Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How should Palestine defend itself?
Options
Comments
-
I understand why people prefer to talk about anything other than the topic given their options. It's important to note, I don't actually expect anyone to admit to having no valid response. That never happens. But it would be nice someone thinks a *little* harder about the conflict than just "Israel= Evil!" "Palestine = Good!".
Israel = Blood thirsty liars. Hamas = Blood thirsty fools. Palestine = Between rock and hard place. Arguing in favour of Israel's bombing of Palestine = Hoodwinked and ugly. Arguing in favour of Hamas right to fight back = naive and ugly.
Israel isn't interested in offering a working solution for peace, they're most interested in pushing the Palestinians into the sea. Hamas aren't interested in peace, they're most interested in martyring themselves. The rest of the Palestinian people, they're paying the price in innocent lives.
Here's an interesting piece saying Netanyahu may have bitten off more than he can chew:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/will-gaza-topple-netanyahu-2014725144216942703.html
It seems the current situation may burn itself out but there's the danger that Netanyahu will be replaced by even harder right-wingers.
Here's an idea of how low the Israeli government is willing to go:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html
More of the lies they spread:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-netanyahu-says-hamas-using-rising-death-toll-to-make-israel-look-bad-9617583.html
I think whoever dreamed up the idea of martyrdom may have been hoping the needs of the many will be served by the sacrifices of the few. The doctrine of "no surrender at any cost" is hard to win against for those who can't stomach high numbers of casualties so it looks like it's inevitable that Israel will be forced to negotiate for peace eventually but the question is, how many innocents have to die for that to happen?0 -
Israel = Blood thirsty liars. Hamas = Blood thirsty fools. Palestine = Between rock and hard place. Arguing in favour of Israel's bombing of Palestine = Hoodwinked and ugly. Arguing in favour of Hamas right to fight back = naive and ugly.
Israel isn't interested in offering a working solution for peace, they're most interested in pushing the Palestinians into the sea. Hamas aren't interested in peace, they're most interested in martyring themselves. The rest of the Palestinian people, they're paying the price in innocent lives.
Here's an interesting piece saying Netanyahu may have bitten off more than he can chew:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/will-gaza-topple-netanyahu-2014725144216942703.html
It seems the current situation may burn itself out but there's the danger that Netanyahu will be replaced by even harder right-wingers.
Here's an idea of how low the Israeli government is willing to go:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html
More of the lies they spread:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-netanyahu-says-hamas-using-rising-death-toll-to-make-israel-look-bad-9617583.html
I think whoever dreamed up the idea of martyrdom may have been hoping the needs of the many will be served by the sacrifices of the few. The doctrine of "no surrender at any cost" is hard to win against for those who can't stomach high numbers of casualties so it looks like it's inevitable that Israel will be forced to negotiate for peace eventually but the question is, how many innocents have to die for that to happen?
really? what would be the basis for that conclusion?0 -
really? what would be the basis for that conclusion?
it is inevitable that some day the Zionist aggressor will be forced,and it will only come by force as Israel has no intention of any cessation of this genocide until the Palestinian people are wiped from the earth,through diplomatic,academic,sporting,economic and cultural pressure.if you compare the current situation with that of apartheid south Africa,as this is effectively apartheid of a similar and at times a much more heinous nature,you will learn from history that the movement took decades to achieve victory.it took the leadership of F.W de Klerk then,hope was on the horizon with Yitzhak Rabin but the Zionists shot him dead in 1995.his crime,wanting a peaceful solution with Palestine.0 -
@esteve
If I were you, I'd edit that last bit. It verges into attacking the poster which is against the rules.
And so far, nobody has in anyway demonstrated they are well read on the subject matter. They've demonstrated that they are angry (and perhaps justifiably) and that they are biased, but not that they are well read on the conflict.
@Nodin
I'm sure you can rationalise your bias. Everyone can. However, the objective reality is that Israel has been quick to embrace cease fire proposals and peace efforts, whereas Hamas have gone on record that they will not support a >>>>ceasefire unless they get concessions.
I saw an interesting comment earlier today that noted that right-wingers find it hard to acknowledge the science for global warming, because the state is going to be a big part of the solution with its ability to set laws, regulations and minimum standards. Right wingers don't like the state, or state driven solutions, so wilfully ignore the science for global warming.
When it comes to acknowledging that Israel has been most willing to agree and hold to a ceasefire, do you think it present similar difficulties for those who are supportive of the Palestinian side?
From what I have read, Hamas will agree to a ceasefire when blockades are lifted. Thats all Israel has to agree to. Treat it like an independent state and give it the chance for independence. And Israel wont agree. Why?0 -
So far people would much rather talk about Israel's status under international law since 1967, Israeli recognition of Palestine, the validity of the 1967 borders and now who started the Six Day war.
