How should Palestine defend itself?

shedweller · 29-07-2014 7:46pm

The palestinians are there too. Are they not allowed live a peaceful life without being cooped up like animals?

EI_Flyboy · 29-07-2014 8:45pm

shedweller wrote: »

The palestinians are there too. Are they not allowed live a peaceful life without being cooped up like animals?

Really, you think this hasn't been dealt with? You know you can always go back and read the previous posts on this thread. It's exactly this knee jerk thinking that exacerbates the problem. Now I know this is the internet and that much like it is on the motorway, the anonymity makes us quicker to anger at and braver to insult others but that's still no excuse for lazy thinking. I'm no longer going to address stupid statements or questions because it's a waste of my life and fear that those who voice them are more practiced at the type of argument that follows so I will surely lose at their level.

Edit:

You see this:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Almost-2000-Palestinians-have-died-in-Syrian-war-335447

And this:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/three-years-of-civil-war-in-syria-no-end-in-sight/

This is why Israel has so little regard for Western opinion. They're just waiting for something else to come along so we'll get distracted again. They must be wondering how we can be so hypocritical in complaining about what they do when we don't bat an eye if it's done by others.

Frank Lee Midere · 29-07-2014 8:52pm

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

And most native residents of the Aran Islands are apparently more Cornish than Irish. Are you going to tell me they're not Irish and don't deserve to live there?

They're there, it's moot and not going to change. This has been covered, time to move on from that argument and think of something constructive to say.

The genetics of the west of Ireland is largely that of the original migrants into Ireland and England when there was a land bridge ( pre Celtic). Most of us have that DNA, but the further East you go the more Viking, Normand and in England Anglo Saxon signals appear.

And I am not "sending anyone back" to Cornwall. Au contrarie - I am arguing that if your ancestors lived in a place 2000 years ago you have no "right of return" and if they didn't - which in the case of European Jews is the case - you really don't. Nothing to do with "being born there" - a significant number of Israelis, particularly in the West Bank settlements were born elsewhere.

And you don't get to decide when so something is "covered", particularly when you know so little. Your misinformation isn't "covering" anything.

Frank Lee Midere · 29-07-2014 8:53pm

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Really, you think this hasn't been dealt with? You know you can always go back and read the previous posts on this thread. It's exactly this knee jerk thinking that exacerbates the problem. Now I know this is the internet and that much like it is on the motorway, the anonymity makes us quicker to anger at and braver to insult others but that's still no excuse for lazy thinking. I'm no longer going to address stupid statements or questions because it's a waste of my life and fear that those who voice them are more practiced at the type of argument that follows so I will surely lose at their level.

Lol. The lazy thinking is all you.

obplayer · 29-07-2014 9:22pm

For Reals wrote: »

Literally, back where they came from.
Anyone wishing to remain should apply for Palestinian citizenship.

Well given that that is not going to happen do you have any other suggestions?

For Reals · 29-07-2014 9:26pm

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Well the obvious answer to that is yes, yes they are and so are Argentinians, Brazilians, Chileans, Colombians etc., etc. They all live in America, be that North, South or Central America and that makes them American. If you can't see the obvious truth in that, go talk to some South Americans and a lot of them will tell you they find it annoying when we use "American" solely to refer to U.S. citizens.

Your analogy was regarding genealogy and how we're all British based on current geographical proximity/naming of the region. Ireland existed as did it's people, (and those of the lands known as England, Scotland, Wales for that matter) long before any 'Britain'. So to call us all British makes no logical sense as regards your point of race or genealogy as regards a Jewish claim to that region.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Well the obvious answer to that is yes, Right now I feel you're being intentionally asinine and wish that you'd stop.

No, I'm responding to your assertion that Israel is a homeland of a people because their beliefs say so. By that logic Rome, Jerusalem, Bethlehem is fair game for Catholics and Christians alike.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Where, the gas chambers?

Well I guess you've reached the limits on this one.
You can't take over someone else's already occupied land and claim it as yours. Pretty simple. Israel should not have been set up in that way. Those who wished to settle there could have gone about it much more diplomatically then simply taking the homes of others. There is no way to pretty this up.
You can throw in the Crusades for the craic if you like.

