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.

If military force could solve this issue, it would have been solved a long time ago. However, since we are talking about it, military force must not be the answer.

To argue that this time military force will solve the problem seems.... impractical.

 whembly wrote:

 Huffy wrote:
Cease-Fire has been announced
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20436699

Mr Netanyahu accepted Mr Obama's "suggestion to give a chance to Egypt's proposal for a ceasefire and so give an opportunity to stabilise the situation and calm it before there will be need to apply greater force".

Think Egypt can craft a solution that both sides would agree with...

This won't last long...

Especially since Egypt has already publicly stated that Israel is responsible for the situation.

Yeah, I see this working out in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So much for that attempted cease fire

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/blast-hits-tel-aviv-bus-at-least-21-hurt-police-chasing-two-terror-suspects-1.479535

An explosion hit a bus in central Tel Aviv on Wednesday, wounding at least 21 people. One of the casualties was in serious condition, one sustained light-to-moderate injuries, and the rest were lightly wounded.

Police opened an immediate manhunt for two suspected terrorists.

The explosion occurred at the corner of Shaul Hamelech and Henrietta Szold Streets just after noon. A suspect was arrested about half an hour after the explosion, but was quickly released from custody.

Passersby were ordered to keep their distance from the scene. Security alert was raised to level 4 in the area surrounding the Kirya, Israel's national defense compound. The municipality ordered schools to keep pupils indoors for nearly two hours after the attack.

To be fair Hamas did not claim responsibility tor the attack, but they will be catching the flak for it clearly.

They may not be claiming responsibility, but they certainly gave it their "blessing"

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Conflict_on_the_Gaza_Strip

 Easy E wrote:
If military force could solve this issue, it would have been solved a long time ago. However, since we are talking about it, military force must not be the answer.

To argue that this time military force will solve the problem seems.... impractical.

Thaty so wrong its not funny.
Its military force that is giving Hamas power
Inversely Israel could literally wipe out every man, woman, and child opposing it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If military force could solve this issue, it would have been solved a long time ago. However, since we are talking about it, military force must not be the answer.

To argue that this time military force will solve the problem seems.... impractical.

Thaty so wrong its not funny.
Its military force that is giving Hamas power
Inversely Israel could literally wipe out every man, woman, and child opposing it.

Militarily yes the could. Politically not so much, Israel would most likely be signing their own death sentence if they handled it that way.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If military force could solve this issue, it would have been solved a long time ago. However, since we are talking about it, military force must not be the answer.

To argue that this time military force will solve the problem seems.... impractical.

Thaty so wrong its not funny.
Its military force that is giving Hamas power
Inversely Israel could literally wipe out every man, woman, and child opposing it.

Militarily yes the could. Politically not so much, Israel would most likely be signing their own death sentence if they handled it that way.

(looks at Israel's stockpile of tanks, planes, and nukes)
er how exactly?

In fact from a logical perspective it makes a lot of sense to do so.

Wiping out the folks you disagree with is certainly one way to resolve an intractable political and humanitarian problem.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Wiping out the folks you disagree with is certainly one way to resolve an intractable political and humanitarian problem.

Sure... that's one way.

But Israel probably won't survive the Global outrage.

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Wiping out the folks you disagree with is certainly one way to resolve an intractable political and humanitarian problem.

Sure... that's one way.

But Israel probably won't survive the Global outrage.

Indeed, genocide usually isn't viewed in a good way

Cease fire will last for a week, then the firing starts again. The problem is that to effectively counter Hamas, that israel lose international legitimacy and morality by hitting civilians that hamas are using as human shields.

We know that the 3 jhihad responses of the Ghaza strip (1987,2003 and now) are based around both the religious and political views of the region.

We know that Hamas are being supplied from the outside with rockets by a neighboring country (Iran).

If Hamas stops firing rockets into israel, they lose support from the right-wing elements in palestine (which are their support atm). That means they will continue to do so. Israel either suffers relentless rocket attacks and constant civilian casualties, OR counterattacks. Or number 3. A neutral force makes a DMZ, and also has counter-battery fire for the rockets. This should either be NATO or the USA. Thinking the USA this time.

