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.

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

Alternatively both sides can rightfully pull the victim card.

So what? Do they collectively want to act like kids and keep fighting, or act like adults and stop?
Again its really simple.

*Gaza respects the borders of Israel and quits killing Israelis.
*Israel respects the borders of Gaza and quits killing Gazans.
They don't have to do do anything else. They don't have to love each other, permit trade with each, do anything. Just leave each other alone. Its not a novel concept.

Well, being cut off from infrastructure is true.

In some parts the wall has increased response time of ambulances from 10 minutes to 110 minutes.

Or cut off Palestinians from their own farmland.

And has repeatedly gone beyond Israels internationally recognised borders, effectively annexing new land.

So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?

 Frazzled wrote:

Or everyone can just stop now.

In addition... calls for a more "moderate" Islam is a good think too... no?
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/egyptian-president-calls-for-religious-revolution-in-islam/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?

Israel is constantly criticised for that. O.o

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?

Israel is constantly criticised for that. O.o

But not in any meaningful way.

If the US cut off its military support and aid until Israel pulls back to its own borders, then that would be something.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, being cut off from infrastructure is true.

In some parts the wall has increased response time of ambulances from 10 minutes to 110 minutes.

Or cut off Palestinians from their own farmland.

And has repeatedly gone beyond Israels internationally recognised borders, effectively annexing new land.

So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?

Firstly, anyone who reads the papers or watches the BBC in Britain can hardly claim Israel gets 'ignored'. They get regularly lampooned to an amazing extent.

Secondly, because Ukraine never launched missile attacks at Russia, or dug assault tunnels for the purpose of abducting children for use as hostages.

This isn't a black and white issue, and trying to make it into one is disingenuous.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, being cut off from infrastructure is true.

In some parts the wall has increased response time of ambulances from 10 minutes to 110 minutes.

Or cut off Palestinians from their own farmland.

When they had access to those infrastructures, they routinely used that access to facilitate and perpetrate terror attacks.

The building of the wall caused those attacks to drop massively (from 73 to 12), with an accompanying massive drop is resultant civilian casualties.

The Palestinians "people" always brings these things onto themselves, the first elections that they had, they use that power to vote in a terrorist organization whose sole purpose is the elimination of Israel... And I used "" because when I talk about people, I'm talking about the collective, I firmly believe that the vast majority of Palestinians only wishes to live and raise their kids in piece and prosperity, but they need to realise that to do this they have to stop supporting terrorists both actively and passively.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

And has repeatedly gone beyond Israels internationally recognised borders, effectively annexing new land.

So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?

You mean the land that they conquered by defending themselves from outside invasions?!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So why does Putin get criticised and sanctions imposed for stealing land from Ukraine whilst Israel is ignored?

Israel is constantly criticised for that. O.o

But not in any meaningful way.

If the US cut off its military support and aid until Israel pulls back to its own borders, then that would be something.

OR, unfettered by outside restraint Israel does what countries did pre 20th century-wipe out their attacker utterly and take over the land. It is an option.

 whembly wrote:


In addition... calls for a more "moderate" Islam is a good think too... no?
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/egyptian-president-calls-for-religious-revolution-in-islam/

Ben Affleck is appalled by this suggestion.

 Frazzled wrote:
And with that mentaility nothing will change until everyone on one side is dead. Eventually Israel will tire of the endless tit for tat and finish it ISIS style or they will be nuked and nuke everyone else.

Or everyone can just stop.

Good response.

You have to look at the grand strategy.

Israel relied on the US veto for support, but the US government is losing patience with Israel having seen the support as being rather one sided. Israel can and will go it alone.

In Israel's defence if they let down their guard they would be driven into the sea.
However this is mostly due to a lot of Israels actions post 1947 and following to the present day.
It will take a change in Israeli policy to make peace happen, rather than a change in Palesitinian policy.

peace is possible, peace with Egypt has held, peace with Jordan is holding. Peace with Syria wont hold because Israel views territory to the north as expansion room, and has been conducting unilateral unprovoked bombing of Syria recently.
It says a lot that Nretanyahu was pissed off at Obama for 'removing sraelis deniability over its bombing campaign in Syria'.
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-furious-at-obama-for-leaking-syria-strike-2013-11?IR=T
This says so much - that Israel conducts unilateral aggression followed by political denials, often under the context that ayt accusation is anti-Semitic.
Lebanon is also systemically constantly destabilised by Israel.

So if Israel can have peace on half its borders, can it have peace on all its borders?
What about the Palestinians?

