Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Whilst the bombardment was in no way on the same scale as Dresden?similar, they were using large area affect weapons, you can see the pictures of them.

And I agree that child soldiers are a horrific thing and if they're armed/shooting you've got no choice but to fire back.

But all of the dead were armed/active ? No evidence of that and I haven't heard/read any reports of armed children or complaints about them. I have seen the stuff about four year olds shot at close range, but I don't think she was armed.

dogma wrote:

No, its not Israel, that's why I'm saying it should be a part of Israel. The Middle East might freak out, but I don't really think so. The OT was conquered long ago, and most of the states around Israel have made peace with the notion that the Palestinians are simply not their problem. The settlements in the West Bank are being disputed not because they exists, but because the people already living in that territory are not being treated on an even keel with the settlers. If you incorporate the Palestinians as Israeli citizens, and treat them fairly according to Israeli law the problem disappears.

Either way, Israel is already a nationwide Masada. Where have you been?

Israel has tried in the past to offer equal seats, proportional to their population to palestinians, to give them a fair and equal voice in the Israeli Parliament. Guess what, they turned it down. Seems pretty obvious that Hamas wants more than a "fair and equal" voice in government, they want the whole thing.

Yes, the citizens that didn't immediately surrender. As in the soldiers actively fighting against the encroaching empire. Not the non-combatants around the battlefield. The Mongols, for example, were renowned for their merciful treatment of those that would allow themselves to be conquered.

Dogma you're contradicting yourself. You just said "to those who allowed themselves to be conquered." Cities that resisted routinely had their populations destroyed as a warning to others. Again its time honored tradition.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Israel has tried in the past to offer equal seats, proportional to their population to palestinians, to give them a fair and equal voice in the Israeli Parliament. Guess what, they turned it down. Seems pretty obvious that Hamas wants more than a "fair and equal" voice in government, they want the whole thing.

Israel offered fair an equal representation to the Arab members of its population, but it has never made a concerted attempt to incorporate the Palestinians as Israeli citizens. The Palestinians are all Arabs, but not all Arabs are Palestinians. So, no, they didn't turn it down, because it was never offered. The only thing that was in fact offered to the Palestinians was equal representation in the governing bodies which oversee the Occupied Territory. They took that, but because the Israelis decided to use the borders to Gaza, and the West Bank, as prison walls the representatives which were elected in the course of representative governance tended to be those men who demonized the Israelis. Hence the decline in influence of Abbas' Fatah.

Either way, I said the Palestinians want a fair and equal voice in government, not Hamas. There is a huge difference.

Frazzled wrote:
Dogma you're contradicting yourself. You just said "to those who allowed themselves to be conquered." Cities that resisted routinely had their populations destroyed as a warning to others. Again its time honored tradition.

No, they didn't, and I'm not contradicting myself. All I said is that those who actively resisted, as in did battle, were the ones who would have been put to death.

There are very few recorded incidences in which the entire population of a city was destroyed. The Mongols certainly never did this. Neither did the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Umayads, Goths, Byzantines, Persians, or Yuan Chinese. In fact, the only people I can think of that made a habit of destroying entire populations were the Huns, and they were never an imperial force. Remember, when a history discusses the sack of a city all that is being implied is that the control of the population changed hands. You're reading the past through a lens of Napoleonic, state-centric warfare which is causing you to see destruction as physical, rather than cultural.

Carthago Delenda Est!

The exception proves the rule.

Just because the Mongols did something or didn't doesn't mean we are bound to follow their example. Modern people are supposed to have a better morality.

The fact is that since the middle ages western troops have less and less been allowed to rape and pillage. The siege of Jerusalem (1096) is still remembered as a point of shame on the Crusaders.

There are only three choices for the future in Palestine.

1. Elimination of the entire resisting population on one side or the other. I consider this to be entirely unrealistic for various reasons.

2. A political accommodation. Every time some kind of deal is brokered by outsiders, it gets upset by one side or the other.

3. To let things rumble on as they are, with low level misery and deaths on both sides. Sadly, this is the most likely course.

Option 4 - the Arabs get enough modern firepower and political will to have another go at things, except, they actually win...