The fourth time this happens, will be with more advanced weapons. I don't like thinking about that, but here it is. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological agents, and nukes.

For why this happens, Iran will supply the materials. Because Palestine and Israel are a constant state of war.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
It's a nice theory Sebster, but to be honest I don't ever see the attacks on Israel stopping.

People claim everything is hopeless and will go on forever, and then it stops. Happens all the time. Remember all those sci-fi books that were written in the 80s that had the US and USSR as two monolithic empires hundreds of years into future? Within a few years they were made to look ridiculous. Remember how the troubles with Ireland were such an impossible, unsolvable mess, until they weren't.

There are many reasons this conflict has gone on for so long and it has little to do with settlements. Its just and excuse and when that excuse is gone they will just find another one.

In the history of disputes this one isn't even that old.

And the argument that another nation taking your land and settling it isn't a cause for greivance is just absurd. And the same could be said for any argument that keeping an obscenely tight quarantine is just an excuse.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, if you were kept in poverty through crushing quarantine, and another country kept taking your land, what would you do?

That being said, Yes Israel should stop the settlements, just to prove the point.

Not 'just to prove the point'. Because it isn't their fething land.

But that is also the issue. Both sides seam to be acting in response to genuine issues. Nobody bats an eye about that because we have all seen in the past where leaders of these groups call Israelis much worse things than treacherous snakes. We have all seen leaders of these islamic/middle east/ arab (take your pick as to which name you prefer) countries call for the outright destruction of Israel. Which is where this comes into play.

Oh, for sure. There is incredible anti-semitism within Palestine (and I'd argue even worse in the greater Middle East, who cry crocodile tears for Palestine really as a political stick to whack Israel with).

But my comment was about people in this thread, and in the West in general. The hyper-sensitivity to any criticism of Israel, while at the same time all kinds of racist bs is thrown out about Palestinians is incredible.

Because to most people it seams very likely. Look around at what references exist out there as far as anti Israel leaders go. You don't get much more comic book than Ahmadinejad. Yes he's not Hamas but in many ways he represents the anti Israel hatemongers.

And that's because most people don't know anything about the situation, so they go for the simple message shown in the 2 minute news coverage. And then they add in the other little snippets they know, like "Ahmadinejad is a loon" and "Israel built a nation out of nothing" and assume they know enough to go telling other people their opinion on the issue.

It's the arrogance of that that pisses me the most, truth be told.

Your obviously well informed on the situation, but I think you downplay how much people really do hate Israel, for no other reason than that it exists.

Not at all. I'm well aware of the hatred of Israel. You read what I've read and you'll come across stuff that'd make a Nazi think 'oh come on now, the Jews aren't that bad'. There is a massive problem with anti-semitism in the region.

But that doesn't mean the situation in Gaza is entirely out of the hands of the Israelis.

There's immense anti-semitism in Saudi Arabia, but through politics and economics they're now a paid and bought for US client state. Same for Egypt, even after the coup. Egypt is actually the party enforcing the largest border on the quarantine.

I think Israel could do everything right and it wouldn't change much. That's how hate works, its not really all that rational after awhile. I think that is what it boils down to. If they don't hate your religion it's your skin tone, if not skin tone, hair color, if not hair color, politics, none of it matters because they hate you because you are not them... and they do hate.

And I just think that simply isn't true. Politics and real, immediate material impacts to people's lives matter more than hate.

 Doctadeth wrote:
With Iran to the north,

Whoever taught you geography needs to be dragged in to the street and shot.

Hamas needs to either tighten the **** up on it's security, or israel to invade and finish the job it started 3 years ago.

Once again... Hamas had prevent almost every missile being fired. Then Israel thought that wasn't enough, and blew up the Hamas leader responsible for policing the region. All the missiles being fired now are in retaliation for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
Sebs can dance around it and call it complicated as much as he wants. As long as Hamas is in power the answer is an emphatic "No"

I'm not dancing around anything. I'm asking for the chattering nitwits to actually go and learn about the situation instead of just spamming whatever half informed nonsense they've got in their heads.