For Reals · 29-07-2014 9:35pm

Nodin wrote: »

I don't think replicating the tragedy of the Palestinian people by forcing it on the Israelis will get anyone anywhere.

Not everyone wishes to butcher a people or drive them into the sea.

For Reals · 29-07-2014 9:42pm

obplayer wrote: »

Well given that that is not going to happen do you have any other suggestions?

Simplify by massacring the Palestinians...oh, wait...

So based on these posts, if my DNA associates me with a region of the world however long ago I've a right to go live there. If I believe lower Manhattan is my spiritual home, I've a right to land there. If I go take anywhere by force and butcher the indigenous peoples it's all good if I've US support and a strangle hold on the western media. Noted.

obplayer · 29-07-2014 10:04pm

For Reals wrote: »

Simplify by massacring the Palestinians...oh, wait...

So based on these posts, if my DNA associates me with a region of the world however long ago I've a right to go live there. If I believe lower Manhattan is my spiritual home, I've a right to land there. If I go take anywhere by force and butcher the indigenous peoples it's all good if I've US support and a strangle hold on the western media. Noted.

I have never said that, I fully realise that the Palestinians suffered a terrible injustice when Israel was founded but that is what happened and we cannot turn the clock back 70 years. Israel is not going away and that is the reality everyone, including the Palestinians, has to deal with.

pO1Neil · 29-07-2014 10:27pm

Great comparison by Galloway between the Warsaw & Gaza Ghetto's & the sheer hypocrisy of it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmrZxBprd4Y

Gringo180 · 29-07-2014 10:59pm

Israel has murdered 0.06% of the Gaza population in just 3 weeks, applied to the US population in 22 days Israel would have massacred 188 thousand people or applied to the British population and it would be 38 thousand exterminated.

wes · 29-07-2014 11:35pm

obplayer wrote: »

Israel is not going away and that is the reality everyone, including the Palestinians, has to deal with.

Yes, and everyone accepts that, but by the same token neither are the Palestinians going to go away.

If Israel keeps expanding outside her borders, then the only place the millions of refugees to call home will be Israel, and with no Palestinian state to go to, the only moral and right thing would be for them to return to there homes in what is now called Israel, which will of course, end the entire notion of a Jewish state. IMHO, Israeli rights don't trump Palestinians and vice versa. Israels carry on is making a one state solution more and more likely, imho, and Zionists will only have themselves to blame.

pO1Neil · 29-07-2014 11:46pm

obplayer wrote: »

I have never said that, I fully realise that the Palestinians suffered a terrible injustice when Israel was founded but that is what happened and we cannot turn the clock back 70 years. Israel is not going away and that is the reality everyone, including the Palestinians, has to deal with.

Nobody wants Israel to "go away". We (rational minded people) want to end the conflict with a just and lasting settlement. That won't happen tho while Israel continues it's policy of ethnic cleansing.

shedweller · 30-07-2014 10:08am

wes wrote: »

Yes, and everyone accepts that, but by the same token neither are the Palestinians going to go away.

If Israel keeps expanding outside her borders, then the only place the millions of refugees to call home will be Israel, and with no Palestinian state to go to, the only moral and right thing would be for them to return to there homes in what is now called Israel, which will of course, end the entire notion of a Jewish state. IMHO, Israeli rights don't trump Palestinians and vice versa. Israels carry on is making a one state solution more and more likely, imho, and Zionists will only have themselves to blame.

You mentioned the palestinians returning to their homes. Have you seen "The great book robbery" It is a documentary about all the Palestinian books that were left behind when they had to leave. Yer man went to some of the originally Palestinian homes that were now inhabited by israelis. Beautiful houses too for the age of them.

K-9 · 30-07-2014 11:23am

For Reals wrote: »

More absolute baloney.
The main flaw being nobody who was transplanted to the shiny new Israel where even born there, or even their great, great and so on, so any homeland claim in open to derision.
By your point I can carve up Rome or Bethlehem for that matter, for me and mine? And where is the Palestinian 'homeland'? No money, so tough?
Read a book not based on convenient opinion.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Lol. The lazy thinking is all you.

