What should Israel do?

[untermensche]

Furthermore, the occupation was the result of attacks.

It was the result of the 67 war.

Not the result of any attacks from Palestinians living in the territories.

They lived under occupation for a decade before they began to fight back.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

1) So was I.
2) Hamas wasn't involved in the shooting. AT ALL.

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

Which itself was a reaction to Hamas.

It's almost as if Israel doesn't believe Hamas has a right to exist.

That doesn't change the fact that Israel has no reason to believe that giving them up will help them one bit

It doesn't HAVE to help them. The settlements are illegal. Therefore maintaining them for ANY reason is wrong.

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

The occupation was the result of a WAR in which the Palestinians were not a partisan.

And yes, its end should be part of peace.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

1) So was I.
2) Hamas wasn't involved in the shooting. AT ALL.

That's debatable. The suspects are Hamas members, and Hamas is known to have kidnapped Israelis before. Of course Hamas leadership will deny all knowledge afterwards because they bungled the operation, though it might be work of a Hamas cell that did it without permission. Either way, Hamas was involved.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1) So was I.
2) Hamas wasn't involved in the shooting. AT ALL.

That's debatable. The suspects are Hamas members, and Hamas is known to have kidnapped Israelis before. Of course Hamas leadership will deny all knowledge afterwards...

Hamas has done a lot of very despicable things over the years. They have suicide bombed buses and checkpoints, they have kidnapped soldiers, murdered women and children, hidden rockets in civilian areas, manufactured narcotics for criminals, denied the holocaust, rigged elections, fired rockets randomly at civilian areas... and that's just in the last decade.

One thing Hamas has NEVER done was lie about its involvement in terrorist attacks. When the attacks succeed, they take credit for it; when the attacks fail, they praise the attackers and call them martyrs. When they're not involved with the attacks, they STILL praise the attackers and applaud their martyrdom or whatever. But go back through Hamas' history -- really, the ethos of the entire organization -- and the one thing you will never see them do is DENY RESPONSIBILITY for something they did. If anything, they'd CLAIM responsibility hoping it will make them look more badass than they really are, but they haven't done that since at least the second intafada.

On the contrary, Hamas issued a statement from the beginning that Israel's accusation was "stupid" and that they had no reason at all to do something like that. And realistically, that's true; they had entered the unity government barely a week earlier, and an abduction of teenagers in the middle of a sensitive transition would be the stupidest move ever from a strategic standpoint.

Say what you want about Hamas: they're bloodthirsty, they're uncompromising, they're even a little bit crazy, but they are NOT stupid.

though it might be work of a Hamas cell that did it without permission.

Actually, it's widely believed to be the work of a far-right-wing militant cell that has a history of pulling insane crazy shit like this just to make trouble for Hamas itself. Given the suspects' reputation, it probably wasn't even intended to be a kidnapping:

But while Israel continues to accuse the Hamas movement and its leadership of being responsible for the abduction, Palestinian security forces attribute the abduction to the Qawasmeh clan of Hebron specifically. Though the clan is known for identifying with Hamas, it also has a well-earned reputation as troublemakers. Not only does it tend to ignore the movement’s leaders. It even acts counter to the policies being advocated by the movement.

That is why officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) were shocked by the timing of the three boys’ abduction, just two weeks after the establishment of a Palestinian unity government. After all, the very creation of this new coalition came with the assumption that the Hamas leadership had come to terms with reality and moderated their positions.

Enter the Qawasmeh clan. The total number of people belonging to the clan is estimated at about 10,000, making it one of the three largest clans in the Mount Hebron region. At least 15 members of the family were killed during the second intifada, nine of them while committing suicide attacks against Israel. All of the terrorists lived in the Abu Qatila neighborhood, within a radius of less than 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) from one another. Whenever the head of the terrorist organization within the clan was assassinated or arrested by Israel, one of his brothers or cousins was selected to replace him.

For instance, when the head of the group, Abdullah Qawasmeh, was assassinated during the second intifada, he was succeeded by his cousin Basel Qawasmeh. When Basel was assassinated by Israel, the person selected to succeed him was Imad Qawasmeh, who was apprehended by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in October 2003.

Marwan Qawasmeh, the man behind the abduction, emerged as a dominant figure in the clan after Israel arrested Imad Qawasmeh and sentenced him to life in prison.