Hamas Charter wrote:Lets also not forget that Hamas has publically opposed Palestinan statehood. You know because it would force them to recognize Israel's existence.
In other words it's not complicated at all.

And in the 1990s the UK Labour party charter still contained a clause calling for the nationalisation of the means of production.

And with Hamas you have them operating an agreement with Israel to police Gaza in exchange for humanitarian aid from early 2009 until just a few weeks ago. A deal that Israel, not Hamas, decided to end.

And yet, well, you've totally got some words written in a charter. That's some awesome political theatre there, that totally dismisses the actual political reality of what's been going on. Well done. You got me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Dude, you really need to stop assuming that just because you got shocked when you pressed the button the last 39 times, you'll get shocked when you press the button this time. That's absurd. There's no evidence of that, despite the overwhelming evidence.

It's complicated, man.

Yeah, you're right. What we need is more people on the internet pretending they know what they're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thaty so wrong its not funny.
Its military force that is giving Hamas power
Inversely Israel could literally wipe out every man, woman, and child opposing it.

But they won't, because they're not immoral monsters. And so it's stupid to keep on talking about it as if it were an option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Doctadeth wrote:
We know that Hamas are being supplied from the outside with rockets by a neighboring country (Iran).

It appears more severe measures are needed. It now appears your geography teacher needs to be shot, then burned, then shot again.

fething seriously, Iran isn't to the North of Gaza, and there's no less than two countries in the way.

And if you don't know stuff about the region that fething google maps can teach you, how on Earth do you think you've got the knowledge needed to make any kind of comment on the situation?

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
It's a nice theory Sebster, but to be honest I don't ever see the attacks on Israel stopping.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Doctadeth wrote:
We know that Hamas are being supplied from the outside with rockets by a neighboring country (Iran).

It appears more severe measures are needed. It now appears your geography teacher needs to be shot, then burned, then shot again.

fething seriously, Iran isn't to the North of Gaza, and there's no less than two countries in the way.

And if you don't know stuff about the region that fething google maps can teach you, how on Earth do you think you've got the knowledge needed to make any kind of comment on the situation?

Okay then, how about first of all, one of the most freaking HARDEST to patrol places on earth (iraq) and then through Jordan....which again isn't the most safest place in the world. If the USA couldn't destroy mobile scud launchers in Iraq, then a convoy carrying rockets would be impossible to destroy....and it doesn't need to look military either.

And its also not about Irans geography, but the flashpoint of where the conflict is. You've got customers, you are going to have weapons. And then what about Syria, thats still under massive unrest, and doesn't even have a BORDER post anymore. Its actually very easy to get around security patrols and checkpoints if you try....

 Doctadeth wrote:
And its also not about Irans geography, but the flashpoint of where the conflict is. You've got customers, you are going to have weapons. And then what about Syria, thats still under massive unrest, and doesn't even have a BORDER post anymore. Its actually very easy to get around security patrols and checkpoints if you try....

Yeah, it isn't just about geography. But when your commentary on the subject shows you don't even know the most basic elements of the geography of the region, how much weight are we supposed to put in your claims that it is easy to get through the region's borders?


I mean, how much stock would you put in a claim that Australia's borders are under threat because people keep walking here from New Zealand?

 sebster wrote:

 Doctadeth wrote:
And its also not about Irans geography, but the flashpoint of where the conflict is. You've got customers, you are going to have weapons. And then what about Syria, thats still under massive unrest, and doesn't even have a BORDER post anymore. Its actually very easy to get around security patrols and checkpoints if you try....

Yeah, it isn't just about geography. But when your commentary on the subject shows you don't even know the most basic elements of the geography of the region, how much weight are we supposed to put in your claims that it is easy to get through the region's borders?


I mean, how much stock would you put in a claim that Australia's borders are under threat because people keep walking here from New Zealand?

