What should Israel do?

[Togo]

There can never be a "just and fair resolution" as Israel is dealing with a terrorist outfit who is sworn on it's destruction from as early the 7th century.

So what are you suggesting? More ethnic cleansing until all the Palestinians are gone? Israel setting up some form of Apartheid?

Israel has a dilemma. Israel presently has (some) democracy, is a Jewish state, and has control over the land. They can't keep all three. If there is a single state covering both peoples, Israel either loses democracy by denying Palestinians the vote, or loses their being a jewish state, and instead has a muslim majority. If they set up two states, they can't keep the land. The reason why people keep on banging on about the settlements is that they are blocking any form of permanent peace that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel as it now stands. The only alternatives to getting rid of the settlements are to get rid of the Palestinians as a political force, which means either Apartheid or similar, or getting rid of the Palestinians aka ethnic cleansing.

So which is it? Are you in favour of getting rid of the settlements and coming to some kind of agreement about borders, or are you advocating Apartheid, or are you for ethnic cleansing? Those are the only long term choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some here think that Israel is dealing with a moderate outfit and all they have to do is lay down their arms and all can live in a harmonious state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

I have never seen anyone here make the argument that all Israel has to do is lay down it's arms and all can live in a harmonious state. Everyone I know who hasn't written off the peace process entirely thinks it's going to be a long hard slog against the forces of extremism, vengeance, greed, and bigotry to get to a just and fair resolution.

There's no Peace Fairy to wave her magic wand and make all the hatred go away. Peace requires work, and a lot of it.

The arguments from your side always amount to Israel should pull back to the 67 borders and quit attacking, peace will magically appear.

That's basically saying they should lay down arms.

- - - Updated - - -

There can never be a "just and fair resolution" as Israel is dealing with a terrorist outfit who is sworn on it's destruction from as early the 7th century.

So what are you suggesting? More ethnic cleansing until all the Palestinians are gone? Israel setting up some form of Apartheid?

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

 

[Togo]

There can never be a "just and fair resolution" as Israel is dealing with a terrorist outfit who is sworn on it's destruction from as early the 7th century.

So what are you suggesting? More ethnic cleansing until all the Palestinians are gone? Israel setting up some form of Apartheid?

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

How? Would the Palestinians never again have any money or the ability to shop elsewhere? If you're talking about keeping them under thumb so they can never afford weapons to hurt Israel, then you're basically talking about Apartheid. If you're not, why wouldn't they just get weapons elsewhere?

 

[Shadowy Man]

What if the reason she's trying to kill you is that you are slapping her around all the time?

If a real solution is being sought, then we need to get past the whole "but they started it!" kind of schoolground logic going on. Who are willing to be the bigger people?

We've seen what happens. If Hamas behaves we get peace. If Israel behaves we don't get peace.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "behaves" is.

Edited to add: This reminds me of that ESPN commentator who made a statement about the recent domestic abuse case involving the NFL player (and I bring this up because of the abuse metaphor from the earlier post that we are extending here) that the women just need to be careful about their provocative actions. If they'd only behave then their men wouldn't have to beat them.

 

[Togo]

We've seen what happens. If Hamas behaves we get peace. If Israel behaves we don't get peace.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "behaves" is.

Edited to add: This reminds me of that ESPN commentator who made a statement about the recent domestic abuse case involving the NFL player (and I bring this up because of the abuse metaphor from the earlier post that we are extending here) that the women just need to be careful about their provocative actions. If they'd only behave then their men wouldn't have to beat them.

"Just look what you made me do..."

 

[arkirk]

There can never be a "just and fair resolution" as Israel is dealing with a terrorist outfit who is sworn on it's destruction from as early the 7th century.

So what are you suggesting? More ethnic cleansing until all the Palestinians are gone? Israel setting up some form of Apartheid?