Each time Hamas had reached an understanding with Israel about a cease-fire or tahadiyeh (period of calm), at least one member of the family has been responsible for planning or initiating a suicide attack, and any understandings with Israel, achieved after considerable effort, were suddenly laid waste. If there is a single family throughout the PA territories whose actions can be blamed for Israel’s assassination of the political leadership of Hamas, it is the Qawasmeh family of Hebron.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...-leadership-mahmoud-abbas.html##ixzz39IAA9m5f

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Furthermore, the occupation was the result of attacks.

It was the result of the 67 war.

Not the result of any attacks from Palestinians living in the territories.

They lived under occupation for a decade before they began to fight back.

It's not like they are a separate entity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) So was I.
2) Hamas wasn't involved in the shooting. AT ALL.

Hamas doesn't get to say we are at peace but you can't go after those who are at war.

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

Which itself was a reaction to Hamas.

It's almost as if Israel doesn't believe Hamas has a right to exist.

It's not a matter of Hamas existing, it's a matter of Hamas having a declared policy of going to war. The election amounted to a vote to go to war. Should Israel simply have ignored that??

That doesn't change the fact that Israel has no reason to believe that giving them up will help them one bit

It doesn't HAVE to help them. The settlements are illegal. Therefore maintaining them for ANY reason is wrong.

Israel is under no obligation to return the land until peace is made. And return to who? The former owners don't want it.

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

The occupation was the result of a WAR in which the Palestinians were not a partisan.

The war was supposedly done on their behalf.

And yes, its end should be part of peace.

But such a peace isn't even on the table at present.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing Hamas has NEVER done was lie about its involvement in terrorist attacks. When the attacks succeed, they take credit for it; when the attacks fail, they praise the attackers and call them martyrs. When they're not involved with the attacks, they STILL praise the attackers and applaud their martyrdom or whatever. But go back through Hamas' history -- really, the ethos of the entire organization -- and the one thing you will never see them do is DENY RESPONSIBILITY for something they did. If anything, they'd CLAIM responsibility hoping it will make them look more badass than they really are, but they haven't done that since at least the second intafada.

I disagree. If they don't want to be responsible for something they simply pretend it's some other group doing it. They've been doing this in Gaza for a long time--pro-Sharia terrorism that they're totally ineffective against.

On the contrary, Hamas issued a statement from the beginning that Israel's accusation was "stupid" and that they had no reason at all to do something like that. And realistically, that's true; they had entered the unity government barely a week earlier, and an abduction of teenagers in the middle of a sensitive transition would be the stupidest move ever from a strategic standpoint.

I do agree it probably wasn't ordered by Hamas high command. Rather, I think some of their agents saw an opportunity and took it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1) So was I.
2) Hamas wasn't involved in the shooting. AT ALL.

Hamas doesn't get to say we are at peace but you can't go after those who are at war.

But Israel DOES?

It's not a matter of Hamas existing, it's a matter of Hamas having a declared policy of going to war. The election amounted to a vote to go to war. Should Israel simply have ignored that??

Yes. Israel should have simply ignored that. Just because a political party you don't like gets elected into office does NOT mean you are automatically at war with the people that elected them.

Israel is under no obligation to return the land until peace is made.

On the contrary, Israel is obligated to return it under international law, peace or no peace. They could no more negotiate the return of that land than I could steal your car and negotiate terms to sell it back to you.

And return to who?

Palestine.

The former owners don't want it.

Yes they do. They have, in fact, said so again and again.

The war was supposedly done on their behalf.

It wasn't.

And yes, its end should be part of peace.

But such a peace isn't even on the table at present.

It is on the Palestinians' side.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I disagree. If they don't want to be responsible for something they simply pretend it's some other group doing it. They've been doing this in Gaza for a long time

they have, in fact, NEVER done this in Gaza. They've been very upfront about who was responsible for what since the beginning. They have from time to time, taken responsibility for things they DIDN'T do, but almost never the reverse.

 

[angelo]

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.