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Dogma you're contradicting yourself. You just said "to those who allowed themselves to be conquered." Cities that resisted routinely had their populations destroyed as a warning to others. Again its time honored tradition.

No, they didn't, and I'm not contradicting myself. All I said is that those who actively resisted, as in did battle, were the ones who would have been put to death.

There are very few recorded incidences in which the entire population of a city was destroyed. The Mongols certainly never did this. Neither did the Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, Umayads, Goths, Byzantines, Persians, or Yuan Chinese. In fact, the only people I can think of that made a habit of destroying entire populations were the Huns, and they were never an imperial force. Remember, when a history discusses the sack of a city all that is being implied is that the control of the population changed hands. You're reading the past through a lens of Napoleonic, state-centric warfare which is causing you to see destruction as physical, rather than cultural.

You're right, oftnen a few survivors escaped, otherwise they were enslaved.

Note Gaza-people shooting at Israel. Thats resistance. Under old school law they could raze the cities, kill Hamas, and enslave everyone else.

As for cities wipe out, two immediately come to mind without thinking or research
*Jerusalem (wiped out by Titus)
*Troy
*Carthage
*Nanking was pretty well wiped out.
This denotes some cities that were obliterated by the Mongols when they didn't immediately surrender.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6st6ZUFvfdYC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=mongol+destruction+of+cities&source=web&ots=ilMwP9BOj3&sig=dIQq12Onw2OlfTdQ2Br8dEfXoss&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

Back to the original article....

An ex-Australian prime minister once said 'all politics is local.'

This is an excellent example. The Turkish prime minister will be seen by his voters to have given the Israelis a good tounge lashing, without any risk to Turkey.

I'm sure his approval rating will be going up ATM.

Frazzled wrote:
You're right, oftnen a few survivors escaped, otherwise they were enslaved.

Enslavement denotes different things at different times in history. A slave in ancient Greece was simply someone who served a master in some sense. Essentially everyone who wasn't a land owner was a slave regardless of the actual quality of their life. In classical European history a slave was someone who served a master other than his rightful one, so a person serving his lord was a peasant, but one serving the Mongols was a slave. The only difference was one of perspective. So all those people that didn't escape were enslaved, but their lives would have been very much the same as those of the people that did escape. Slavery didn't mean the same thing then, as it does now.

Frazzled wrote:
Note Gaza-people shooting at Israel. Thats resistance. Under old school law they could raze the cities, kill Hamas, and enslave everyone else.

They could kill Hamas, but they wouldn't raze the cities, as that would be a waste of resources. Very few cities were burned in the act of conquest. And they would enslave everyone else. The thing is that type of slavery isn't called slavery anymore, its called citizenship.

Frazzled wrote:
As for cities wipe out, two immediately come to mind without thinking or research
*Jerusalem (wiped out by Titus)
*Troy
*Carthage
*Nanking was pretty well wiped out.

We're not actually sure what happened to Troy, so I'm not willing to concede that as an act of destruction. Jerusalem was never totally destroyed, only Romanized. It is often referenced as destroyed because that is how Hebrew texts denote what happened to its cultural purity with the destruction of the Temple. For them the city was nothing without the Temple. Carthage was razed to the ground, but that was a rare occurrence. Do you mean the reconquest of Nanking in 1864, or the Nanking massacre during WWII? The 1864 reconquest is an interesting event because much of the death toll was self-inflicted via suicide. The WWII massacre was considered reprehensible even in that time, and clearly did not lead to the formation of a stable Japanese Empire.

Frazzled wrote:
This denotes some cities that were obliterated by the Mongols when they didn't immediately surrender.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6st6ZUFvfdYC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=mongol+destruction+of+cities&source=web&ots=ilMwP9BOj3&sig=dIQq12Onw2OlfTdQ2Br8dEfXoss&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

Its interesting that the page you've cited seems to agree with Bernard Lewis while also stating that Mongol destruction of Middle Eastern cities was 'unprecedented'. I say this because Lewis is well know for his tendency to dismiss the affect of the Mongol invasion on the actual infrastructure of the Middle East. The Mongol invasion was certainly unprecedented in the history of the region, especially given the tendency to reset the collective memory after Islamic conquest, but it was not particularly destructive. Places like Samarqand, Khwarezm, and Tabriz suffered, but not as a result of conquest. Rather, the shift of political emphasis caused trading routes to alter themselves. The problem wasn't really one of physical destruction, but of wealth reallocation. Similar things happened in Baghdad, and Kiev. Rather than being trading stops, these cities became trading posts. Places where some wealth would accumulate as goods flowed to the capital cities in Asia, Western Europe, and Northern Africa.