Israel has a dilemma. Israel presently has (some) democracy, is a Jewish state, and has control over the land. They can't keep all three. If there is a single state covering both peoples, Israel either loses democracy by denying Palestinians the vote, or loses their being a jewish state, and instead has a muslim majority. If they set up two states, they can't keep the land. The reason why people keep on banging on about the settlements is that they are blocking any form of permanent peace that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel as it now stands. The only alternatives to getting rid of the settlements are to get rid of the Palestinians as a political force, which means either Apartheid or similar, or getting rid of the Palestinians aka ethnic cleansing.

So which is it? Are you in favour of getting rid of the settlements and coming to some kind of agreement about borders, or are you advocating Apartheid, or are you for ethnic cleansing? Those are the only long term choices.

Did Israel dispossess thousands of Palestinians of their land? Did Israel ever stop taking things from the Palestinians? The actual problem is one of the extension of Shamir's plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Netanyahu's government merely is an extension of that policy. A so called nation that engages in ethnic cleansing should not be allowed to continue in that form. Netanyahu insists that this must be. Hamas obviously cannot go to the table and bow down to the Israeli cleansing machine. As usual, we hear Loren and Angelo making statements that are untrue.

What should Israel do...stop killing, stop taking arab lands, learn to coexist. I saw the Hamas leader on Charley Rose the other night. He obviously is not a fanatic as Charlie worked hard to make him look like that and could not succeed. The time has come for the world to condemn this Israeli attack on civilians. What is going on in Gaza is murder of innocent women and children, bombing of hospitals, bombing of U.N. schools, killing, killing, killing!

No amount of slurs from Loren and Angelo, no amount of mischaracterizations of a whole people (racism) can justify what Israel does today. Israel should stop the killing, and at least let people into and out of Gaza. The animosity of groups like Hamas will take a long time to assuage, but absolutely no effort has ever been made by Israel to do anything but rip off the Palestinians...and eliminate them from Palestine...and even eliminate the word Palestine. It really is a case of slow motion genocide.

 

[untermensche]

I have never seen anyone here make the argument that all Israel has to do is lay down it's arms and all can live in a harmonious state. Everyone I know who hasn't written off the peace process entirely thinks it's going to be a long hard slog against the forces of extremism, vengeance, greed, and bigotry to get to a just and fair resolution.

There's no Peace Fairy to wave her magic wand and make all the hatred go away. Peace requires work, and a lot of it.

The arguments from your side always amount to Israel should pull back to the 67 borders and quit attacking, peace will magically appear.

That's basically saying they should lay down arms.

- - - Updated - - -

There can never be a "just and fair resolution" as Israel is dealing with a terrorist outfit who is sworn on it's destruction from as early the 7th century.

So what are you suggesting? More ethnic cleansing until all the Palestinians are gone? Israel setting up some form of Apartheid?

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

Yes of course, things would be better for the Palestinians is they were completely defenseless and had less food and supplies.

Hamas gets most of it's funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Shouldn't we be bombing them since as you say the Palestinians aren't the problem?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There can never be a "just and fair resolution" as Israel is dealing with a terrorist outfit who is sworn on it's destruction from as early the 7th century.

So what are you suggesting? More ethnic cleansing until all the Palestinians are gone? Israel setting up some form of Apartheid?

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

How? Would the Palestinians never again have any money or the ability to shop elsewhere? If you're talking about keeping them under thumb so they can never afford weapons to hurt Israel, then you're basically talking about Apartheid. If you're not, why wouldn't they just get weapons elsewhere?

If they quit getting money for war they would use their money for more peaceful ends.

- - - Updated - - -

We've seen what happens. If Hamas behaves we get peace. If Israel behaves we don't get peace.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "behaves" is.

Edited to add: This reminds me of that ESPN commentator who made a statement about the recent domestic abuse case involving the NFL player (and I bring this up because of the abuse metaphor from the earlier post that we are extending here) that the women just need to be careful about their provocative actions. If they'd only behave then their men wouldn't have to beat them.

In this case, do what the left wants--a cease fire.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it depends on what your definition of "behaves" is.