Actually, I'd say it very much is possible. You can walk from New zealand......Aboard a CRUISE SHIP. But yeah, from a basic scan of google maps, there is very much of a problem trying to police a border that wide 24/7 A glance at my volumes of War Machine (nice little magazine about conflict) and it's issues on the middle east in 1987.....So excuse me for commenting on a thread that piques my interest. See top gear iraq for border posts in the area. and the fact that syria is unstable, lebanon is also not known for it's friendliness towards Israel.


Oh, maybe then Hamas haven't done anything bad.....like been a terrorist organisation in the past. Maybe those people who fire the 600 dollar each rockets are doing so singularly, rather than organised.

No matter which way israel turn, they have very few choices they can make that doesn't make them A) a target, or B) an agressor. Cease fires just won't work because hamas still depends very much on civilian deaths. (and matyrdom). So unless Israel wants to become a non-entity by either inaction or sustained bombardment by rockets....its either going to be counterattack, and raise hell, which I predict because of the spokeperson broadcasts and the presidential broadcasts.

A cease fire will last a month, then shooting will restart and the situation will reoccur. So, how to avoid this? one side needs to be placated or forced out of the area.

 Doctadeth wrote:
So excuse me for commenting on a thread that piques my interest.

But if it piques your interest but you don't really know much about the issue, wouldn't you come in and ask questions, and look to learn more about the issue. Instead you've just come in telling everyone else what it's all about, when you thought Iran neighboured Gaza to the North.

See top gear iraq for border posts in the area.

Oh come on.

Maybe those people who fire the 600 dollar each rockets are doing so singularly, rather than organised.

No matter which way israel turn, they have very few choices they can make that doesn't make them A) a target, or B) an agressor. Cease fires just won't work because hamas still depends very much on civilian deaths. (and matyrdom). So unless Israel wants to become a non-entity by either inaction or sustained bombardment by rockets....its either going to be counterattack, and raise hell, which I predict because of the spokeperson broadcasts and the presidential broadcasts.

Your first mistake is to assume Israel's actions are entirely based on ending this issue, is a huge mistake and fails to capture any of the complexity of the situation. If Israel was motivated purely by the desire to stop the fighting, then they'd stop the settlements.

Your second mistake is that the rockets represent a threat to Israel's existance. They're a threat to individuals, but the idea of launching so many rockets that Israel is destroyed is just silly.

Your third mistake is is that Hamas depends on civilian deaths. Actually, Hamas is trapped in a strange game where they're dependant on Israeli funds to continue to deliver basic humanitarian aid, while at the same time dependant on Palestine for popular support - if they lose either of these they lose any legitimacy and relevance in the region - ask the PLO/Fatah about that. The civilian deaths are a purely defensive measure against Israeli military strikes.

A cease fire will last a month, then shooting will restart and the situation will reoccur. So, how to avoid this? one side needs to be placated or forced out of the area.

Not even slightly an option. Try again.

 sebster wrote:

Your first mistake is to assume Israel's actions are entirely based on ending this issue, is a huge mistake and fails to capture any of the complexity of the situation. If Israel was motivated purely by the desire to stop the fighting, then they'd stop the settlements.

Your second mistake is that the rockets represent a threat to Israel's existance. They're a threat to individuals, but the idea of launching so many rockets that Israel is destroyed is just silly.

Your third mistake is is that Hamas depends on civilian deaths. Actually, Hamas is trapped in a strange game where they're dependant on Israeli funds to continue to deliver basic humanitarian aid, while at the same time dependant on Palestine for popular support - if they lose either of these they lose any legitimacy and relevance in the region - ask the PLO/Fatah about that. The civilian deaths are a purely defensive measure against Israeli military strikes.

I really like how you condemn Israel for legalizing a few settlements that existed since 1990 in their own damn country while at the same time you condone the killing of innocent civilians by seemingly saying that the rocket attacks aren't a threat to the existence of Israel so Israel should just supposedly let them happen...

Lets just be clear here, this isn't about the big bad Jews throwing out innocent Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, this was about the Israeli government giving legal status to 3 settlements that existed since 1990's and that AFAIK were built in unoccupied land to begin with!