Frazzled wrote:The whole concept of proprtionality is not sane, nor is it historical. Its effectively the bad guys saying

"We only launched one rocket into your city to kill people because we didn't have the means to launch 100. Why did you launch 100 at us?"

As long as you keep thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys you're pretty much guaranteed to miss the point.

I'm all for Israel completely leaving Gaza and the West Bank territories. Complete separation as Hamas calls for. Leave them to join with Egypt/Jordan, or become their own little country. But at the same time, the moment a rocket comes out of either of those areas, I'd treat them as foreign powers Monghol style. And it will happen. Hamas has no interest in a peaceful outcome. Its masters if Iran have no interest in a peaceful outcome, or the hardliners lose power.

More than 50% of Hamas funding comes from the Saudis. You're making things up to fit your pre-determined politics.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I think i'm with Fraz on this one.. I have been watching news coverage of this most recent incursion into Gaza intently, and I find it funny that for all this time, rockets have been fired out of Gaza for years, but that NEVER made the news. But as soon as Israel takes action, OMG!!! theyre attacking!!!! the whole news world goes insane, saying how evil Israel is for doing this, and on and on.

Rocket attacks had slowed to a trickle before December, they were tiny and poorly made - mostly backyard workshop jobs. Then Israel moved into Hamas territory to assassinate a member of Jihad International and dramatically increased the extent of the quarantine. With a week around 90% of the goods sold in Palestine (talking petrol, food and water here) were smuggled in through tunnels. Then the rockets started in serious numbers. Then Israel began its response.

The idea that Israel is just minding its own business and these rocket attacks just keep happening is garbage. If Israel simply wanted peace it would stop the settlers moving into the West Bank.

JohnHwangDD wrote:To be honest, the way both sides have acted, I wouldn't necessarily be against them mutually annihilating each other if the stupidity and violence could be contained within ex-British Palestine / the Middle East...

You know they're people, yeah? Both sides that is... that have pretty average governments and a lot of them support doing bad things to each other but they're still just people trying to raise families and get on in life.

Bodichi wrote:I was in Iraq from 03 to 04 and from personal experience lots of pot shots are taken at lots of convoys with very little effect. I agree with Secret Squirell that women and children should not be a target unless immediately possing a threat but screaming that isreal "kills women and children" as some kind of self righteous battle cry is upsurd and a blatant diregard of the facts.

People are talking about children killed as a result of bombing campaigns. You're talking about potshots at convoys. Nothing to do with each other.

Frazzled wrote:5. If its all Israel’s fault, why do they get attacked from Lebanon by Hezbullah?

Possibly they're a different organisation with different objectives and motivations, both part of a complex political situation. For what it's worth, I supported the strikes against Hezbullah because they were significantly different in motivation and capability that the best course of action was to remove their ability to fire rockets at Israel.

But then you're talking about good guys and bad guys, so whatever.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Option 4 - the Arabs get enough modern firepower and political will to have another go at things, except, they actually win...

Woefully implausible. Egypt is currently a US client state, behind Israel Egypt is the largest recipient of US weapons. They have trade with Israel. Jordan also has trade with Israel. The idea of Israel alone in a sea of enemies is dead.

While Israel has real security threats still posed by the Syrians and Iranians, neither country is an immediate threat, neither country could ever be a threat as long as Israel keeps US support, and the situation isn't helped one bit by blowing up Palestinians.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:To be honest, the way both sides have acted, I wouldn't necessarily be against them mutually annihilating each other if the stupidity and violence could be contained within ex-British Palestine / the Middle East...

You know they're people, yeah?

Yeah, people who are still locking themselves into a never-ending, ever-expanding cycle of vengeance.