It is a bit odd..people do like to talk about it, only because to some it is important, however to you it seems irrelevant right now. I am at ends to understand how you can dismiss it in the context of the discussion of Israel and Palestine as surely it has some relevance, if at least to the thread at hand. Maybe to you what happened in 1967 is simply not important, but to many and obviously as part of the debate, it is extremely important. Such dismissal of this issue..well i don't really know what to say, you cant just brush aside something that is s central to this issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
really? what would be the basis for that conclusion?
Imo Israel will eventually negotiate some sort of a peace settlement. IDF will push Palestinians all the way to the sea but stop short of actually driving them into the sea.
They can act with a free hand from the rest of the world with their current strategy, completely wiping out Palestine would be a step too far (although by then it would be too late for Palestinian civilians.
If Israel push all the way to the sea and some form of settlement is agreed in time Hamas will then begin to push back. End result being the vicious cycle begins again with innocent civilians paying the price.0 -
I think whoever dreamed up the idea of martyrdom may have been hoping the needs of the many will be served by the sacrifices of the few. The doctrine of "no surrender at any cost" is hard to win against for those who can't stomach high numbers of casualties so it looks like it's inevitable that Israel will be forced to negotiate for peace eventually but the question is, how many innocents have to die for that to happen?
I don't disagree with the post overall, but I think you underestimate the level to which the Israelis are much more comfortable with high numbers of Palestinian casualties than the Palestinians themselves are. The Israelis after all rationalise their entire military action on the basis of protecting their own civilians, and they will prioritise them over any number of Palestinians.
I've yet to see or hear of a war won via taking so many civilian casualties that the other side feels sorry for you.
@SeaBreezesFrom what I have read, Hamas will agree to a ceasefire when blockades are lifted. That's all Israel has to agree to. Treat it like an independent state and give it the chance for independence. And Israel wont agree. Why?
That goes back to my original point which provoked such outrage - Hamas will not agree to a ceasefire until it gets certain concessions. Until that point it will accept the suffering and deaths of Palestinian civilians and children as a price worth paying. That the suffering and death is tolerable.
On the other hand, we are told that the immediate and absolute priority is to end the suffering and deaths of Palestinian civilians and children. That it is intolerable. That everything else - including the blockade - is secondary. I agree. Lets have a ceasefire tomorrow. All Hamas have to agree to do is stop firing rockets at Israel. Then the conflict stops, and no one else dies.
And Hamas wont agree. Why?
Lets face it - the OP's premise is flawed. Hamas is not defending Palestine, so the how or the exploration of their right to do so is not really relevant. Hamas doesn't try to ease or end the suffering of the Palestinian people. It publicises it instead for foreign consumption. Hamas expends great efforts digging tunnels to cross the Israeli border to try and attack isolated patrols or settlements, but seems to waste no time digging shelters or bunkers for their civilians?
Hamas is spending their suffering to try and buy concessions. It is an extremely cynical move.0 -
Hamas will not agree to a ceasefire until it gets certain concessions. Until that point it will accept the suffering and deaths of Palestinian civilians and children as a price worth paying. That the suffering and death is tolerable.
Your logic is truly outstanding. It is Israel who is killing Palestinian civilians, not Hamas. Whether or not Hamas will 'accept' this suffering is not really relevant.
The fact that Hamas want a truce with pre-defined conditions makes sense. What they don't want is a truce where the conditions have been set by Israel and the US. Who would enter into an agreement, in any context, where you have no input on the conditions of that agreement? It makes no sense, it is illogical
The simplified solution portrayed that if Hamas stop firing rockets, there will be peace is simply not true and looking at history provides clear and undeniable evidence of this.0 -
Your logic is truly outstanding. It is Israel who is killing Palestinian civilians, not Hamas. Whether or not Hamas will 'accept' this suffering is not really relevant.
The fact that Hamas want a truce with pre-defined conditions makes sense. What they don't want is a truce where the conditions have been set by Israel and the US. Who would enter into an agreement, in any context, where you have no input on the conditions of that agreement? It makes no sense, it is illogical
The simplified solution portrayed that if Hamas stop firing rockets, there will be peace is simply not true and looking at history provides clear and undeniable evidence of this.
should hamas then continue firing 'rockets' in your view?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
really? what would be the basis for that conclusion?
On the idea that the situation is unwinnable for Israel because Hamas will never give up and as such more Israeli casualties are inevitable. Whereas Israel has no problems with unlimited Palestinian casualties, it takes relatively little of their own before they lose their appetite. Evidence for this is in the links provided.I don't disagree with the post overall, but I think you underestimate the level to which the Israelis are much more comfortable with high numbers of Palestinian casualties than the Palestinians themselves are. The Israelis after all rationalise their entire military action on the basis of protecting their own civilians, and they will prioritise them over any number of Palestinians.