Also, another little fault in you arguments is that the Palestinians haven't been self determined since 110 BC(?!), so it hasn't been "their land" for a long long time, they had a chance to gain self determination in 1947 and blew it, they had another chance in 2000 and blew it again, how many more chances should they be given while they insist on blowing up buses full of civilians at the same time?

Justifying Israeli expansion by saying that "The Palestinians weren't using it anyway" is laughable.

Lebensraum anyone? /Godwin

I guess it's harder to identify with the poor suppressed than the rich Western country dealing with "Terrorists"

It's incredulous that when Politicians speak about this they talk about "Israels right to defend itself" but never mention the aggressive expansion and besieging of Palestinians. Obama's speech was painful, but he has a Nobel Peace prize so I guess he knows what he is talking about... right?

So essentially, justifying mob killings, suicide bombings and massed rocket terror campaigns against largely civilian targets is justified over surgical strikes that are aimed at causing few civilan casualties as possible to the point where areas are pre-warned of assault.

Well. That seems logical. to legitimize terror tactics, that are aimed NOT at military targets, but at causing the most amount of devastation and then claiming that the carnage caused was caused by the side that actually suffered the attack.

Israel is spending thousands of dollars attempting to set up anti-missile defenses to disrupt terror activities that are funded by Hamas. If that was to happen to the USA, if cuba, or mexico suddenly began firing barrages of rockets into the USA, would the USA not retaliate?

And the sad thing is, its always been happening since that area was colonised.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Justifying Israeli expansion by saying that "The Palestinians weren't using it anyway" is laughable.

Lebensraum anyone? /Godwin

I guess it's harder to identify with the poor suppressed than the rich Western country dealing with "Terrorists"

It's incredulous that when Politicians speak about this they talk about "Israels right to defend itself" but never mention the aggressive expansion and besieging of Palestinians. Obama's speech was painful, but he has a Nobel Peace prize so I guess he knows what he is talking about... right?

There is no such thing as "Israel expansion" all that land is a part of Israel, it is not and never belonged to any Palestinian nation simply because a Palestinian nation never existed.

The "siege" of the Palestinians was only made because, before that "siege" existed, you had weekly suicide bombings in Israel perpetrated by those same Palestinians, at least the rocket attacks are much less precise than a guy wearing a bomb vest and walking into a crowded market...

Its harder to identify with the "poor suppressed" when those "poor suppressed" wilfully kill innocent women and children, including their own, for political reasons!

 Doctadeth wrote:
So essentially, justifying mob killings, suicide bombings and massed rocket terror campaigns against largely civilian targets is justified over surgical strikes that are aimed at causing few civilan casualties as possible to the point where areas are pre-warned of assault.

Well. That seems logical. to legitimize terror tactics, that are aimed NOT at military targets, but at causing the most amount of devastation and then claiming that the carnage caused was caused by the side that actually suffered the attack.

Israel is spending thousands of dollars attempting to set up anti-missile defenses to disrupt terror activities that are funded by Hamas. If that was to happen to the USA, if cuba, or mexico suddenly began firing barrages of rockets into the USA, would the USA not retaliate?

And the sad thing is, its always been happening since that area was colonised.

If the US decided that they didn't like the Canadian Minister for Defence and killed him with an anti-tank missile, would anyone be outraged that Canada struck back?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Doctadeth wrote:
So essentially, justifying mob killings, suicide bombings and massed rocket terror campaigns against largely civilian targets is justified over surgical strikes that are aimed at causing few civilan casualties as possible to the point where areas are pre-warned of assault.

Well. That seems logical. to legitimize terror tactics, that are aimed NOT at military targets, but at causing the most amount of devastation and then claiming that the carnage caused was caused by the side that actually suffered the attack.

Israel is spending thousands of dollars attempting to set up anti-missile defenses to disrupt terror activities that are funded by Hamas. If that was to happen to the USA, if cuba, or mexico suddenly began firing barrages of rockets into the USA, would the USA not retaliate?

And the sad thing is, its always been happening since that area was colonised.