Rocket attacks are largely a nuisance,, and are caused by a number of fanatics most of whome have personal grudges. This is easy to understand in terms of insurrections, Israel loses approx half a dozen to rockets or ground forces moving into Gaza, at the same time Israeli airstrikes, artillery and ground forces kill well over a thousand, a large number of whom are not combatants. This makes more people angry enough to pick up guns.
In terms of a counter-insurgency or peace keeping action its historically a very poor strategy. However the Israelis are certainly not stupid, and they are not following a counter-insurgency or peace keeping strategy. Israeli strategic policy is evidently not one of peace keeping but one of annihilation.
Israel could have peace with the Palestians and conduct peace keeping operations if it wanted to, it has the will and the expertise, but this is not what they want. The Israeli government doesnt want the Palestinians pacified, they want them gone.

When you look at it this way, you will see that their military strategy makes lot of sense. As Israeli military strategies usually make sense. Thing is Hamas are helping by their antics.
Hamas needs to do is realise this and start a Ghandiesque peace movement, Israel can't stop that, but it can and will prevent one from starting; because Israel will constantly keep the Palestinians on the boil, and they have many means of doing this. Closing the borders to trade, and removing infrastructure are favourite techniques, and rile the Palestinians.

If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.

Meanwhile the bulldozers keep working in Gaza, and Israel finds an excuse to create a new settlement and destroy a Palestinian community. And these land grabs are not necessarily linked to sources of rocket attacks, but to expediency. It's a slow burn takeover.

There is a religious aspect to the strategy, which is not lost in hard line Israelis:

Exodus 23:30
Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

At this point, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been going on so long, and gotten so bloody, that BOTH sides can legitimately claim to be the victim. Both sides can accurately and truthfully call the other side the villain. There is no point in the leadership of either side actually working for peace. It would be political suicide in Israel, and possibly literal suicide in the Palestinian territories. Israel is strong enough to take what it wants, when it wants, so why waste time pursuing peace? Hamas has a nearly limitless supply of very willing fighters and a whole bunch of countries willing to supply arms and aid, so why waste time pursuing peace?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.

Care to post something intelligent for a change.
If you want to criticise my comments tell us why they are wrong. Some evidence would be nice.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

US citizens have a free pass to join any non-hostile foreign military as long as they abide by those restrictions.

Including not taking an oath of loyalty.

 Orlanth wrote:

If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.

That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

Rocket attacks are largely a nuisance.

No, rocket attacks are an act of war.
Frankly both sides commit acts of war on a pretty routine basis and then scream about the other side.

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.

Care to post something intelligent for a change.
If you want to criticise my comments tell us why they are wrong. Some evidence would be nice.

You first, since everything that you posted in this thread so far has been tin foil level speculation without any shred of evidence to support it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.

That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9597-israeli-blocks-aid-entering-jordan-valley

Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?

 Grey Templar wrote:

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

As I said up-thread Hamas is not the PNA (nor is the PNA the PLO), and the argument you're making could easily be made regarding the conservative, Jewish population of Israel.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.

That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9597-israeli-blocks-aid-entering-jordan-valley

Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?

Them specifically, no. But anyone can slap a Red Cross on a vehicle and sneak into the Convoy.

Its also a statement. "You continue to bomb our schools and we'll deny the Red Cross coming in to patch your worthless hides up"

Hamas has used Red Cross Ambualances in the past, and hidden rockets in shelters.

See how crazy the whole thing is?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If you look at it, many of Israels activities on Gaza have no effect except to piss off the population.
Examples such as:
Denying basic amenities for import.
Holdng up perishable exports in 'customs' until they are unsellable.
Assassinating a well meaning Palestianian official with the technical know how to run a power station.
Denying any opportunity for employment except in Israel, and issuing up to six hour delays at border crossings to get to work.

That is because all of those things will be used to smuggle in weapons or otherwise to attack Israel. It takes colossal stupidity to think that allowing these things would be acceptable in the light of that.

Actually you got it backward.

Many of the goods refused import have no military significance. Some do, yes, but not others.
Tinned food was banned from import into Gaza, but frozen food was permitted mainly to prevent Palestinians from stockpiling in case of power failure, and to make Palestinians exceptionally vulnerable to power failure.

As fo holding up containments of fresh flowers and fruit for two weeks for a 'security check' cant reall be pushed as a security measure, for astart its an export. the only reason to do this is to deny an income to the Palestinians concerned.

The power station official murdered by Mossad was not a terrorist, he did however have the skills to keep the power station working in Gaza. Why target him unless you don't want Gazans to developan infrastructure.

Too much heavy handedness is 'justified' by security measures, wheras anyone who knows anything about intenal security knows that the best security it not to inflame the populace. A good example was the Vietnam war compared to that in Malaysia. Israel is doing the direct opposite to the tried and tested counter insurgency strategy..