Most Israelis don't give a toss for Palestinian lives, not many of them are expressing concern right now. It seems they're only concerned for their own casualties. They don't rationalise the current situation in terms of protecting themselves, that's just a made up excuse. The invasion is based on a lie and they're continuing to lie to keep it going. This is how they "rationalise" it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html
Here's the "Dictionary:"
www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Israel-Projects-2009-Global-Language-Dictionary
Even a cursory glance is enough to expose their talking heads as following a script. They know what to say to or how to avoid every question. Israel lies.I've yet to see or hear of a war won via taking so many civilian casualties that the other side feels sorry for you.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. You can't win against a population that would rather die than give in. The Vietnamese kept fighting even though they believed they'd never win. Afghanistan is vast and the terrain makes it very hard for enemy logistics, that was a bonus for them and a insurmountable obstacle for the yanks and the Russians. Iraq seemed to have an endless supply of jihadis and now the yanks are gone, ISIS seem to be rolling through Iraq like a bad dose of salts. The way things are going, Israel might end up with ISIS on their doorstep in the near future but before that, I'd be surprised if they don't have their own influx of jihadis to deal with seeing as they are now the biggest infidels on the block. Even without that, Israeli casualties are inevitable and that's something the population won't stomach.@SeaBreezes
That goes back to my original point which provoked such outrage - Hamas will not agree to a ceasefire until it gets certain concessions. Until that point it will accept the suffering and deaths of Palestinian civilians and children as a price worth paying. That the suffering and death is tolerable.
Suffering and death is actually desirable when it's rewarded with paradise.On the other hand, we are told that the immediate and absolute priority is to end the suffering and deaths of Palestinian civilians and children. That it is intolerable. That everything else - including the blockade - is secondary. I agree. Lets have a ceasefire tomorrow. All Hamas have to agree to do is stop firing rockets at Israel. Then the conflict stops, and no one else dies.
And Hamas wont agree. Why?
Because a ceasefire without guarantee of a safe secure future for them and their children is an absolute minimum that the Israelis are incapable of considering.Lets face it - the OP's premise is flawed. Hamas is not defending Palestine, so the how or the exploration of their right to do so is not really relevant. Hamas doesn't try to ease or end the suffering of the Palestinian people. It publicises it instead for foreign consumption. Hamas expends great efforts digging tunnels to cross the Israeli border to try and attack isolated patrols or settlements, but seems to waste no time digging shelters or bunkers for their civilians?
Hamas is spending their suffering to try and buy concessions. It is an extremely cynical move.
Well it's extremely unfortunate that it's the only move open to them. You seem to be trying to understand the situation through a western moral framework which simply doesn't apply. Hamas know the only thing Israel can't stomach is their own casualties and they're happy to die and be rewarded with paradise in order to impose those casualties. Apparently the Israeli population wasn't too happy about the cessation of foreign flights in to their airport so economic terrorism might be an option but there mightn't be sufficient paradise rewarded for that for Hamas to consider it.should hamas then continue firing 'rockets' in your view?
Hamas will continue to fire rockets until they get a meaningful agreement and that means a safe secure future for them and their children. That's the minimum, it always is in such conflicts.0 -
Here you go, to those who believe Israel have a right to go in to Gaza in order to "defend" themselves, this is what you're supporting:
http://www.channel4.com/news/the-children-of-gaza-jon-snow-video
That's sickening, isn't it? There can be no justification for it, none whatsoever. Palestinian rockets make no difference to Israel thanks to the U.S. so saying they must go in to Gaza to remove them is a nonsense argument. Again, they're just poking the hornets nest so they can tell the rest of the world they're defending themselves while in actual fact they're busily ethnically cleansing Gaza.0 -
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. You can't win against a population that would rather die than give in.
All of those wars were fought far away from the home-front. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't conflicts that any foreign power could win or lose. They were and are civil wars and have persisted and will persist after foreign forces exit.
The Israel - Palestine is a different conflict: for starters, the US population couldn't see a dire or immediate threat to their security if they withdrew from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Israelis can see a dire and immediate threat - a genocidal threat.Even without that, Israeli casualties are inevitable and that's something the population won't stomach.
They've been stomaching them so far. Again, like I said above, for the Israelis the conflict isn't happening far away, its on their doorstep. And Hamas and the Palestinians aren't offering any reasonable alternative to the conflict so there is no other option other than to stomach the casualties.
Underestimating the resolve of the Israelis would be a serious strategic error, one of many the Palestinians and Arab states have made over the past few decades.Well it's extremely unfortunate that it's the only move open to them.