So from a practical standpoint, Christianity actually *is* superior to Islam or Judaism - the very idea of "turning the other cheek" breaks the cycle of vengeance and allows for some semblance of modern, progressive civilization.


And no, I'm not advocating for Crusades-style forced conversion...

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Option 4 - the Arabs get enough modern firepower and political will to have another go at things, except, they actually win...

Woefully implausible.

They tried it before, who's to say they won't try such foolishness again?

Remember, a lot of what happens over there isn't very rational.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
They tried it before, who's to say they won't try such foolishness again?

Remember, a lot of what happens over there isn't very rational.

No, its all pretty rational, the assumptions which underpin that rationality are just very different from yours.

Either way, Israel is by far the dominant military power in the region. They could very likely defeat the combined forces of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Of course, they will never have to, at least in the foreseeable future, because those states all have amicable relations with the Israelis. Syria could pose a security threat, but that is increasingly unlikely as Bashar al-Assad continues to roll back the authority of his father's Ba'ath Party. All in all there is very little for the Jewish State to be afraid of, outside of becoming less Jewish. Which explains a lot of the recent focus on holding the Palestinians under foot.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, people who are still locking themselves into a never-ending, ever-expanding cycle of vengeance.

So from a practical standpoint, Christianity actually *is* superior to Islam or Judaism - the very idea of "turning the other cheek" breaks the cycle of vengeance and allows for some semblance of modern, progressive civilization.

And no, I'm not advocating for Crusades-style forced conversion...

If Christians went around turning the other cheek and breaking cycles of violence, that'd be great. Perhaps you should have told the Irish how superior their religion was 80 years ago. It would have saved a lot lives.

They tried it before, who's to say they won't try such foolishness again?

Nah, it's not 'Israel is so awesome they'd totally whoop 'em'. It's 'the political situation has changed dramatically, with key Arab players now closely aligned to the US, that countries deciding to invade Israel is ludicrous'. But then I said all that already, in the part of the post you trimmed, in order to just respond to a single sentence and misunderstand that sentence.

Remember, a lot of what happens over there isn't very rational.

No, stuff is quite rational. It's just very complicated and often results from subtle factors not all that well understood by a Western audience.

You can't "kill" Hamas.

The Nazi party was "killed" at the end of WW2 and guess what, there are still right wing racist extremists all over the place.

You can't eliminate Hamas's or Hezbollah's rocket launching capacity by bombing. Those kind of rockets can pretty much be launched off a garden pergola.

The IRA managed to build a six tube mortar in the back of a white van, and put rounds into no.10 Downing Street.

In a modern, urban society if people can cook up all kinds of nasty stuff if they want to. Look at Aun Shinrikyo with their Sarin gas.

The trick is how to make sure people don't want to do that kind of thing.

For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.

War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.

War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.

M.

according to US military terms, "asymmetric warfare" is a new concept, designed to help ground forces fight in "insurgency wars". Under your concept, asymmetry in warfare involves playing to your strengths. However, that is merely conventional warfare as has always been done. "asymmetric warfare" involves using troops in nontraditional roles, roles that right now, most military arms, just arent well equipped for, with the Special Forces units round the world being a large exception, IMO.

of course, Guerrilla warfare, by its nature falls into this "asymmetric" branding, as the combatants on at least on side are avoiding open, pitched battles. One thing that makes fighting these types of wars difficult, is that in the case of Hamas, they do not wear a uniform...

Of course, if Hamas DID use chemical warfare as one method of fighting, then most of the rest of the world would most definitely step in and do something. I would think that even the french, who cant win a single war on its own would step in, as they have had chemical weapons used against them before.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:For all those of you that insist that total war and devastation are exceptional rather than the rule let me suggest the 30 year war and the sack if Magdeburg as examples of business as usual.

War is always asymetrical with every side playing it`s strengths just because we play a game were everybody agrees to use the same point limit doesn`t mean that RL will do the same. If Hamas could (or dared) they would be using gas and other nastiness against Israel, don`t confuse the lack of means with the lack of will.