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Really, you think this hasn't been dealt with? You know you can always go back and read the previous posts on this thread. It's exactly this knee jerk thinking that exacerbates the problem. Now I know this is the internet and that much like it is on the motorway, the anonymity makes us quicker to anger at and braver to insult others but that's still no excuse for lazy thinking. I'm no longer going to address stupid statements or questions because it's a waste of my life and fear that those who voice them are more practiced at the type of argument that follows so I will surely lose at their level.

Mod:

Seriously, cut it out please. People have different points of view, that's fine, debate the point rather than throwing petty digs around, its just looks very childish. Thank you.

For Reals · 30-07-2014 1:50pm

Great to see. Pity it's not more common place.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/07/jews-and-arabs-refuse-be-enemies-what-it-s-be-anti-war-israeli

For Reals · 30-07-2014 1:58pm

wes wrote: »

Yes, and everyone accepts that, but by the same token neither are the Palestinians going to go away.

If Israel keeps expanding outside her borders, then the only place the millions of refugees to call home will be Israel, and with no Palestinian state to go to, the only moral and right thing would be for them to return to there homes in what is now called Israel, which will of course, end the entire notion of a Jewish state. IMHO, Israeli rights don't trump Palestinians and vice versa. Israels carry on is making a one state solution more and more likely, imho, and Zionists will only have themselves to blame.

I've solved it. The Palestinians should be absorbed by Israel, then in a few years call for a referendum on seceding from the Israeli state based on historical and cultural differences. The key point being Israel are invader occupiers.

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 9:36am

I have never seen this answered: but Israel's Arab neighbours (especially Jordan and Egypt - Sinai Peninsula) have buckets of space to absorb (and even set up an independent state for) Palestinians.

But this has never happened.

Intransigence, disinterest, or sinister motive?

wes · 31-07-2014 9:49am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I have never seen this answered: but Israel's Arab neighbours (especially Jordan and Egypt - Sinai Peninsula) have buckets of space to absorb (and even set up an independent state for) Palestinians.

But this has never happened.

Intransigence, disinterest, or sinister motive?

Why should the Palestinians leave there homeland, exactly? You do realize your calling for ethnic cleansing, right?

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 10:13am

wes wrote: »

Why should the Palestinians leave there[sic] homeland, exactly? You do realize your[sic] calling for ethnic cleansing[sic], right?

Why not? What is so special about Gaza - does it have any religious or cultural significance to them? It has a port; which is important; but it would be perfectly feasible to develop one in the Sinai. Moreover, you could carve out an area several times the size of Gaza in the Sinai and not even notice.

The West Bank is a slightly more complicated issue, of course.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 10:22am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I have never seen this answered: but Israel's Arab neighbours (especially Jordan and Egypt - Sinai Peninsula) have buckets of space to absorb (and even set up an independent state for) Palestinians.

But this has never happened.

Intransigence, disinterest, or sinister motive?

Oh my god, you're actually one step away form calling for gas chambers.

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 10:27am

JeffKenna wrote: »

Oh my god, you're actually one step away form calling for gas chambers.

Well... um... good point sir! Calling for people to have their own country is just like the Holocaust. So I mean... the UN calling for an independent Jewish State after WW2 were just like the Nazis...

cuz...

LOGIC.

AlanG · 31-07-2014 10:32am

"How should Palestine defend itself"

If they people of the occupied territories took a break from violence and started demanding full voting rights and equality withing Israel then the apartheid government in Israel would soon change their approach.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 10:42am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well... um... good point sir! Calling for people to have their own country is just like the Holocaust. So I mean... the UN calling for an independent Jewish State after WW2 were just like the Nazis...

cuz...

LOGIC.

No but that's what you appear to be calling for. It's their land, every single day of my life innocent civilians have been killed by the Israeli army simply for living on their own land, and your response is that they should just up and move? That's akin to the Holocaust, any Jewish person that didn't have the foresight to move before World War Two were exterminated. Besides the scale, where do you see the difference?