It's not the only option they have open to them. Blinkered thinking that only see violence as the only possible option has led them to this point. Right now the Palestinians are trying to recover the 1967 borders as a minimum. They *had* the 1967 borders then, but they lost them by similar blinkered thinking "We have no option but conflict" and now they would regard getting back to 1967 lines as a huge victory.
Israel has a massive, overwhelming military superiority. Israel won. The Palestinians lost. It's sad, but that's the reality and generation after generation of glorious blood sacrifice egged on by facebookers far away offers no real chance for Palestinian prosperity. The Palestinians need to start prioritising what is important to them. If it is achieve sovereign control of their own borders and prosperity for their people, great. But that means they need to then stop harbouring militant groups whose priority is to uselessly fire rockets into Israel. They cant have both.You seem to be trying to understand the situation through a western moral framework which simply doesn't apply.
Am I not being asked to understand the situation through a western moral framework? "Children are being killed, this is terrible. It must be stopped". I reply, okay - lets stop it then. And I'm told: no, no, western morality doesn't apply here. So why is children being killed terrible then? Clearly doesn't seem terrible enough for the Palestinian leadership and families to declare a ceasefire - why should it matter more to me than to their own families? If they're willing to accept their children's deaths for a few concessions then I guess that is their business. Right?
That is the incompatibility that Palestinian supporters don't want to examine too much - its hard to support Hamas rejection of a ceasefire and yet maintain civilian casualties cannot be tolerated.Hamas know the only thing Israel can't stomach is their own casualties and they're happy to die and be rewarded with paradise in order to impose those casualties.
Yup, they *know* this. They are the inheritors of a long line of Palestinian leaders and strategic thinkers who have overseen the reduction of the Palestinian people from the 1967 borders to essentially besieged ghettos in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
Really, really, really top class statesmen.0 -
All of those wars were fought far away from the home-front. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't conflicts that any foreign power could win or lose. They were and are civil wars and have persisted and will persist after foreign forces exit.
The Israel - Palestine is a different conflict: for starters, the US population couldn't see a dire or immediate threat to their security if they withdrew from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Israelis can see a dire and immediate threat - a genocidal threat.
.
If they can see a genocidal threat in Hamas or Fatah, they need glasses.
Your notion of the current position of Palestinian negotiators at least on the Fatah side is far from the reality.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession
I was unaware that it was Palestinian negotiators that were to blame for continued settlement expansion.0 -
RTÉ apologises for ‘confusion caused’ by Gaza woman footage
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/rte-gaza-woman-1591326-Jul2014/0 -
RTÉ apologises for ‘confusion caused’ by Gaza woman footage
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/rte-gaza-woman-1591326-Jul2014/
see this is just the kind of situation that boils my blood.what rte have to gain by collaborating with the Zionist propaganda machine I will never know0 -
RTÉ apologises for ‘confusion caused’ by Gaza woman footage
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/rte-gaza-woman-1591326-Jul2014/
Rather bizarre. Why did they not show her saying what she said? That being said I think it more a result of sloppiness than conspiracy.0 -
All of those wars were fought far away from the home-front. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't conflicts that any foreign power could win or lose. They were and are civil wars and have persisted and will persist after foreign forces exit.
There wasn't civil war in Iraq before the yanks marched in, there was a dictator holding the peace through fear and brutality, he was removed and now there's civil war. What was going on in Vietnam before the yanks went in was going on for a long time, I don't know enough about it to say it was civil war but I don't think there was civil war after the yanks left. Afghanistan wasn't at war with itself before the yanks went in there either. The Taliban were in control, through fear and brutality. We're not hearing much about what's going on in there right now so I don't now if that can be classed as civil war. The fact that the aggressors in these wars were from far away actually is a boon to them. The fact that Israel is fighting a war on their doorstep is not to their advantage and makes it harder for their army and population to stomach. This has been common military knowledge for thousands of years, you'll find it in Sun Tsu's Art of War. You asked for examples of unwinnable wars, you got them, you choose to ignore them. The fact still remains they were unwinnable.The Israel - Palestine is a different conflict: for starters, the US population couldn't see a dire or immediate threat to their security if they withdrew from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Israelis can see a dire and immediate threat - a genocidal threat.
The U.S. population was fired up by fear of communism which they did perceive as a dire and immediate threat. Yes Israel sees a dire and immediate threat but it is purely imagined. If they take their boot of Palestine's neck and allow them to live in peace, they might actually realise this. Israel is still frightened from the genocide of WW2 and have vowed to never let it happen again. They fail to see that this fear is their real enemy and as such are doomed if they continue to be ruled by it.They've been stomaching them so far. Again, like I said above, for the Israelis the conflict isn't happening far away, its on their doorstep. And Hamas and the Palestinians aren't offering any reasonable alternative to the conflict so there is no other option other than to stomach the casualties.