You are correct of course. Israel agrees to a two state solution, But guess who's against that solution? There was a time in 2005 when the solution was for Israel to vacate Gaza strip. Well, they did that leaving behind infrastructure like green houses and etc, enough infrastructure to start a modern economy going and taking all the Jewish settlers out, some kicking and screaming. Tell me, did that work? Now what makes you think any further concessions are going to work? Israeli's cannot negotiate with a group who is sworn to their destruction.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-king-condemns-gaza-war-but-not-israel/?

 

[Jayjay]

I disagree. If they don't want to be responsible for something they simply pretend it's some other group doing it. They've been doing this in Gaza for a long time

they have, in fact, NEVER done this in Gaza. They've been very upfront about who was responsible for what since the beginning. They have from time to time, taken responsibility for things they DIDN'T do, but almost never the reverse.

What about all the misfired rockets that kill people in Gaza? The UN school from a few weeks ago comes to mind. Sure it could have been some other group than Hamas, but really, it's not as if shooting rockets is something that Hamas and only Hamas is capable of doing with 100% success rate and as there have been multiple instances of rockets falling short and hitting Gazan civilians, some of them are bound to be Hamas's work. If they don't admit being responsible for botched rocket launches, why should they admit responsibility for a botched kidnapping?

 

[Jayjay]

That doesn't change the fact that Israel has no reason to believe that giving them up will help them one bit

It doesn't HAVE to help them. The settlements are illegal. Therefore maintaining them for ANY reason is wrong.

Israel is under no obligation to return the land until peace is made. And return to who? The former owners don't want it.

Israel doesn't have to end the occupation. But they are obligated to get rid of the illegal settlements. Colonizing occupied land by moving your own civilian population there is a war crime under Geneva conventions, and though nobody is going to hold Israel accountable for it ("war crimes" ever only apply to losing side in real world), there is a moral obligation. If Israel wants to permanently annex some of the land, only legitimate way to do it is to bargain for it via a peace treaty, not just take it by force.

Alternatively, Israel could fulfill its obligation by giving the residents of West Bank Israeli citizenship, as happened in Golan. Take your pick.

What you are basically saying is that Israel should be rewarded for refusing to make peace for some reason. Rules of warfare, if it makes any sense at all to have them, should be to discourage wars being waged in the first place except for defense. You are giving Israel a free pass to use continued warfare as means to steal more land and encouraging a continuation of the conflict.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas doesn't get to say we are at peace but you can't go after those who are at war.

But Israel DOES?

Israel goes after the terrorists on it's own land.

It's not a matter of Hamas existing, it's a matter of Hamas having a declared policy of going to war. The election amounted to a vote to go to war. Should Israel simply have ignored that??

Yes. Israel should have simply ignored that. Just because a political party you don't like gets elected into office does NOT mean you are automatically at war with the people that elected them.

Israel is under no obligation to return the land until peace is made.

On the contrary, Israel is obligated to return it under international law, peace or no peace. They could no more negotiate the return of that land than I could steal your car and negotiate terms to sell it back to you.

The Arabs started the war. Israel is free to insist on peace as a condition of returning seized land. Note, also, that border adjustments are common in such agreements.

And return to who?

Palestine.

Except they never owned it in the first place, you can't return it to them.

You could make an argument that it should be given to them, but returning is impossible.

The former owners don't want it.

Yes they do. They have, in fact, said so again and again.

No. Some people have said they want it. They weren't owners and most weren't even occupants. (The "refugee" population has grown greatly by intermarriage. Many of those refugees are really only 1/4 or 1/8 refugee.)

The war was supposedly done on their behalf.

It wasn't.

The announced intent was on their behalf. I know it wasn't really, that's why I used "supposedly"--it really was about driving out the Jews, they didn't care about the Palestinians.

And yes, its end should be part of peace.

But such a peace isn't even on the table at present.

It is on the Palestinians' side.

1) The Palestinians have made it clear they aren't offering peace.

2) You misunderstand anyway--I'm talking about peace between Israel and the Arab nations that attacked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel doesn't have to end the occupation. But they are obligated to get rid of the illegal settlements. Colonizing occupied land by moving your own civilian population there is a war crime under Geneva conventions, and though nobody is going to hold Israel accountable for it ("war crimes" ever only apply to losing side in real world), there is a moral obligation. If Israel wants to permanently annex some of the land, only legitimate way to do it is to bargain for it via a peace treaty, not just take it by force.