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 11:18am

JeffKenna wrote: »

No but that's what you appear to be calling for. It's their land, every single day of my life innocent civilians have been killed by the Israeli army simply for living on their own land, and your response is that they should just up and move? That's akin to the Holocaust, any Jewish person that didn't have the foresight to move before World War Two were exterminated. Besides the scale, where do you see the difference?

Every people is entitled to their own country - who are you to deny them this?

The Gaza Strip is far, far too small to be self-sustainable, and is surrounded by Israeli territory. It's neither economically, or (in reality) politically independent. As far as I can see Gaza City has no cultural or spiritual significance, unlike Bethlehem or Jerusalem. Granting them land far in excess of what is offered in the encroached Gaza Strip would not be ... whatever you think it is.

From the Israeli point of view, the Gaza Strip is too close for comfort - with even the most primitive of rockets (potentially) able to hit Israeli cities. As such they feel entitled to invade and trample settlements in the Gaza Strip in a bid to eliminate the threat of rocket attacks (which is not actually possible).

Whenever borders are formed, "ethnic cleansing" occurs naturally along side it - but usually this is people moving of their own volition. Sometimes it comes in the form of genocide; but this is actually rare: most of the time that genocides occur where there are no borders, or separate countries, and a dominant group in a country attempts to eliminate a weaker opponent.

What Israel is doing in the West Bank (encroaching upon Palestinian territory and building settlements) is pretty reprehensible imo. I dunno... maybe you think it's a good thing?

Hell, actually your analogy is so totally atrocious I don't know where to start; but presumably you ARE against the founding of Israel, and do consider its creation by the UN to be the same as the actions of the Third Reich.

K-9 · 31-07-2014 11:29am

I can see the logic about Gaza but conflicts like these tend to be emotional and linked to land, and that over rides anything else. People could argue Northern Ireland should maybe be 3 counties and there's a logic in it, but even if we set up another artificial border tomorrow it isn't really going to solve the root cause.

wes · 31-07-2014 11:30am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why not? What is so special about Gaza - does it have any religious or cultural significance to them?

Its there home, that is more than enough.

RandomName2 wrote: »

It has a port; which is important; but it would be perfectly feasible to develop one in the Sinai. Moreover, you could carve out an area several times the size of Gaza in the Sinai and not even notice.

The West Bank is a slightly more complicated issue, of course.

You could ask the same question in regard to Israeli's, why don't they all just move to America or something like that. Sure, there "surrounded" by Arab states, they should just move.

Its a nonsense position and never going to happen.

Neither group are willing to leave.

Nodin · 31-07-2014 11:34am

AlanG wrote: »

"How should Palestine defend itself"

If they people of the occupied territories took a break from violence and started demanding full voting rights and equality withing Israel then the apartheid government in Israel would soon change their approach.

Theres been a ceasefire in the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem for years - hasn't done them much good. All major Israeli parties are committed to maintaining a Jewish majority, so theres no reason to believe they'll accede to a few million Palestinian voters any time soon.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 11:47am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Every people is entitled to their own country - who are you to deny them this?

The Gaza Strip is far, far too small to be self-sustainable, and is surrounded by Israeli territory. It's neither economically, or (in reality) politically independent. As far as I can see Gaza City has no cultural or spiritual significance, unlike Bethlehem or Jerusalem. Granting them land far in excess of what is offered in the encroached Gaza Strip would not be ... whatever you think it is.

From the Israeli point of view, the Gaza Strip is too close for comfort - with even the most primitive of rockets (potentially) able to hit Israeli cities. As such they feel entitled to invade and trample settlements in the Gaza Strip in a bid to eliminate the threat of rocket attacks (which is not actually possible).

Whenever borders are formed, "ethnic cleansing" occurs naturally along side it - but usually this is people moving of their own volition. Sometimes it comes in the form of genocide; but this is actually rare: most of the time that genocides occur where there are no borders, or separate countries, and a dominant group in a country attempts to eliminate a weaker opponent.

What Israel is doing in the West Bank (encroaching upon Palestinian territory and building settlements) is pretty reprehensible imo. I dunno... maybe you think it's a good thing?