Again, the fact that they're waging war on their doorstep is not an advantage to them, it's a huge disadvantage. Hamas and the Palestinians can't offer anything reasonable because the only thing the Israelis want is the land they stand on and you can hardly contend that it's reasonable for the Palestinians to offer that up.Underestimating the resolve of the Israelis would be a serious strategic error, one of many the Palestinians and Arab states have made over the past few decades.
You're confusing resolve with ability. Israeli governments have been toppled for allowing relatively low casualty rates. This was in a link I provided before but I'll extract the piece and put it here:many Jewish-Israelis are highly sensitive to their own losses - both real and perceived. There is a low tolerance for battlefield deaths - and an even lower tolerance for the capture of troops by enemy forces. Both factors have contributed to the dissolution of more than one government in Israeli history and to the end of several political careers. For example, Amir Peretz was acting Minister of Defence in 2006.
He presided over the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during which Hezbollah fighters succeeded in killing 121 Israeli troops. Eight years later, he is mostly an obscure figure who elicits expressions of loathing from members of the public.
Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/will-gaza-topple-netanyahu-2014725144216942703.htmlIt's not the only option they have open to them. Blinkered thinking that only see violence as the only possible option has led them to this point. Right now the Palestinians are trying to recover the 1967 borders as a minimum. They *had* the 1967 borders then, but they lost them by similar blinkered thinking "We have no option but conflict" and now they would regard getting back to 1967 lines as a huge victory.
You're absolutely right but the blinkered thinking that has led to this point is present on both sides of the divide. The 1967 borders are irrelevant, Hamas will settle for a meaningful peace and again that means a safe and secure future for them and their children. That is the minimum.Israel has a massive, overwhelming military superiority. Israel won. The Palestinians lost. It's sad, but that's the reality and generation after generation of glorious blood sacrifice egged on by facebookers far away offers no real chance for Palestinian prosperity. The Palestinians need to start prioritising what is important to them. If it is achieve sovereign control of their own borders and prosperity for their people, great. But that means they need to then stop harbouring militant groups whose priority is to uselessly fire rockets into Israel. They cant have both.
Facebookers far away aren't egging Hamas on, Israel is. What is important to the Palestinians, like everyone else around the world, is a safe secure future for them and their children.Am I not being asked to understand the situation through a western moral framework? "Children are being killed, this is terrible. It must be stopped". I reply, okay - lets stop it then. And I'm told: no, no, western morality doesn't apply here. So why is children being killed terrible then? Clearly doesn't seem terrible enough for the Palestinian leadership and families to declare a ceasefire - why should it matter more to me than to their own families? If they're willing to accept their children's deaths for a few concessions then I guess that is their business. Right?
That is the incompatibility that Palestinian supporters don't want to examine too much - its hard to support Hamas rejection of a ceasefire and yet maintain civilian casualties cannot be tolerated.
Yup, they *know* this. They are the inheritors of a long line of Palestinian leaders and strategic thinkers who have overseen the reduction of the Palestinian people from the 1967 borders to essentially besieged ghettos in the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
Really, really, really top class statesmen.
The immorality of the murder of innocent children isn't peculiar to western morality, it's universal. When you have a foreign army who willfully murder your children, you're going to stand up and fight back and if your religion advocates the murder of the aggressors, that's how you will choose to fight back. The deaths of these children only serves to inflame the conflict and saying that Hamas is guilty for this is asinine. Those children have no future without a meaningful peace and Palestine knows this, as far as they're concerned Israel is going to kill them eventually, one way or the other.
You seem to think that Israel would've been happy to stop at their 1967 borders but there is zero proof to back that up. All their actions since then show otherwise. Hamas is happy to resort to violence because it's part of their religion, it's that simple. Violence is also part of Judaism. Both sides have blood on their hands, that's indisputable. To say that the ball is in Hamas' court is absurd, only one side has the power to offer a real and meaningful solution for peace and it certainly isn't the Palestinians because they have nothing to offer other than what is obvious and inevitable if the Israelis stop murdering them. Israel isn't interested, they only want the land minus the Palestinians.
Now you may be inured to the murder of innocents but if so, then on some level you have to accept that the murder of your children is also acceptable so long as the aggressor can come up with a suitably smart and truthy sounding argument. I know, laughable.
I seriously have to ask, are you one of these?:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/students-offered-scholarships-for-proisrael-posts-on-social-media-30462518.html0 -
Yes Israel sees a dire and immediate threat but it is purely imagined.