If the US decided that they didn't like the Canadian Minister for Defence and killed him with an anti-tank missile, would anyone be outraged that Canada struck back?

Would any one have a problem with an airstrike if that same Minister for Defense had been organizing the random and intermittent shelling of American cities? Sebster can say that Hamas was "stopping" the rocket attacks all he wants, but the facts remain that there were a couple hundred rocket attacks in the weeks leading up to the Al-Qassam brigade's general getting bumped off, this means either Hamas is terrible at controlling it's own populace and lets every yahoo who wants one build or equip himself with missiles OR it was a new offensive, Occam says "The terrorist organization that loves murdering school children with suicide bombers on a bus, is probably behind the mass rocket fire on civilian targets from the territory their political wing controls"

PhantomViper wrote:
I really like how you condemn Israel for legalizing a few settlements that existed since 1990 in their own damn country while at the same time you condone the killing of innocent civilians by seemingly saying that the rocket attacks aren't a threat to the existence of Israel so Israel should just supposedly let them happen...

If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd have seen I've said multiple times that the rocket attacks are wrong. For the record, I also believe Israel is within it's right to use force to prevent such attacks.

My issue is with pretending the rocket attacks exist in isolation of other factors, and that

Lets just be clear here, this isn't about the big bad Jews throwing out innocent Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, this was about the Israeli government giving legal status to 3 settlements that existed since 1990's and that AFAIK were built in unoccupied land to begin with!

The settlements are still expanding, both in population and area. From 2000 until this year the population has expanded from about 370,000 to 540,000. Claiming 'oh there's no new settlement's is the most transparent nonsense.

I mean, fething seriously, if someone occupied part of your country, even if they stopped new settlements there 12 years ago, but kept expanding those settlements, would you brush it off as new big deal? I mean seriously, can anyone honestly claim that wouldn't piss them off?

Also, another little fault in you arguments is that the Palestinians haven't been self determined since 110 BC(?!), so it hasn't been "their land" for a long long time, they had a chance to gain self determination in 1947 and blew it, they had another chance in 2000 and blew it again, how many more chances should they be given while they insist on blowing up buses full of civilians at the same time?

The fault there, in your argument, is that you think because a government failed in 1947, that their children and children's children don't deserve to have self-governance. Which is a ridiculous piece of nonsense.

And, as I've posted many times before, when your land is taken and quarantine keeps you in near poverty, isn't only half sensible to expect violence? That doesn't make that violence justified, but the one-two punch of keeping the population oppressed and then moaning when they respond violently is quite absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Doctadeth wrote:
So essentially, justifying mob killings, suicide bombings and massed rocket terror campaigns against largely civilian targets is justified over surgical strikes that are aimed at causing few civilan casualties as possible to the point where areas are pre-warned of assault.

No, not justifying the rocket attacks, or the bombings or any other violence from any groups within Palestine.

Rather, trying to explain that the issue is a lot more complex than poor little Israel and mean terrorist Palestine. And trying to show, more than anything else, that a peaceful solution to the issue lies primarily with Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
There is no such thing as "Israel expansion" all that land is a part of Israel, it is not and never belonged to any Palestinian nation simply because a Palestinian nation never existed.

Oh, so I guess they can take whatever they want then. Anyway, that argument is utter nonsense. As long as there's been a notion of an Israel there's been a notion of a Palestinian state. That's how partition works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Sebster can say that Hamas was "stopping" the rocket attacks all he wants, but the facts remain that there were a couple hundred rocket attacks in the weeks leading up to the Al-Qassam brigade's general getting bumped off

Any nitwit can look at the numbers before the attack, and see that very sporadic rocket fire is nothing like the thousands of missiles launched after Ahmed Jabari got blown up. There is, afterall, a reason the Israeli government continued its deal with Hamas up until November 14. Unless you'd like to speculate that the Israeli government is also plotting against Israel.

Yes, immediately before Jabari was knocked off there was a massive increase in the number of rockets fired, after those Palestinian kids were killed by IDF tank fire. That's why Jabari got whacked.