M.

according to US military terms, "asymmetric warfare" is a new concept, designed to help ground forces fight in "insurgency wars". Under your concept, asymmetry in warfare involves playing to your strengths. However, that is merely conventional warfare as has always been done. "asymmetric warfare" involves using troops in nontraditional roles, roles that right now, most military arms, just arent well equipped for, with the Special Forces units round the world being a large exception, IMO.

of course, Guerrilla warfare, by its nature falls into this "asymmetric" branding, as the combatants on at least on side are avoiding open, pitched battles. One thing that makes fighting these types of wars difficult, is that in the case of Hamas, they do not wear a uniform...

Of course, if Hamas DID use chemical warfare as one method of fighting, then most of the rest of the world would most definitely step in and do something. I would think that even the french, who cant win a single war on its own would step in, as they have had chemical weapons used against them before.

Yes, I agree. That was my understanding of assymetric warfare. It doesn't mean one side being stronger than the other -- that is true in every real war and the job of generals and strategy is to overturn or rebalance things in their favour.

Assymetric warfare means one side deliberately avoids traditional combat, because they would simply be overpowered very quickly.

The reason Hamas does not use Sarin is because in some sense both they and the Israelis (who have nukes, remember) are limiting their warfare to some level of proportionality. The motives why they do it may not be pure as snow, however, they are exercising control.

It's easy to see an organisation like Hamas as a Bond Villain setup with an evil genius exercising total control over gangs of loyal henchmen. But this isn't how it works. In reality, Hamas contains moderate and extremist groups, as does the Palestinian population in general, and indeed the Israeli population. The main reason the Israelis went in so hard this time was because the PM was afraid of looking weak. The trick for anyone trying to resolve the whole situation is to keep the lid on the extremists while negotiating with the other side. That's why a third party neutral facilitator can be so useful.

I agree with most of what Killkrazy said. I'm not sure the PM looking strong is the main reason for the incursion, but it's probably a major factor.

I know it's a cliche to point this out, but this conflict is incredibly complicated. There are no good guys, there are no bad guys, and both sides have suffered enough to encourage sympathy and committed enough atrocities to merit outrage. A few things to point out.

1) British Palestine was to be split into Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine in 1948. After the war (in which nearly ever arab country invaded), Israel ended up with all of Israel. They then gained more territory in later wars as well. Much like the Soviets got to keep Eastern Europe in order to keep the peace after WWII, nobody really minded Israel keeping the territory after the war.

2) The Arab nations surrounding the Palestinian territories seem to not be interesting in helping the Palestinians, either by accepting them as refugees, giving them places to resettle, or otherwise brokering peace deals with Israel. This is important, because while there was been relative peace there for 30 years, most of the countries in the region still resent Israel.

3) I have enormous sympathy for the Palestinians. They've been screwed by the British, by the UN, by Israel, and by every other middle eastern nation that wants to keep the conflict going. There is an extent to which their anger and violence is, if not justified, at least understandable.

4) I have zero sympathy or respect for the various governments of the territories. The PLO was notorious for embezzling aid money, and was almost always more concerned with material gains for it's elites than solving any problems. Hamas is far more populist, and has done an amazing job of building grass roots support through it's charitable work before winning the elections. I'm not going to say the people were duped, but it's not like the PLO was a great option, and Hamas at least pretended to care about the plight of the people.

5) Hamas at the lower levels is just like any other politcals/revolutionary group. At it's upper levels, while it's not the Bond villian, it's a pretty sinister group. They're goal is true jihad: the reclaiming of once Islamic lands from Israel. They are supported by Iran materially and many other middle eastern nations tacitly. They are not quite bad guys, but they play a brand of ball that westerners aren't comfortable with. I'm not saying we can't negotiate with Hamas, just that any resolutions need to measured against Hamas' track record.

6) Israel, while not nearly as sympathetic as it was after the Holocaust and the various wars, is like the guy that was always picked on but then grew 6 inches and gained 30 pounds of muscle. It's the most powerful nation in the region, but it's stills surrounded by enemies. It's a siege mentality, and that affects a people. I'm not entirely comfortable vilifying the actions of the Israeli government due to that fact. Its' a pressure cooker.