Hardly. You might believe it is exaggerated, but imaginary? You said yourself in the very same post "Hamas is happy to resort to violence because it's part of their religion, it's that simple. "
Is Hamas going to convert or something?If they take their boot of Palestine's neck and allow them to live in peace, they might actually realise this.
The Israeli treatment of Gaza and the West Bank has been poor, but Hamas in particular hasn't in any way demonstrated that they want to live in peace with Israel. Quite the opposite.The only thing the Israelis want is the land they stand on and you can hardly contend that it's reasonable for the Palestinians to offer that up.
The three things Israel wants is democratic government, a clear Jewish Israeli majority in that democracy, and peace with their neighbours. The first two aims require the existence of a sovereign Palestinian state. The last is leverage that competent Palestinian leadership could use to achieve a sovereign Palestinian state.You're confusing resolve with ability. Israeli governments have been toppled for allowing relatively low casualty rates. This was in a link I provided before but I'll extract the piece and put it here:
Casualties in that conflict didn't cause Israeli dissent. Military incompetence did. The leadership of the Lebanon incursion was widely viewed as being very poor. The Israelis take their defence extremely serious so have absolutely no tolerance for incompetent leadership (The British, for comparisons sake, seem to either promote their failed generals, or better still deny the incompetence). That's why your example was ditched.
Just to demonstrate, Israeli military casualties for the below conflicts that were stomached:
Sinai War: 231
Six Day War: 776
Yom Kippur War: 2,656
First Lebanon War: 675
Second Intifada: 332
I think the current Israeli military deaths for the Gaza conflict are less than 40? You'll be waiting an awful long time for the figure to hit a level the Israelis wont stomach, so I'd really hope the Palestinians have a better plan than: "Lets sit here, get the **** kicked out of us, and wait for them to surrender!"The 1967 borders are irrelevant, Hamas will settle for a meaningful peace and again that means a safe and secure future for them and their children. That is the minimum.
Well, that's good - I was told on the last page that the 1967 borders were the minimum. At least there is more realism here. However, if Hamas want peace then they should hold a ceasefire and end the rocket attacks. There is going to be no grand bargain where Israel goes from today being rocketed daily by Hamas, and then tomorrow recognises their full sovereignty. There will need to be a series of intermediate and trust building steps.
The first step, which is in the interests of the Palestinians themselves, is to declare a persistent ceasefire.What is important to the Palestinians, like everyone else around the world, is a safe secure future for them and their children.
Doesn't seem to be if they are unwilling to hold to a ceasefire without concessions.The immorality of the murder of innocent children isn't peculiar to western morality, it's universal.
So, why doesn't Hamas do its part to end that murder by declaring a ceasefire? You cant have it both ways. Either ending the murder of kids is a priority...or its not. Right now, for Hamas, it is clearly not a priority. Especially when they think those deaths give them leverage in negotiations.You seem to think that Israel would've been happy to stop at their 1967 borders but there is zero proof to back that up. All their actions since then show otherwise.
We'll never know. Certainly zionist factions within Israel had a "sea to shining sea" vision of Israel. And still do. And the 1967 borders were always going to be difficult to defend from hostile neighbours. But I think a public Arab defence pact, plus a Soviet-American guarantee would have kept Israel on the right side of the border.
What we do know is that the Arab states repeatedly attempted to breach the 1967 borders, and got beaten badly each time. As part the consequences, those 1967 borders are no longer up for discussion.Now you may be inured to the murder of innocents but if so, then on some level you have to accept that the murder of your children is also acceptable so long as the aggressor can come up with a suitably smart and truthy sounding argument. I know, laughable.
If the aggressor cannot be contested with militarily, and all they wanted was a ceasefire - I'd sign the ceasefire.I seriously have to ask, are you one of these?:
No - I completed my degree long ago so they're not selling anything I'm interested in. I'm not even pro-Israeli. All I've done is point out the rather hysterical "Israel=Bad", "Palestine=Good" claims are uninformed or hypocritical. Because the views of so many other contributors are so extreme, any moderate view is immediately seen as hostile - if you're not with us, you're against us.
Far as I'm concerned the Israelis have contributed to their own problem by undermining and failing to engage with moderate Palestinian leadership when they had the chance. Long term, they want a prosperous, peaceful Palestine that is not shooting rockets at them, but they keep falling into short term thinking. I saw an article that made a very good point that the Israelis have taken 40+ actual casualties in a conflict they undertook to avoid taking *possible* casualties.
It is possible to stand back and say "A plague on both your houses".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hardly. You might believe it is exaggerated, but imaginary? You said yourself in the very same post "Hamas is happy to resort to violence because it's part of their religion, it's that simple. "
Is Hamas going to convert or something?
