaled Mashaal. But properly this time! No, slow acting poisons, a 9mm brain hemorrhage is much more reliable.

One of the foremost hamas leaders is hiding out in Qatar. There would be an outcry if he was taken out. No, the Palestinians voted for hamas, WTF did they expect?

 

[Togo]

No, I'm afraid not. I went through the whole article.

The specific grievances mentioned were three:
i) That Hamas put military personnel and buildings in neighbourhoods that contain civilians, thus encouraging a blurring of the line between military and civilian targets. Unfortunately, the IDF also do this. There simply isn't the space to put large empty spaces between military buildings and civilian houses.
ii) That Hamas don't abide by the rules of war, separating military and civilian targets, and avoiding reprisals on civilian targets for military actions. Again, the IDF, as a matter of public policy, target civilian buildings for bombing on a regular basis, and are particularly fond of punitive attacks - destroying local businesses, power stations, and other buildings outside of active combat.
iii) That Hamas violate articles of the Geneva convention. The Geneva specifically prohibits the actions taken under the settlement program

The difference of course is that hamas deliberately places ...

Of course they do. Most of Gaza is high civilian density - it's a refugee camp. However, this wasn't a point addressed by the article you provided. The article, as I said, merely criticises Hamas for breaking the same rules that the IDF does.

Furthermore, which other country has ever done this. Israelis warn the civilians to get the fuck out because they are about to get bombed.

All countries do this, when they're conducting punitive bombing - that is bombing intended to punish the population as a whole by destroying significant buildings. The IDF are particularly known for it because they indulge in far more punitive bombing that other countries. Most countries shy away from it because of the Geneva Convention.

That's why most of the examples of advance warning before bombing are from terrorist groups. The IRA, for example, regularly phoned ahead before detonating their bombs.

No one, including the IDF, does this when they're trying to hit the enemy, for obvious reasons. So the first wave missile strikes on civilian targets in Operation Cast Lead, or the IRA's Brighton Hotel bombing, were done without warning, because the entire point was to kill the people inside the buildings.

 

[angelo]

Does hamas do this? Can you think of a better way to get rid of a terrorist threat than try to take out their arsenal?

 

[Derec]

One of the foremost hamas leaders is hiding out in Qatar. There would be an outcry if he was taken out. No, the Palestinians voted for hamas, WTF did they expect?

Qatar is already in Hamas' camp so an outcry will not change their position. What should cause international outcry is Qatar harboring a known terrorist leader who is no better than Osama Bin Laden.
Qatar could arrest him and extradite him to Israel for trial.

 

[Derec]

Of course they do. Most of Gaza is high civilian density - it's a refugee camp.

No it's not a "refugee camp". "Refugee" camps are specific designated areas within Gaza Strip even under the ridiculous UNRWA definition of "refugee" not used for any other conflict.
As far as population density, that's caused - as I have said earlier - by them breeding like rabbits. Unprotected sex and access to modern medicine (and thus very low maternal and infant death rate) leads to unsustainable, exponential population growth. It's like the whole Gaza is part of the "quiverfull" movement!

The article, as I said, merely criticises Hamas for breaking the same rules that the IDF does.

Nonsense. Hamas causes the situation where for example medical objects and vehicles cannot be respected because they are used by combatants.

All countries do this, when they're conducting punitive bombing - that is bombing intended to punish the population as a whole by destroying significant buildings. The IDF are particularly known for it because they indulge in far more punitive bombing that other countries. Most countries shy away from it because of the Geneva Convention.

Were Israel engaging in punitive bombing there would be tends of thousands of deaths instead of hundreds, based on how many targets they hit.

That's why most of the examples of advance warning before bombing are from terrorist groups. The IRA, for example, regularly phoned ahead before detonating their bombs.

And that's what makes them less barbaric than Islamic terrorists for sure. But it does not compare to IDF actions at all.

So the first wave missile strikes on civilian targets in Operation Cast Lead,

Are you one of those that defines all targets in Gaza as "civilian" because Gaza does not have an "official army"?

 

[Derec]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/24/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Still not clear if the compound was hit by Israeli or Hamas fire. We know that a) Hamas terrorists were operating in the area and that b) Hamas rockets routinely fall short within Gaza, often causing casualties and fatalities.

 

[Derec]

The very fact you deny they can ever own any land

Did I say that? No.
What I asked was what Togo thought Palestinian land is because Hamas surely thinks it's the entire area between the river and the sea.

 

[Derec]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I'll guess that it's where should the Palestinian state be.

Of course that's what I am asking. Because Hamas and other radicals think "Palestine" should include Israel proper. And you also made statements that lead me to believe you share that view.

I'd suggest that it be where most of the world thinks it should be - on their side of the green line. I think that the Arab-backed Hamas peace proposal was probably the best - do some land swaps to create a more sensible border based on the Green Line, get some international governance in for areas where the two sides would be living very close together, such as Jerusalem/East Jerusalem, and arrange for some kind of recognition of the Right to Return on both sides, heavily slanted towards a cash payment to avoid demographic problems, and subsidised by the Arab League states. The details can be negotiatied if they're a problem.