In my opinion, any true settlement will have to involve Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and probably Egypt. It will most likely require land concession from Israel, and security concessions from the Palestinians (With Arab, not Israeli troops watching the border). It will also require a large amount of aid (from the US/EU/UN) sent to Palestine to end the worst of the poverty, and it will require Israel to re-open the borders so Palestinians can work, shop, and visit in Israel. The most important, and toughest part, is that the PA is going to have to assure Israel that they will stop terrorist acts after the concessions, something that they've failed to do after previous accords. Maybe if there were UN peacekeepers, or the above Arab security forces, they could keep a lid on the terrorism, but as long as Israel feels that it's going to get shot at, it's not going to let the territories go free.

Polonius wrote:

In my opinion, any true settlement will have to involve Syria, Jordon, Lebanon, and probably Egypt. It will most likely require land concession from Israel, and security concessions from the Palestinians (With Arab, not Israeli troops watching the border). It will also require a large amount of aid (from the US/EU/UN) sent to Palestine to end the worst of the poverty, and it will require Israel to re-open the borders so Palestinians can work, shop, and visit in Israel. The most important, and toughest part, is that the PA is going to have to assure Israel that they will stop terrorist acts after the concessions, something that they've failed to do after previous accords. Maybe if there were UN peacekeepers, or the above Arab security forces, they could keep a lid on the terrorism, but as long as Israel feels that it's going to get shot at, it's not going to let the territories go free.

My main worry is whether the PA can actually keep a proper lock-down on their own extreme elements. Modern weapons are too destructive and too easily available to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. The real problem is how to persuade the wrong hands not to use them.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
according to US military terms, "asymmetric warfare" is a new concept, designed to help ground forces fight in "insurgency wars". Under your concept, asymmetry in warfare involves playing to your strengths. However, that is merely conventional warfare as has always been done. "asymmetric warfare" involves using troops in nontraditional roles, roles that right now, most military arms, just arent well equipped for, with the Special Forces units round the world being a large exception, IMO.

Part of the problem is that asymmetric warfare is not something which has ever been conducive to prosecution by an edified fighting force. The apparent randomness of battle makes it very difficult to adhere to the chain of command; forcing individual soldiers to take initiative and make their own decisions. Unfortunately decision making ability has a positive correlation with experience, and training; two things which are not generally abundant in an all volunteer force.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
of course, Guerrilla warfare, by its nature falls into this "asymmetric" branding, as the combatants on at least on side are avoiding open, pitched battles. One thing that makes fighting these types of wars difficult, is that in the case of Hamas, they do not wear a uniform...

More important than the lack of uniformed combatants is the lack of a centralized chain of command. Hamas is coordinated by their leadership, but most of their day-to-day operations are simply at the whim of individual cell members. It would be as if your commanding officer told you that your objective was to topple the Iranian theocracy.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Of course, if Hamas DID use chemical warfare as one method of fighting, then most of the rest of the world would most definitely step in and do something. I would think that even the french, who cant win a single war on its own would step in, as they have had chemical weapons used against them before.

The French, with the possible exception of Israel, actually have the most effective counter-terrorist force in the world. They learned a lot from the battles they fought in the course of trying to maintain their Imperial holdings.

You are right though, the use of chemical weapons would bring the world down on Israel/Palestine like a hammer. The conflict would be over, and the result would be out of the hands of the direct participants.

@Polonius: It's not possible to prevent all future attacks, ergo, there cannot ever be a solution.

It's not possible to prevent all future attacks by military means, so alternative solutions have to be found, for instance, by negotiation and concessions.

It does look very difficult, though.

I don't think Israel can hope to eliminate all attacks, obviously that'd be very difficult. There is a huge gap between the PA stopping all attacks and the PA activily encouraging, funding, and conducting the attacks. Israel would need to deal with a power that had the will, the means, and the desire to clamp down on attacks on Israel. Even under the PLO, there was more lip service paid to stopping the attacks than actual effort. I think even a bona fide effort by a Palestinian authority would be enough to get Israel to the negotiating table.