Yes, they'll keep using violence so long as Israel does. Once Israel stops using violence and enters into meaningful negotiations, Hamas will stop using weapons and enter into meaningful negotiations. The key word here is "meaningful" because there haven't been so far. Go check out the hullbaloo over the leaked documents that's brewing up all over the internet.The Israeli treatment of Gaza and the West Bank has been poor, but Hamas in particular hasn't in any way demonstrated that they want to live in peace with Israel. Quite the opposite.
History has demonstrated this over and over. It's what happened up north, in the Balkans, Somalia, etc, etc. No matter what one side claims their minimums are, it's always peace that wins out. They don't have to like each other, just respect each other's right to exist and to a safe and secure future for each other and their children.The three things Israel wants is democratic government, a clear Jewish Israeli majority in that democracy, and peace with their neighbours. The first two aims require the existence of a sovereign Palestinian state. The last is leverage that competent Palestinian leadership could use to achieve a sovereign Palestinian state.
What Israel says it wants and what it actually wants are two extremely different things. Israel lies, this is an obvious fact that has to be accepted. Their actions are the real clue to what they want. In their schools they teach their children to hate Palestinians, that's not the action of anyone who wants peace with their neighbours. Sure they want a majority and it seems they're happier to use ethnic cleansing to that end instead of allowing a sovereign Palestinian state so there goes that leverage.Casualties in that conflict didn't cause Israeli dissent. Military incompetence did. The leadership of the Lebanon incursion was widely viewed as being very poor. The Israelis take their defence extremely serious so have absolutely no tolerance for incompetent leadership (The British, for comparisons sake, seem to either promote their failed generals, or better still deny the incompetence). That's why your example was ditched.
Just to demonstrate, Israeli military casualties for the below conflicts that were stomached:
Sinai War: 231
Six Day War: 776
Yom Kippur War: 2,656
First Lebanon War: 675
Second Intifada: 332
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Sinai, Six Day, Yom Kippur and the First Lebanon war don't compare as they were against other nations' standing armies. The Second Intifada may have been fought solely against Palestinians but it went on for years so the casualties were spread out. Again, Israel is fighting an unwinnable war and that can hardly be called competent.I think the current Israeli military deaths for the Gaza conflict are less than 40? You'll be waiting an awful long time for the figure to hit a level the Israelis wont stomach, so I'd really hope the Palestinians have a better plan than: "Lets sit here, get the **** kicked out of us, and wait for them to surrender!"
That's the only plan they can have, either the Israelis lose their stomach for it which I think is actually now a possibility in the face of mounting international opinion against them.Well, that's good - I was told on the last page that the 1967 borders were the minimum. At least there is more realism here. However, if Hamas want peace then they should hold a ceasefire and end the rocket attacks. There is going to be no grand bargain where Israel goes from today being rocketed daily by Hamas, and then tomorrow recognises their full sovereignty. There will need to be a series of intermediate and trust building steps.
The first step, which is in the interests of the Palestinians themselves, is to declare a persistent ceasefire.
The Israelis will have to declare that ceasefire because if Hamas declares it, the IDF will still continue to use the excuse of hunting out rockets and tunnels to destroy more of the Palestinians' homes and possibly create more "collateral damage," that just won't fly.Doesn't seem to be if they are unwilling to hold to a ceasefire without concessions.
Meaningful peace always wins out through public opinion. It goes like this: Underdog says "We'll never stop until every last one of you is dead or gone and we have our country for ourselves!" Agressor says "but what if we take our boot off your neck and allow you to build a peaceful society with a working economy and a bright future for your children?" Underdog says "what you mean we no longer have to live in fear of being blown up on our way to school or work and will have a house to come home to at the end of the day!?" Agressor says "yup, pretty much..." Underdog says "oh ok, shake hands on it?" And they all live happily ever after except for the extremely militant minority but each side keeps them in check and works diligently to remove them from society. That's how it always works. Eventually this is what Israel is going to have to offer if they actually want to live in peace with the Palestinians. That's borne out through history.So, why doesn't Hamas do its part to end that murder by declaring a ceasefire? You cant have it both ways. Either ending the murder of kids is a priority...or its not. Right now, for Hamas, it is clearly not a priority. Especially when they think those deaths give them leverage in negotiations.
Again because Israel isn't interested in a ceasefire, they want the land minus the Palestinians. So long as Israel is willing to murder Palestinians wholesale including children, Hamas will continue to fight back and fire their useless rockets. Israel knows this, they can't not know it because it's so obvious. Israel is even willing to bomb UN hospitals, that's how brazen they are.We'll never know. Certainly zionist factions within Israel had a "sea to shining sea" vision of Israel. And still do. And the 1967 borders were always going to be difficult to defend from hostile neighbours. But I think a public Arab defence pact, plus a Soviet-American guarantee would have kept Israel on the right side of the border.