Edited to add: This reminds me of that ESPN commentator who made a statement about the recent domestic abuse case involving the NFL player (and I bring this up because of the abuse metaphor from the earlier post that we are extending here) that the women just need to be careful about their provocative actions. If they'd only behave then their men wouldn't have to beat them.

"Just look what you made me do..."

Israel didn't make Hamas break the ceasefire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes of course, things would be better for the Palestinians is they were completely defenseless and had less food and supplies.

The problem isn't the aid per se, it's that the aid is conditional upon war. Put the same money to peace and life would be much better for the Palestinians.

Hamas gets most of it's funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Shouldn't we be bombing them since as you say the Palestinians aren't the problem?

If it weren't for the oil weapon we probably would have attacked Saudi Arabia long ago. They're definitely part of the problem with Islam.

 

[Togo]

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

How? Would the Palestinians never again have any money or the ability to shop elsewhere? If you're talking about keeping them under thumb so they can never afford weapons to hurt Israel, then you're basically talking about Apartheid. If you're not, why wouldn't they just get weapons elsewhere?

If they quit getting money for war they would use their money for more peaceful ends.

Still be in cage though, and the long-term problem isn't resolved. The violence wouldn't stop. Palestinains aren't any more willing to lie down in from of the Israelis than vice versa.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We've seen what happens. If Hamas behaves we get peace. If Israel behaves we don't get peace.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "behaves" is.

Edited to add: This reminds me of that ESPN commentator who made a statement about the recent domestic abuse case involving the NFL player (and I bring this up because of the abuse metaphor from the earlier post that we are extending here) that the women just need to be careful about their provocative actions. If they'd only behave then their men wouldn't have to beat them.

In this case, do what the left wants--a cease fire.

So, to extend the metaphor, do you think that a domestic violence victim should never fight back? They should accept their lot in life and live by the demands/whims of their abuser?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

How? Would the Palestinians never again have any money or the ability to shop elsewhere? If you're talking about keeping them under thumb so they can never afford weapons to hurt Israel, then you're basically talking about Apartheid. If you're not, why wouldn't they just get weapons elsewhere?

If they quit getting money for war they would use their money for more peaceful ends.

Still be in cage though, and the long-term problem isn't resolved. The violence wouldn't stop. Palestinains aren't any more willing to lie down in from of the Israelis than vice versa.

If they quit attacking in time the cage will go away. The cage is a reaction to the attacks.

- - - Updated - - -

We've seen what happens. If Hamas behaves we get peace. If Israel behaves we don't get peace.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "behaves" is.

Edited to add: This reminds me of that ESPN commentator who made a statement about the recent domestic abuse case involving the NFL player (and I bring this up because of the abuse metaphor from the earlier post that we are extending here) that the women just need to be careful about their provocative actions. If they'd only behave then their men wouldn't have to beat them.

In this case, do what the left wants--a cease fire.

So, to extend the metaphor, do you think that a domestic violence victim should never fight back? They should accept their lot in life and live by the demands/whims of their abuser?

The domestic violence victim should leave, not get into a state of eternal conflict.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

What should Israel do...stop killing, stop taking arab lands, learn to coexist. I saw the Hamas leader on Charley Rose the other night. He obviously is not a fanatic as Charlie worked hard to make him look like that and could not succeed. The time has come for the world to condemn this Israeli attack on civilians. What is going on in Gaza is murder of innocent women and children, bombing of hospitals, bombing of U.N. schools, killing, killing, killing! No amount of slurs from Loren and Angelo, no amount of mischaracterizations of a whole people (racism) can justify what Israel does today. Israel should stop the killing, and at least let people into and out of Gaza. The animosity of groups like Hamas will take a long time to assuage, but absolutely no effort has ever been made by Israel to do anything but rip off the Palestinians...and eliminate them from Palestine...and even eliminate the word Palestine. It really is a case of slow motion genocide.