Hell, actually your analogy is so totally atrocious I don't know where to start; but presumably you ARE against the founding of Israel, and do consider its creation by the UN to be the same as the actions of the Third Reich.

I have no issue with the foundation of the Israeli state. What I do however have an issue with is it's subsequent aggression and the fact that the people this state displaced have been living in refugee camps for 3 generations.

You are right, everybody are entitled to their own country..why not the people who were displaced and the subsequent people who have been displaced by encroachments from Israel? What of them?

Qualitymark · 31-07-2014 11:48am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I have never seen this answered: but Israel's Arab neighbours (especially Jordan and Egypt - Sinai Peninsula) have buckets of space to absorb (and even set up an independent state for) Palestinians.

But this has never happened.

Intransigence, disinterest, or sinister motive?

Surely a bit like saying "Ah sure why should Irish people have a right to live in Ireland, isn't there plenty of room in America for them. The planters are the ones who have a right to live in Ireland."

Incidentally, Victoria White has an interesting piece in the Examiner today

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/we-are-washing-our-hands-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestinians-277240.html

I've just started reading Dervla Murphy's A Month By the Sea

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Month-Sea-Encounters-Gaza-ebook/dp/B00B85PXSA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1406803917&sr=1-1&keywords=a+month+by+the+sea

(that's a Kindle link; libraries also have it), which is about her trip to Gaza in 2011.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 11:55am

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely a bit like saying "Ah sure why should Irish people have a right to live in Ireland, isn't there plenty of room in America for them. The planters are the ones who have a right to live in Ireland."

Incidentally, Victoria White has an interesting piece in the Examiner today

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/we-are-washing-our-hands-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestinians-277240.html

I've just started reading Dervla Murphy's A Month By the Sea

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Month-Sea-Encounters-Gaza-ebook/dp/B00B85PXSA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1406803917&sr=1-1&keywords=a+month+by+the+sea

(that's a Kindle link; libraries also have it), which is about her trip to Gaza in 2011.

To hell or to Connacht springs to mind, expect I can't see any Connacht in this situation.

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 12:45pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

I have no issue with the foundation of the Israeli state. What I do however have an issue with is it's subsequent aggression and the fact that the people this state displaced have been living in refugee camps for 3 generations.

You are right, everybody are entitled to their own country..why not the people who were displaced and the subsequent people who have been displaced by encroachments from Israel? What of them?

Well... yeah. But is the Gaza Strip really suitable to that end?

Most of the land that Israel grabbed at the expense of the Palestinian territories was done so when it won wars that were fought against it - wars that attempted to wipe out the Israeli state and return the entire region to Palestinians. The other land Israel grabbed (like the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights) were from its other beaten enemies (although it eventually returned the Sinai to Egypt.

I suppose you could argue that the borders should be rolled back to a position before some/all of these wars. Some people do. However, it's hard to justify the logic.

1. First it ain't ever going to happen (from a pragmatic point of view) - Israel would never agree to it.
2. Even if it did, the issue of whether Israel would be so reduced and fractured that it could be viable comes into question (which is a legitimate when looking at 1948 borders)
3. You are also left with the same problem as you did in the first place! You'd then have Jewish communities in Palestinian territories, and unless you are going to have some sort of "ethnic cleansing" there'll be rocks ahead (it was damn difficult getting them out of a small enough place as Gaza!).

The Israeli state wants to survive - which is understandable enough. Its actions which are aimed at the destruction of the pseudo-Palestinian state aren't justifiable to this end. Yet, you cannot have two countries on the same patch of land - it's literally impossible. You might be able to make a country of the West Bank... probably the best course of events... but Israel is doing a lot to make that not happen.

Nodin · 31-07-2014 12:47pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well... yeah. But is the Gaza Strip really suitable to that end?

Most of the land that Israel grabbed at the expense of the Palestinian territories was done so when it won wars that were fought against it - wars that attempted to wipe out the Israeli state and return the entire region to Palestinians. The other land Israel grabbed (like the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights) were from its other beaten enemies (although it eventually returned the Sinai to Egypt.

I suppose you could argue that the borders should be rolled back to a position before some/all of these wars. Some people do. However, it's hard to justify the logic.