What we do know is that the Arab states repeatedly attempted to breach the 1967 borders, and got beaten badly each time. As part the consequences, those 1967 borders are no longer up for discussion
No we'll never know and it'd be nice to think that maybe there was hope that it could all have stopped there but that sea to shining sea mentality makes it doubtful. Maybe if the Zionists had gone to the Palestinians with cap in hand after WW2 instead of wading in with guns blazing, they could've settled peacefully side by side... Wishful thinking I fear.If the aggressor cannot be contested with militarily, and all they wanted was a ceasefire - I'd sign the ceasefire.
Not much you can do when they don't want a ceasefire and will only settle for your house and land. I think it's going to come out over the next few days in these Aljazeera/Guardian leaks just how uninterested Israel is in offering a meaningful solution for peace.No - I completed my degree long ago so they're not selling anything I'm interested in. I'm not even pro-Israeli. All I've done is point out the rather hysterical "Israel=Bad", "Palestine=Good" claims are uninformed or hypocritical. Because the views of so many other contributors are so extreme, any moderate view is immediately seen as hostile - if you're not with us, you're against us.
Far as I'm concerned the Israelis have contributed to their own problem by undermining and failing to engage with moderate Palestinian leadership when they had the chance. Long term, they want a prosperous, peaceful Palestine that is not shooting rockets at them, but they keep falling into short term thinking. I saw an article that made a very good point that the Israelis have taken 40+ actual casualties in a conflict they undertook to avoid taking *possible* casualties.
It is possible to stand back and say "A plague on both your houses".
I apologise for my accusation, I'd just read that article and my paranoia started to shine through! Yup, I think it's more Israel = bad, Hamas = bad, Palestinians = rock and hard place. I'm more of the thinking that Israel never wanted to engage meaningfully with Palestine evidenced by the assassination of their one prime minister who was genuinely interested in peace. Yes long term they do want a prosperous peaceful Palestine but they don't seem to want any Palestinians in it.
The problem with wishing a plague on both their houses is that someday that plague might visit your house and then there may be no one left who's willing to stand with you to protect you or it. Then where will you be? The vast majority of Palestinians are innocent, most of all the children and they most definitely do not deserve this plague.
It's not about security. It's racism and what they're doing is ethnic cleansing. Hate begets hate, peace begets peace. Simple as that.
EDIT: Oh well, looks like these leaks are old news from 2011.
http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html
My bad for not checking the dates... Still, just goes to show how far the Palestinians were willing to bend over for Israel and they still got shafted.0 -
Come on guys just face it that these guys out there are just nutbags ( I don't know the technical term ) and we are all wasting our concern on them.0
-
The Americans seem to be getting very upset at Russia stealing land yet they have no problem with Israel doing the same.0
-
colossus-x wrote: »Come on guys just face it that these guys out there are just nutbags ( I don't know the technical term ) and we are all wasting our concern on them.
Really really really...? Really really? Let's just hope it never happens to you so, because then you might find your pleas for concern fall on deaf ears.0 -
What a great guy Jon Snow is. Standing up to the established view & speaking out for the kids of the Gaza Ghetto.
0 -
As much as the day to day Palestinian has nothing to do with Hamas, all we hear is the Hamas/Israeli war, also sidelined are the Israelis against the genocide currently taking place.
What we have here is a western supported and financed war on a people under siege. This breaths life into groups like Hamas. It's not a case of simply agreeing to a ceasefire. Who would agree to stop shooting at an invading/occupying force who butcher civilians, (non-Hamas) indiscriminately? It's a purge of a people from their own land funded by the US and Europe won't take a stand.
Well done Argentina. It's something, but the Israelis like to make their own foreign passports anyway.
The Israelis have less claim on Gaza or the land they call Israel for that matter, than Putin did on Crimea....but Israel has Washington pals.0 -
As much as the day to day Palestinian has nothing to do with Hamas, all we hear is the Hamas/Israeli war, also sidelined are the Israelis against the genocide currently taking place.
What we have here is a western supported and financed war on a people under siege. This breaths life into groups like Hamas. It's not a case of simply agreeing to a ceasefire. Who would agree to stop shooting at an invading/occupying force who butcher civilians, (non-Hamas) indiscriminately? It's a purge of a people from their own land funded by the US and Europe won't take a stand.
Well done Argentina. It's something, but the Israelis like to make their own foreign passports anyway.
The Israelis have less claim on Gaza or the land they call Israel for that matter, than Putin did on Crimea....but Israel has Washington pals.
where do you think they should go then?0 -
-
shedweller wrote: »Eh, everywhere, like every other religion?
Its a bit like saying catholics should have their own homeland!
The Jews are a race, are they not?0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1LGoNg5p4
Advertisement