The real problem is that right now the money is too good to stay in the intifada business. Iran channels money in, and the other arab states support the violence. As long as the government of the PA benefits more from fighting than from peace, we'll not see peace any time soon. Israel's track record of wanting peace isn't unblemished either, but they've made good faith efforts to remove colonists from the West Bank and have made other bona fide offers in the past.

I'm of the opinion that the actual Palestinians are stuck between two forces: Israelis who see their land as theirs, regardless of who lived there 61 years ago, and the Arab states and the international jihadist movement that seek the destruction (or at least humiliation) of a Jewish state.

Polonius wrote:I don't think Israel can hope to eliminate all attacks, obviously that'd be very difficult. There is a huge gap between the PA stopping all attacks and the PA activily encouraging, funding, and conducting the attacks. Israel would need to deal with a power that had the will, the means, and the desire to clamp down on attacks on Israel. Even under the PLO, there was more lip service paid to stopping the attacks than actual effort. I think even a bona fide effort by a Palestinian authority would be enough to get Israel to the negotiating table.

A lot of the problems with putting a stop to violence were a direct result of the arms restrictions placed on organizations like the PLO by Israel. Essentially, they were never permitted to have the weapons which would be necessary to stop the people that did have them, and were willing to use them. Its the same catch-22 that is often cited by 2nd amendment activists. Only, in this case, it actually applies.

Polonius wrote:
The real problem is that right now the money is too good to stay in the intifada business. Iran channels money in, and the other arab states support the violence. As long as the government of the PA benefits more from fighting than from peace, we'll not see peace any time soon. Israel's track record of wanting peace isn't unblemished either, but they've made good faith efforts to remove colonists from the West Bank and have made other bona fide offers in the past.

Its not just the money. The PA itself receives funding from a massive collection of nations; including the US, the EU, the UK, and Italy. The actual governing body has no fiscal incentive to fight. Hamas, on the other hand, receives most of its funding from the Arab nations, and wealthy, private donors that are sympathetic to their overtly Islamic nature. They do have a fiscal incentive to fight, but that really isn't enough to keep them in power.

They are able to generate support for two reasons. One, they have an incredibly effective system of grassroots organization that allows them to disseminate supplies to the people in need. Two, they show a total lack of respect for Israeli authority. The latter is made manifest in a willingness to smuggle supplies into Gaza. Supplies which are then handed out per their grassroots organizational structure. Throw in some violent action against an Israeli state that has shown little to no respect for the need of the people in the OT, and you've got a recipe for political takeover. A recipe so good, in fact, that it was able to overcome the strong secular bend of the Palestinian people.

Polonius wrote:
I'm of the opinion that the actual Palestinians are stuck between two forces: Israelis who see their land as theirs, regardless of who lived there 61 years ago, and the Arab states and the international jihadist movement that seek the destruction (or at least humiliation) of a Jewish state.

Honestly, the problem is not the Arab states. Its their people. Jordan is fairly equitable in most cases as the rather benign nature of their royal family has created a good deal of trust between the people, and the power. Syria, as a government, seems to be fairly unconcerned with the future of Israel; having largely accepted that it is going to continue to exist after their influence was forcibly evicted from Lebanon during the Cedar Revolution. Egypt was actually the first state to openly recognize Israel, and remains the one most willing to engage Israel on even ground. Conceivably they could be counted on to facilitate the transition of sovereignty in Gaza, but the reality of that nation's own internal struggles with terrorism essentially precludes such a solution.

There are really only two solutions to this problem; the Israeli annexation of the Occupied Territories, or the creation of two sovereign Palestinian nations.

I, personally, feel that the two-state solution is unworkable. There is simply too little in the way of available resources for either the West Bank, or Gaza, to be considered sovereign nations. Throw in the lack of abundant potable water, and the Israeli lean on the Jordan River for much of its own supply, and you have a recipe for state sanctioned Apartheid.

The annexation measure has its own issues, but most of them lie on the Israeli side of the border. They need to get over the notion that the lack of a Jewish majority puts all Israeli Jews in mortal danger. The Palestinians are not National Socialists, and there is a vast gulf between being against Israel, and being antisemitic. Moreover, the military would continue to be primarily Jewish for many years after any attempt at annexation; providing at least some form of security blanket.