1. First it ain't ever going to happen (from a pragmatic point of view) - Israel would never agree to it.
2. Even if it did, the issue of whether Israel would be so reduced and fractured that it could be viable comes into question (which is a legitimate when looking at 1948 borders)
3. You are then left in the same problem in the first place! You'd then have Jewish communities in Palestinian territories, and unless you are going to have some sort of "ethnic cleansing" there'll be rocks ahead (it was damn difficult getting them out of a small enough place as Gaza!).

The Israeli state wants to survive - which is understandable enough. Its actions which are aimed at the destruction of the pseudo-Palestinian state aren't justifiable to this end. Yet, you cannot have two countries on the same patch of land - it's literally impossible. You might be able to make a country of the West Bank... probably the best course of events... but Israel is doing a lot to make that not happen.

No idea what notion you have of Israels borders. The one they had in 1967 are viable and recognised by the international community.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 12:54pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well... yeah. But is the Gaza Strip really suitable to that end?

Most of the land that Israel grabbed at the expense of the Palestinian territories was done so when it won wars that were fought against it - wars that attempted to wipe out the Israeli state and return the entire region to Palestinians. The other land Israel grabbed (like the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights) were from its other beaten enemies (although it eventually returned the Sinai to Egypt.

I suppose you could argue that the borders should be rolled back to a position before some/all of these wars. Some people do. However, it's hard to justify the logic.

1. First it ain't ever going to happen (from a pragmatic point of view) - Israel would never agree to it.
2. Even if it did, the issue of whether Israel would be so reduced and fractured that it could be viable comes into question (which is a legitimate when looking at 1948 borders)
3. You are also left with the same problem as you did in the first place! You'd then have Jewish communities in Palestinian territories, and unless you are going to have some sort of "ethnic cleansing" there'll be rocks ahead (it was damn difficult getting them out of a small enough place as Gaza!).

The Israeli state wants to survive - which is understandable enough. Its actions which are aimed at the destruction of the pseudo-Palestinian state aren't justifiable to this end. Yet, you cannot have two countries on the same patch of land - it's literally impossible. You might be able to make a country of the West Bank... probably the best course of events... but Israel is doing a lot to make that not happen.

I would have to disagree with your statement regarding wars that were fought against it. You make it sound that Israel was the victim of these wars. Was it not Israel that started the six day war when it launched surprise attacks?

And yes Gaza is not suitable as you state. But then what's the alternative for the people there? And who are we to decide that they should leave their home...where would they go?

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 12:57pm

Nodin wrote: »

No idea what notion you have of Israels borders. The one they had in 1967 are viable and recognised by the international community.

We are de facto working off of 1967 lines... notwithstanding Israeli incursions into the West Bank

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 1:09pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

I would have to disagree with your statement regarding wars that were fought against it. You make it sound that Israel was the victim of these wars. Was it not Israel that started the six day war when it launched surprise attacks?

It's sometimes hard to quantify "victim" when there's mutual hostility and suspicion.

Arguably Egypt was the aggressor (as they were clearly gearing up for an attack, and made no bones that were more than sabre rattling) - but the Egyptians' actions were based on a misunderstanding of Israeli actions (based on inaccurate reports). So... *shrugs*

JeffKenna wrote: »

And yes Gaza is not suitable as you state. But then what's the alternative for the people there? And who are we to decide that they should leave their home...where would they go?

Well there isn't any alternative, and nowhere for Palestinian people to go, which is kind of the problem. Having an independent city state of Gaza is a nice idea - but the area is far too densely populated to make this workable, not to mention how deeply embroiled its relations with Israel are. Perhaps providing an appendage to the Gaza Strip (from the Sinai) would work, so that Palestinians could move there and ease the pressure on Gaza, but this doesn't cleanly solve the other problems that are generated by its proximity to Israel. It would be better than the current situation, however.

pO1Neil · 31-07-2014 1:10pm

There is no way for them to defend themselves. Hamas's rocket attacks against Israel are futile. It's like asking how should the people in the Warsaw Ghetto defend themselves from Nazi's,

RandomName2 · 31-07-2014 1:27pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely a bit like saying "Ah sure why should Irish people have a right to live in Ireland, isn't there plenty of room in America for them. The planters are the ones who have a right to live in Ireland."