You appear by your picture to be a mature person. It really boggles my mind you are so short sighted. ALL war is crime. What the Israelis should do is win the war. That's how it will end otherwise it will go on. Do you have any idea of how many civilians were killed in WWII? It make this conflict look like a Church Picnic. Dresden alone was 20,000 people in one night. The number of Japanese civilians that were killed even w/o the atomic bombs is astronomical. Only the US did not have civilian casualties, does that make us evil because the percentage of Japanese civilians killed is out of proportion to US military casualties? Your framework is off. Your facts are off and your values are off. Your understanding of human nature is off. Your understanding of war is off. War is bad, the best thing to do with war is end it and the best way to end it is to win it. The sooner people understand that, the better off it will be. If CNN was in Dresden during WWII, the reaction would be the same as this. And the following facts are not refutable: 1) Hamas will not recognize or negotiate with Israel. 2) Israel has previously returned land it captured in defensive wars. If one side will not recognize the other and one side will not speak to the other, there can be no peace only a pause between the killing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And they're setting such a great example to the Muslim world, aren't they?

Actually, it is EXTREMELY bearable. The Iron Dome defense system has reduced civilian Israeli casualties to a statistical blip, and Hamas withheld its rocket attacks throughout the entirety of 2013.

69 rounds were sent towards Israel.

Not from Hamas. In fact, the Israeli government quietly recognized that Hamas spent most of last year doing a pretty good job of preventing rogue militants from launching rocket attacks, and then only from the very short range and unsophisticated types not much better than mortars (the kind you can store in the trunk of a car and setup and launch within fifteen minutes).

In this case it was ISRAEL, not Hamas, that provoked the current hostilities, first with the crackdown on Hamas activists in the West Bank (where militant attacks are already relatively rare), in clear violation of Palestinian sovereignty, and this accompanied by raids and air strikes in Gaza just hours BEFORE the resumption of rocket fire.

Are you forgetting the kidnap and murder of those teens?

Which Hamas had nothing to do with in the first place. Of far greater import is the fact that all three of the teenagers were dead before Israel ever started looking for them, and their government KNEW this perfectly well. The "Kidnapping" was just a pretense to disrupt the unity government and prevent reunification between the west bank and Gaza; their current offensive in Gaza is just an extension on that same goal.

It doesn't matter if it's an existential battle or not. There is no reason they should simply accept being shot at.

Why not? You expect the Palestinians to accept it, why shouldn't the Israelis? Especially now that they have a defense system that is breathtakingly effective in neutralizing those attacks?

And when that didn't bring peace would you realize how wrong you were?

It WOULDN'T bring peace because Israel will never withdrawal from the west bank. EVER.

But it would definitely change the relationship between the United States and Israel and establish the new strategic paradigm: "If you insist on being assholes, you will get no help from us."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Since this war is never going to end, it's time for someone to create some benefit from it.

How about the media getting in closer and provide scenes of people getting blown up, especially the women and children, and generate entertainment profit from all this.

They could use drones to get in close and watch schools and mosques getting blown up. Maybe a scene of some Muslims praying and genuflecting toward Mecca, and then, K'BOOM! they go flying in all directions.

To be balanced, they would also have to show a scene of a Jewish wedding or whatever getting blown up. But since those are so rare, the cost of covering those events would be higher. Maybe a beheading of an Israeli prisoner or something.

We need to find ways to turn tragedy into entertainment and profit.

We're already doing this up to a point with the TV news coverage, but we need to go farther with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

69 rounds were sent towards Israel.

Not from Hamas. In fact, the Israeli government quietly recognized that Hamas spent most of last year doing a pretty good job of preventing rogue militants from launching rocket attacks, and then only from the very short range and unsophisticated types not much better than mortars (the kind you can store in the trunk of a car and setup and launch within fifteen minutes).

Hamas territory, Hamas is accountable.

Which Hamas had nothing to do with in the first place. Of far greater import is the fact that all three of the teenagers were dead before Israel ever started looking for them, and their government KNEW this perfectly well. The "Kidnapping" was just a pretense to disrupt the unity government and prevent reunification between the west bank and Gaza; their current offensive in Gaza is just an extension on that same goal.