The "Green Line" is an armistice line and while it can be a basis for a permanent border it should not be viewed as some sort of sacred unchangeable boundary. East Jerusalem should go to Israel as they have far bigger historical and religious connection to it than Arabs and Muslims. Right of return for grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of actual refugees is ridiculous and if you compensate them financially who is going to compensate the descendants of Jews who lived in Gaza, Judea and Samaria before 1948? Qatar perhaps?

But all this is academic as long as Hamas is in power in Gaza because they deny the very right of Israel to exist. They want to conquer Ashdod, Ashkelon, Tel Aviv, Haifa etc.

You'd need foreign peacekeepers on the border, of course, at least at first.

Previous experience with UN peacekeepers has not been positive for Israel. Israel will understandably not want to cede their security to such an unreliable body, especially one that is dominated by anti-Israeli interests.

 

[Togo]

No it's not a "refugee camp".

It's an area for the containment of people displaced, by armed soldiers or violent mobs, from the land on which they used to live, to make way for Israelies. I assume you'd also object to "concentration camp", so what do you want to call it?

As far as population density, that's caused - as I have said earlier - by them breeding like rabbits. Unprotected sex and access to modern medicine (and thus very low maternal and infant death rate) leads to unsustainable, exponential population growth.

So you're saying that they have so many kids that Israel can't help but kill them? Seriously?

The article, as I said, merely criticises Hamas for breaking the same rules that the IDF does.

Nonsense. Hamas causes the situation...

The article doesn't address that. Please distinguish between 'evidence presented' and 'things I believe to be true'. The article does not cover the reasons you're giving. The reasons it does cover are the same rules that the IDF breaks with impunity.

All countries do this, when they're conducting punitive bombing - that is bombing intended to punish the population as a whole by destroying significant buildings. The IDF are particularly known for it because they indulge in far more punitive bombing that other countries. Most countries shy away from it because of the Geneva Convention.

Were Israel engaging in punitive bombing there would be tends of thousands of deaths instead of hundreds, based on how many targets they hit.

Try reading my post again.

That's why most of the examples of advance warning before bombing are from terrorist groups. The IRA, for example, regularly phoned ahead before detonating their bombs.

And that's what makes them less barbaric than Islamic terrorists for sure. But it does not compare to IDF actions at all.

What's the difference? They both want to destroy prominent buildings in order to make a political point, intimidate the locals, and punish the community as a whole for cooperating with their enemies. Both therefore warn people in advance to evacuate the area so they can make their point without also murdering the inhabitants. The great forgiveness and mercy you're asking us to applaud is common to a great many terrorist organisations. Countries, by contrast, don't tend to punish the community for cooperating with their enemies because that's a violation of the Geneva Convention.

[

So the first wave missile strikes on civilian targets in Operation Cast Lead,

Are you one of those that defines all targets in Gaza as "civilian" because Gaza does not have an "official army"?

I'm using the definition reported in the article that was presented, that explains in considerable detail exactly why civilian policemen are not considered military personnel, and thus, as I said, does not in fact support the conclusion that was reported.

Of course, wiping them out in a surprise missile attack in the middle of the night is a violation of the Geneva Convention either way.

 

[Derec]

It's an area for the containment of people displaced, by armed soldiers or violent mobs, from the land on which they used to live, to make way for Israelies.

Israel wasn't ethnically cleansed of Arabs (hence Israeli Arabs), but Palestinian territories were ethnically cleansed of Jews.

I assume you'd also object to "concentration camp", so what do you want to call it?

Yes I would for obvious reasons.
It is a territory that finds itself under a 7 year blockade and current assault because they engaged in rocket attacks against their neighbor.

So you're saying that they have so many kids that Israel can't help but kill them? Seriously?

No, I did not say that. Please pay more attention. What I am saying is that when people talk about how many people live in such a small strip of land yadda yadda they also must realize that Israel did not cause that situation, but rather that Gazans brought it on themselves by choosing to have so many kids.
The only reason Israel is killing Gazans now is that they have shot 2000+ rockets into Israel in the last two and a half weeks and are still firing them. In addition, Hamas terrorists have been infiltrating Israel through tunnels (which they fortified using cement diverted from civilian projects making a case for a stricter blockade rather than lifting it). Without attacks from Gaza Israel would not have had to defend itself and there'd be no dead Gazans. The whole situation is caused by Hamas and continues to persist because of Hamas.

The article doesn't address that. Please distinguish between 'evidence presented' and 'things I believe to be true'.

There is plenty of evidence that Hamas is solely responsible for the current hostilities. The 32 pages of this thread contain much of it.

Try reading my post again.

I only see "blah blah blame Israel blah blah"

Countries, by contrast, don't tend to punish the community for cooperating with their enemies because that's a violation of the Geneva Convention.

And what evidence do you have that this is the goal of Israel rather than a tragic but unavoidable consequence of Hamas tactics of firing and storing rockets from purportedly civilian areas, including schools and hospitals among other things?

I'm using the definition reported in the article that was presented, that explains in considerable detail exactly why civilian policemen are not considered military personnel, and thus, as I said, does not in fact support the conclusion that was reported.

Except that these purportedly "civilian" policemen are heavily armed Hamas thugs.

Of course, wiping them out in a surprise missile attack in the middle of the night is a violation of the Geneva Convention either way.

Why?