No, not really.

And an independent state of Irish people in North America? Bit silly tbh: it's fairly far away from Ireland, fairly full of its own indigenous people, and Ireland is not terribly overpopulated.

And why do planters come into it? Planters were planted to try and culturally change the Irish - because there was no issue of ownership; it was already owned by the crown! Insofar that you can equate anything to plantation it's the Israeli settlements in the West Bank: but even this has feck all accuracy as there is a semi-independent Palestinian national legislature. Gah.

Madagascar and Peru were mooted as possible locations of Israel after WW2. *random tidbit*

comongethappy · 31-07-2014 1:28pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

There is no way for them to defend themselves. Hamas's rocket attacks against Israel are futile. ,

You'd think these guys would try something different.

If they got some antiaircraft & anti armour weapons in sufficient number instead of useless missiles , they would stand a better chance than the current tactic.

Qualitymark · 31-07-2014 1:42pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

And why do planters come into it? Planters were planted to try and culturally change the Irish - because there was no issue of ownership; it was already owned by the crown!

Ireland was only "owned by the crown" to the same doubtfully legal extent as Palestinian land is "owned by Israel".

Planters were not put there to change the Irish, but to supplant the Irish.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 3:16pm

comongethappy wrote: »

You'd think these guys would try something different.

If they got some antiaircraft & anti armour weapons in sufficient number instead of useless missiles , they would stand a better chance than the current tactic.

And where would they get them from? It's not like there Israel where only today in the news it's mentioned that the US has restocked there 'depleting ammunition supplies'.

comongethappy · 31-07-2014 3:26pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

And where would they get them from? It's not like there Israel where only today in the news it's mentioned that the US has restocked there 'depleting ammunition supplies'.

Quite possibly the same place they get their larger rockets.... Who knows... It's a big world.

Fact is though, the IDF has taken casualties when Hamas & others counter attack their armour.

Lobbing unguided rockets at nowhere is so inept, one assumes their ineptitude is on purpose.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 3:30pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's sometimes hard to quantify "victim" when there's mutual hostility and suspicion.

Arguably Egypt was the aggressor (as they were clearly gearing up for an attack, and made no bones that were more than sabre rattling) - but the Egyptians' actions were based on a misunderstanding of Israeli actions (based on inaccurate reports). So... *shrugs*

Well there isn't any alternative, and nowhere for Palestinian people to go, an independent city state of Gaza is a nice idea - but the area is far too densely populated to make this workable, not to mention how deeply embroiled its relations with Israel are. Perhaps providing an appendage to the Gaza Strip (from the Sinai) would work, so that Palestinians could move there and ease the pressure on Gaza, but this doesn't cleanly solve the other problems that are generated by its proximity to Israel. It would be better than the current situation, however.

Indeed it is sometimes hard to quantify who the 'victim' in any conflict is. Reading some sources, even looking at posts here, in the current conflict you'd swear Israel are the 'victims'. I've heard the phrase '1400 rockets' god knows how many times. 'Right to defend' themselves is also a phrase I'm hearing over and over again. This just doesn't stack up when 3 Israeli civilians have been killed yet 1300 on the other side. Even forget about the dead, what about the zero Israeli people displaced from their homes in the last few weeks versus 200k.

While I do think that Hamas are wrong for firing rockets I'm not sure what Israel wants them to do. Even before this conflict how many times have we heard the Israeli army going into refugee camps and opening fire with tanks?

And also it was somewhat of a rhetorical question asking where will the Palestinian people go. There is no where for them to go. All they can do is wait for the next bomb to fall and hopefully (for their sake and in my opinion) they'll die quickly as opposed to being left to live with there arms and legs blown off.

JeffKenna · 31-07-2014 3:34pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Quite possibly the same place they get their larger rockets.... Who knows... It's a big world.

Fact is though, the IDF has taken casualties when Hamas & others counter attack their armour.

Lobbing unguided rockets at nowhere is so inept, one assumes their ineptitude is on purpose.

