How should Palestine defend itself?

JeffKenna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Hitchens

esteve wrote: »

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

difficult or not they're getting them from somewhere

JeffKenna

comongethappy wrote: »

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.



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.

You're looking at this from a view point that both sides are equal. That's not the case. Israel are the most advanced army in the world, backed and supplied by the might of the United States. Hamas on the other hand do not have access to anywhere near the same kind of equipment. It's akin to cowboys versus Indians.

BlaasForRafa

comongethappy wrote: »

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.

Booby trapping a UN health centre was certainly an effective tactic for Hamas yesterday, killing 3 IDF soldiers http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183542#.U9pA1PldV8F

Also abducting the dead bodies of IDF soldiers seems to be another tactic in this conflict http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183584#.U9qmbvldV8E

JeffKenna

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Booby trapping a UN health centre was certainly an effective tactic for Hamas yesterday, killing 3 IDF soldiers http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183542#.U9pA1PldV8F

Also abducting the dead bodies of IDF soldiers seems to be another tactic in this conflict http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183584#.U9qmbvldV8E

The key word there you mentioned is 'soldiers'...the Israeli army are killing children.

comongethappy

JeffKenna wrote: »

You're looking at this from a view point that both sides are equal

No..... That's not it at all....

If one side is stronger, the weaker side doesn't normally & willfully engage in tactics they know will fail & do nothing to hurt their enemy.

The IRA didn't bring Britain to the table in 1921 by sitting on Wicklow head lobbing rockets at Wales.

Hamas, militarily is so willfully inept, its hard to imagine its not on purpose.

JeffKenna

comongethappy wrote: »

No..... That's not it at all....

If one side is stronger, the weaker side doesn't normally & willfully engage in tactics they know will fail & do nothing to hurt their enemy.

The IRA didn't bring Britain to the table in 1921 by sitting on Wicklow head lobbing rockets at Wales.

Hamas, militarily is so willfully inept, its hard to imagine its not on purpose.

Well I can see your point. A lot of Palestinian people are totally anti Hamas.

Then again I suppose they are trying to build these tunnels which is the only way they could access Israel. I dunno, realistically what else can they do?

BlaasForRafa

JeffKenna wrote: »

The key word there you mentioned is 'soldiers'...the Israeli army are killing children.

The key difference is that the IDF doesn't use children as human shields whereas Hamas does.

esteve

Hitchens wrote: »

difficult or not they're getting them from somewhere

Of course they are getting them from somewhere, where else would they be getting them from?!

esteve

comongethappy wrote: »

No..... That's not it at all....

If one side is stronger, the weaker side doesn't normally & willfully engage in tactics they know will fail & do nothing to hurt their enemy.

The IRA didn't bring Britain to the table in 1921 by sitting on Wicklow head lobbing rockets at Wales.

Hamas, militarily is so willfully inept, its hard to imagine its not on purpose.

Britain came to the table because they wanted to. Israel does not want to negotiate anywhere outside of their own pre set conditions.

While you may think their tactics are not hurting the enemy, they have killed 50+ IDF soldiers.

Israelis tactics have killed possible 1000+ civilians.

Hamas can only do so much damage. Israel could wipe out Palestine in hours, only to do so would be far more genocidal than what they are undertaking right now.

Sand

Its being reported that Hamas have finally seen reason and are agreeing to an unconditional 3 day ceasefire, with negotiations to take place on making it permanent. They should have agreed to one weeks ago. Quite literally hundreds of lives could have been saved and thousands spared the misery they have suffered. Nothing has been gained that is worth the lives of the Palestinians they so callously sacrificed.