Except it's not. Relocating your people there or the locals out is a war crime. People choosing to move there isn't a war crime.

What you are basically saying is that Israel should be rewarded for refusing to make peace for some reason. Rules of warfare, if it makes any sense at all to have them, should be to discourage wars being waged in the first place except for defense. You are giving Israel a free pass to use continued warfare as means to steal more land and encouraging a continuation of the conflict.

You misunderstand the events. The Arabs attacked. The Arabs will not even talk peace--it's all a sham as if the peace agreement should be between Israel and the Palestinians when the Palestinians aren't primary actors and don't have the authority to make peace.

Israel should not be harmed by the Arab refusal to even show up at the table.

 

[Jayjay]

Except it's not. Relocating your people there or the locals out is a war crime. People choosing to move there isn't a war crime.

We've been through this a million times. Israel is not only allowing the settlers to move there, but also supporting them both financially and militarily. The fact that they are "choosing" to move doesn't change the fact that it's a deliberate policy of colonization by state of Israel - The German civilians who settled in land occupied during WW2 were also "choosing" to move there. And when the Jews move in, the Palestinians are locked out, so the locals are being relocated. Sure they might not have had houses in the specific places but they had access, which is now denied to them.

What you are basically saying is that Israel should be rewarded for refusing to make peace for some reason. Rules of warfare, if it makes any sense at all to have them, should be to discourage wars being waged in the first place except for defense. You are giving Israel a free pass to use continued warfare as means to steal more land and encouraging a continuation of the conflict.

You misunderstand the events. The Arabs attacked.

It doesn't matter who attacked first, and ultimately because the conflict stems from tit-for-tat attacks you can always come up with some anterior event that each side can claim is the one that was the "first" attack. In every war in history of mankind, both sides have always claimed that the other one attacked them, or was going to attack them, and the Arab-Israeli conflict isn't any different. Israel cannot justify it's continued land theft with some imaginary "first attack" that they claim happened 70 years ago.

It also doesn't matter whether Arabs appear on the peace table or not, if Israel isn't serious about peace anyway. And why should Israel make any real effort for peace, when it can enjoy the spoils of war? As long as there is a profit motive for war for either side, the war will continue.

 

[untermensche]

It was the result of the 67 war.

Not the result of any attacks from Palestinians living in the territories.

They lived under occupation for a decade before they began to fight back.

It's not like they are a separate entity.

What the fuck does that mean?

You have governments of surrounding countries deciding to attack Israel, not the Palestinians.

And the Palestinians were not involved in the attacks since they had no military.

Your inability to distinguish the difference between actions taken by governments and the lack of actions taken by a bunch of civilians is astonishing.

But I see bigotry at the bottom of this. "Those dirty Muslims, they're all the same thing."

Frankly, I don't how anybody but a sick racist could support the actions taken by Israel in the last 50 years. They have been so nasty and brutal towards the Palestinians. But of course if one doesn't see the Palestinians as human the brutal treatment doesn't mean much.

 

[laruan]

ban ki moon from the un has condemned the perpetrators of an armed attack on a school/safe haven for children killing some children in the process.

It's a fair bet that Israelis fired the offending missiles , so does that mean that they will be brought to book as requested by the hon secretary or will they continue to thumb their noses at the international establishment ...
I would guess that nothing will happen as the Palestinians have managed to wear out there welcome with practically every other Government , so until they can con some friendly country into belting Israel with long bombardments of the same or better weaponry as they throw around then nothing will change..

 

[Crazy Eddie]

they have, in fact, NEVER done this in Gaza. They've been very upfront about who was responsible for what since the beginning. They have from time to time, taken responsibility for things they DIDN'T do, but almost never the reverse.

What about all the misfired rockets that kill people in Gaza? The UN school from a few weeks ago comes to mind. Sure it could have been some other group than Hamas, but really, it's not as if shooting rockets is something that Hamas and only Hamas is capable of doing with 100% success rate and as there have been multiple instances of rockets falling short and hitting Gazan civilians, some of them are bound to be Hamas's work. If they don't admit being responsible for botched rocket launches, why should they admit responsibility for a botched kidnapping?