They don't have the technology or money for guided rockets!

In any case, the most advanced equipment in the world appears to be killing kids playing on the beach and innocent civilians taking refuge...I'm not sure they are all that there cracked up to be!!

comongethappy · 31-07-2014 3:45pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

They don't have the technology or money for guided rockets!

That's my point.... Unguided do so little and are so innefective, Hamas must truely be stupid to consider it a viable tactic.

If they want to hurt the IDF they have to do something else.

In any case, the most advanced equipment in the world appears to be killing kids playing on the beach and innocent civilians taking refuge...I'm not sure they are all that there cracked up to be!!

Not sure what that means?

The way I see it, if a tank or APC is invading your territory, an RPG is a better option than an unguided rocket going nowhere.

If a drone has your land under constant surveillance & harassment a stinger missile is a better option than yet another failed rocket fired at nowhere.

Its like Hamas want to lose.

R P McMurphy · 31-07-2014 4:07pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, not really.

And an independent state of Irish people in North America? Bit silly tbh: it's fairly far away from Ireland, fairly full of its own indigenous people, and Ireland is not terribly overpopulated.

And why do planters come into it? Planters were planted to try and culturally change the Irish - because there was no issue of ownership; it was already owned by the crown! Insofar that you can equate anything to plantation it's the Israeli settlements in the West Bank: but even this has feck all accuracy as there is a semi-independent Palestinian national legislature. Gah.

Madagascar and Peru were mooted as possible locations of Israel after WW2. *random tidbit*

Uganda was the first proposal by the British but that was flatly rejected by the zionist movement at the time.

shedweller · 31-07-2014 4:12pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Uganda was the first proposal by the British but that was flatly rejected by the zionist movement at the time.

Why, i wonder?

Hitchens · 31-07-2014 4:32pm

Golda Meir once said, "if we Jews are so smart, why did we settle in the only part of the Middle East with no oil"?

Nodin · 31-07-2014 4:59pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

We are de facto working off of 1967 lines... notwithstanding Israeli incursions into the West Bank

Theres nothing unsustainable about the Israeli state thus outlined.

esteve · 31-07-2014 7:47pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Hamas must truly be stupid to consider it a viable tactic.

If they want to hurt the IDF they have to do something else.

I think it is more desperation than ineptness and stupidity. I mean its hardly a level playing field. The IDF is massive and has nuclear capability. Hamas are operating out of Gaza,a tiny strip of land that is closed from all sides. I think probably just getting your hands on any type of weaponry is difficult whereas for Israel, well that goes without saying.

I will say that it seems Hamas have changed their strategy. They still fire rockets into Israel but the introduction of the Iron Drone system seems to have made that even more futile. Instead they have expanded their tunnel network and are going into Israeli and attacking military posts.

Not only is this far more effective, they are killing more military personnel and less civilians and this makes Israel very unhappy.

comongethappy wrote: »

The way I see it, if a tank or APC is invading your territory, an RPG is a better option than an unguided rocket going nowhere.

Its like Hamas want to lose.

Yeah I would agree with you but I do not think it is down to stupidity or lack of desire. Go into Gaza and start handing out RPGs and they will bite your hand off. I am sure they would love some heavy military hardware and would then have a different strategy, but come on. The reality is the military unit of Hamas is not an army, and compared against Israel, well they really is no comparison.

The army who is acting rather stupidly from a humanitarian point of view is the IDF. They seem to be disregarding international law and acting as they wish, as long as they destroy this new tunnel network which has been quite effective in killing IDF soldiers.

They have no regard for the civilians in Palestine and that is so abundantly clear. The keep on repeating the human/miitray shield line and use such ridiculous words as rockets were fired near to/in the vicinity of/next to,/in the area of/in the proximity to the school.

Even if they were firing rockets close by, why did they shell the school. Even if there were members of Hamas in the school (which there weren't), there were thousands of women and children also, and the IDF knew this. They are acting no better than Hamas by willingly shelling a school.

I don't know why Hamas would use human shields as it doesn't work cos Israel will still fire on you even if you have civilans around you.

How should Palestine defend itself?

Comments