1) It clearly was a kidnapping. The kidnappers panicked when they realized one of the teens had an open phone connection.

2) Israel suspected they were dead but didn't want to say so until they were sure.

It doesn't matter if it's an existential battle or not. There is no reason they should simply accept being shot at.

Why not? You expect the Palestinians to accept it, why shouldn't the Israelis? Especially now that they have a defense system that is breathtakingly effective in neutralizing those attacks?

If the Palestinians don't shoot then Israel doesn't shoot at them. There's no need to just take it.

And when that didn't bring peace would you realize how wrong you were?

It WOULDN'T bring peace because Israel will never withdrawal from the west bank. EVER.

The pressure about the West Bank is about giving the Palestinians what they want without them making a meaningful agreement to peace.

 

[untermensche]

Hamas territory, Hamas is accountable.

Hamas has no territory.

It lives in occupied or controlled territory with harsh restrictions placed on supplies.

If it lived in completely sovereign territory you would have a point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not from Hamas. In fact, the Israeli government quietly recognized that Hamas spent most of last year doing a pretty good job of preventing rogue militants from launching rocket attacks, and then only from the very short range and unsophisticated types not much better than mortars (the kind you can store in the trunk of a car and setup and launch within fifteen minutes).

Hamas territory, Hamas is accountable.

In that case, the start of hostilities was the murder of those Palestinian teenagers in Jerusalem. Israeli territory, Israel is accountable.

If the Palestinians don't shoot then Israel doesn't shoot at them.

Factually incorrect: the Israelis rounded up dozens of Palestinians during the "search" for the hitchers (whose presence in the West Bank is illegal in the first place) and security forces repeatedly opened fire on Palestinian civilians, raided homes and confiscated property, assaulted civilians in the streets, finally culminating in revenge murders of the teenagers in East Jerusalem. All of this in response to a shooting that Hamas wasn't actually involved with.

And that's to say nothing of the continued blockade on Gaza.

The pressure about the West Bank is about giving the Palestinians what they want without them making a meaningful agreement to peace.

That's just silly. You don't invade someone else's home and then demand that THEY make peace concessions as a condition for leaving it. Those settlers have no legitimate reason to be there in the first place.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The problem isn't actually the Palestinians. The problem is the guys who give them money and weapons. End that and you'll soon see peace.

How? Would the Palestinians never again have any money or the ability to shop elsewhere? If you're talking about keeping them under thumb so they can never afford weapons to hurt Israel, then you're basically talking about Apartheid. If you're not, why wouldn't they just get weapons elsewhere?

If they quit getting money for war they would use their money for more peaceful ends.

Still be in cage though, and the long-term problem isn't resolved. The violence wouldn't stop. Palestinains aren't any more willing to lie down in from of the Israelis than vice versa.

If they quit attacking in time the cage will go away. The cage is a reaction to the attacks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the Palestinians don't shoot then Israel doesn't shoot at them.

Factually incorrect: the Israelis rounded up dozens of Palestinians during the "search" for the hitchers (whose presence in the West Bank is illegal in the first place) and security forces repeatedly opened fire on Palestinian civilians, raided homes and confiscated property, assaulted civilians in the streets, finally culminating in revenge murders of the teenagers in East Jerusalem. All of this in response to a shooting that Hamas wasn't actually involved with.

1) I was using "shoot" in the broader sense--attacking. I wasn't being specific to the weapon used.

2) They did shoot--the three teens. In other words, as always the Palestinians shot first.

And that's to say nothing of the continued blockade on Gaza.

Which itself was a reaction to Hamas.

The pressure about the West Bank is about giving the Palestinians what they want without them making a meaningful agreement to peace.

That's just silly. You don't invade someone else's home and then demand that THEY make peace concessions as a condition for leaving it. Those settlers have no legitimate reason to be there in the first place.

That doesn't change the fact that Israel has no reason to believe that giving them up will help them one bit and every reason to think they would be hurt beyond the major financial costs of doing it.

Furthermore, the occupation was the result of attacks. Should it's end be part of peace?