 Grey Templar wrote:

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

Hamas cant have peace even if it wanted, most Gazans are denied any human rights or quality of life, and are long on the numbers of people they know who have died or lost their homes.

How can the Palestinians realistically ask for peace under these circumstances?

 Grey Templar wrote:


Its also a statement. "You continue to bomb our schools and we'll deny the Red Cross coming in to patch your worthless hides up"

Which is a breach of international law and should be punished accordingly.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

As I said up-thread Hamas is not the PNA, and the argument you're making could easily be made regarding the conservative, Jewish population of Israel.

Israel never launches unprovoked attacks targeting civilians. So no, you can't compare the two.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9597-israeli-blocks-aid-entering-jordan-valley

Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?

That story isn't really true, or actually it is true but the article doesn't tell the whole story: the "shelters" weren't meant to be aid for the Palestinians, they were mean't to erect a tent city as a political protest against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

As I said up-thread Hamas is not the PNA, and the argument you're making could easily be made regarding the conservative, Jewish population of Israel.

Israel never launches unprovoked attacks targeting civilians. So no, you can't compare the two.

Debatable. All we have is the word of Israels military on that one and they're hardly unbiased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9597-israeli-blocks-aid-entering-jordan-valley

Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?

That story isn't really true, or actually it is true but the article doesn't tell the whole story: the "shelters" weren't meant to be aid for the Palestinians, they were mean't to erect a tent city as a political protest against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

Israel demolished houses, the Red Cross was trying to provide shelter to those whose houses had been destroyed. If Israel doesn't want a tent city it shouldn't bulldoze peoples homes.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.

Care to post something intelligent for a change.
If you want to criticise my comments tell us why they are wrong. Some evidence would be nice.

You first, since everything that you posted in this thread so far has been tin foil level speculation without any shred of evidence to support it.

I have included one linked quote already. Indicating that Israel doesn't want peace with it neighbours and wants deniability when it conducts unilateral unprovked attacks.
This sets the scene for the current Israeli governments mentality.

And as the ultimate sources was Netanyahu, and Obama it doesn't count as 'tin foil'.

All you have posted if flat denial, which only makes sense if you have nothing intelligent to say.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Its also a statement. "You continue to bomb our schools and we'll deny the Red Cross coming in to patch your worthless hides up"

Which is a breach of international law and should be punished accordingly.

The concept of International Law is simply moronic. A law which has no one to enforce it or even define it is less than nothing. You might as well just try to say X countries law applies to Y, which is clearly nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.

I suspect that means: I automatically disagree because the arguments oppose my chosen faction, but can't articulate a reasoned response.

No, it means that literally everything in your post is factually wrong.

Care to post something intelligent for a change.
If you want to criticise my comments tell us why they are wrong. Some evidence would be nice.

You first, since everything that you posted in this thread so far has been tin foil level speculation without any shred of evidence to support it.

I have included one linked quote already. Indicating that Israel doesn't want peace with it neighbours and wants deniability when it conducts unilateral unprovked attacks.

Preemptively striking someone stockpiling weapons that you are at war with isn't unprovoked.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Israel never launches unprovoked attacks targeting civilians. So no, you can't compare the two.

Neither does the PNA.

The substance of my argument was the lack of desire for peace within the relevant component of the Israeli population.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

If the Palestinians kicked Hamas out and showed sincere desire for peace then we could talk about allowing those things through again.

As I said up-thread Hamas is not the PNA, and the argument you're making could easily be made regarding the conservative, Jewish population of Israel.

Israel never launches unprovoked attacks targeting civilians. So no, you can't compare the two.

Debatable. All we have is the word of Israels military on that one and they're hardly unbiased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What about the case where Israel has blocked the Red Cross from bringing in shelters for palestinians?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9597-israeli-blocks-aid-entering-jordan-valley

Is the Red Cross, one of the most widely recognised and respected humanitarian organisations in the world, now doing a sideline in arms smuggling?

That story isn't really true, or actually it is true but the article doesn't tell the whole story: the "shelters" weren't meant to be aid for the Palestinians, they were mean't to erect a tent city as a political protest against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

Israel demolished houses, the Red Cross was trying to provide shelter to those whose houses had been destroyed. If Israel doesn't want a tent city it shouldn't bulldoze peoples homes.

Its easier to assume everyone involved is lying to your face. You'll be less disappointed.

How can the Palestinians realistically ask for peace under these circumstances?

Easy.
If you want to stop more killing you vote for peace. If you want the killing to continue, you don't.