Because they've never actually DENIED being responsible for botched rocket launches. When that does happen and they know about it, they either own up to it or refrain from commenting. DENYING it makes them look like a bunch of duplicitous liars and harms their reputation among the Palestinians; the political calculus in Arab culture means it's almost always better to be seen as an asshole than a back-stabber (actually, that seems to be a fundamental concept in Islam: being a dick to others can sometimes be justified, but going back on your word is inexcusable).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But Israel DOES?

Israel goes after the terrorists on it's own land.

Gaza is not Israel's land and neither is the west bank. Technically, neither are the settlements.

The Arabs started the war.

Irrelevant. Forcibly claiming territory obtained through military action is illegal. It doesn't matter who STARTED the war, you do not get to hold on to captured territory when the war ends.

Except they never owned it in the first place

Strictly speaking, they DID. The land was granted to them under the original 1947 partition plan. Likewise, it exists outside of Israel's recognized 1967 border, so even if you could claim -- incorrectly -- that the land doesn't belong to the Palestinians, it DEFINITELY doesn't belong to Israel.

No. Some people have said they want it.

Mahmoud Abbas being the most prominent of those "some people", speaking on behalf of the Palestinian government.

They want it.

The announced intent was on their behalf.

Irrelevant.

1) The Palestinians have made it clear they aren't offering peace.

Yes they are. Even Hamas is offering that at this point. They said as much in 2012, and they actually demonstrated a capacity to behave reasonably for almost two years prior to Israel's latest attempt to "mow the lawn" in Gaza.

2) You misunderstand anyway--I'm talking about peace between Israel and the Arab nations that attacked.

Israel has been at peace with those Arab nations for over two decades. They even managed to live in relative peace with the Egyptians without achieving military dominance over them.

The Palestinians are no different than the Jordanians and the Egyptians, and Hamas is actually noticeably less radical than Hezbollah, who has ALSO refrained from trying to exterminate Israel for going-on-seven years now.

Consider this: from June 1st to June 29th, Palestinian militants of various small cells launched about 30 rockets at Israel During that period, Israel refrained from responding with airstrikes; during the same period, Hamas refrained from launching its own rockets.
OTOH, Israel launched its first airstrikes on June 29th, and Hamas' rocket teams opened fire on June 30th. Recent evidence suggests that Hamas' intensified rocket fire directly coincides with Israel's offensive actions within the Gaza Strip.

There are factions among the Palestinians that DO NOT follow this pattern. I do not think you have considered the possibility that if Israel were to successfully eliminate Hamas as an organization, whoever manages to fill the resulting power vacuum will be ten times worse. As bad as they are, Hamas' strategic goals at least have some basis in reality, cynical as those goals actually are. To the extent that exterminating Israel is not a realistic goal, it's not something that will ever be on Hamas' actionable agenda. That IS NOT something you can say for the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, or for that matter even the PFLP, and you had better pray that Hamas is never weak enough for either of those groups to oust them from power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not like they are a separate entity.

What the fuck does that mean?

You have governments of surrounding countries deciding to attack Israel, not the Palestinians.

And the Palestinians were not involved in the attacks since they had no military.

Your inability to distinguish the difference between actions taken by governments and the lack of actions taken by a bunch of civilians is astonishing.

But I see bigotry at the bottom of this. "Those dirty Muslims, they're all the same thing."

Frankly, I don't how anybody but a sick racist could support the actions taken by Israel in the last 50 years. They have been so nasty and brutal towards the Palestinians. But of course if one doesn't see the Palestinians as human the brutal treatment doesn't mean much.

No. I'm saying that Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the like are all just manifestations of the underlying Jihadist attack on Israel. The methods have changed over time as old means no longer work, the faces have changed, the underlying power has not.

- - - Updated - - -

What about all the misfired rockets that kill people in Gaza? The UN school from a few weeks ago comes to mind. Sure it could have been some other group than Hamas, but really, it's not as if shooting rockets is something that Hamas and only Hamas is capable of doing with 100% success rate and as there have been multiple instances of rockets falling short and hitting Gazan civilians, some of them are bound to be Hamas's work. If they don't admit being responsible for botched rocket launches, why should they admit responsibility for a botched kidnapping?

Because they've never actually DENIED being responsible for botched rocket launches. When that does happen and they know about it, they either own up to it or refrain from commenting.

They attribute the deaths from their failed rockets to Israel. That's denying them.