The question before Israel now is whether it was better to look to de-escalate the issue on November 10, or kill Jabari, start military operations and arrange 13 days later.


And the disappointing thing in this thread is how hard it has been to get people to see even a sensible version of Israel's side of the issue. Instead it's just 'they're terrorists and so while I'm not at all clear about what Israel's actual policy is in this area I'm totally 100% behind whatever it is they're doing'

Why yes, it is very much more of a complex issue then simply stopping firing rockets.

I will concede that the israeli blockade on gaza city is not helpful towards inciting violence their way. However, palestinian overtures have been not to find a peaceful solution, but rather using civilian casualties to try and discredit israeli attempts to halt violent acts.

Why not just have a DMZ? patrolled by UN forces or NATO forces which counter any rocket strikes or military attack by either side? Still works for north Korea and those guys have Nukes.

 sebster wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
I really like how you condemn Israel for legalizing a few settlements that existed since 1990 in their own damn country while at the same time you condone the killing of innocent civilians by seemingly saying that the rocket attacks aren't a threat to the existence of Israel so Israel should just supposedly let them happen...

If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd have seen I've said multiple times that the rocket attacks are wrong. For the record, I also believe Israel is within it's right to use force to prevent such attacks.

My issue is with pretending the rocket attacks exist in isolation of other factors, and that

You always said "the rocket attacks are wrong, but...", the "but" kind of disavows your previous condemnations...

The rocket attacks are just the newest way that terrorists found to continue their campaign of terror, since the blockade actually put a cramp on their previous "human being filled with explosives" method of delivery. Trying to pretend that they are solely a reaction to Israel's latest actions is naive at best, yes the escalation in numbers may be a reaction the the killing of the Hamas leader, but they had never really stopped before that, had they?

 sebster wrote:

Lets just be clear here, this isn't about the big bad Jews throwing out innocent Palestinians from their homes and occupying them, this was about the Israeli government giving legal status to 3 settlements that existed since 1990's and that AFAIK were built in unoccupied land to begin with!

The settlements are still expanding, both in population and area. From 2000 until this year the population has expanded from about 370,000 to 540,000. Claiming 'oh there's no new settlement's is the most transparent nonsense.

I mean, fething seriously, if someone occupied part of your country, even if they stopped new settlements there 12 years ago, but kept expanding those settlements, would you brush it off as new big deal? I mean seriously, can anyone honestly claim that wouldn't piss them off?

Repeat after me: its not their country, it never was their country. The Palestinians themselves reneged on the UN division of the region in 1947 and again reneged on the division of the area offered to them in 2000.

 sebster wrote:

Also, another little fault in you arguments is that the Palestinians haven't been self determined since 110 BC(?!), so it hasn't been "their land" for a long long time, they had a chance to gain self determination in 1947 and blew it, they had another chance in 2000 and blew it again, how many more chances should they be given while they insist on blowing up buses full of civilians at the same time?

The fault there, in your argument, is that you think because a government failed in 1947, that their children and children's children don't deserve to have self-governance. Which is a ridiculous piece of nonsense.

I think that they don't deserve to have self governance because they actually refused it again in 2000 and also because in the first elections that they had, they chose to vote for the party that had "pushing all the Jews to the sea" as their political platform... That doesn't sound like a group wiling to enter negotiations to me...

 sebster wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
There is no such thing as "Israel expansion" all that land is a part of Israel, it is not and never belonged to any Palestinian nation simply because a Palestinian nation never existed.

Oh, so I guess they can take whatever they want then. Anyway, that argument is utter nonsense. As long as there's been a notion of an Israel there's been a notion of a Palestinian state. That's how partition works.

And the Palestinians have always rejected that partition, if they would accept it, then there would be peace, they would have their own country and THEN we could talk about Israeli expansionism.

And why is the argument nonsense? Did you condemn the UK every time they built something in Northern Ireland just because the IRA didn't like it?

Did you condemn Spain every time they built something in Catalunya just because ETA claimed the region as their own?

Hamas needs to grow the feth up and realise that if 60+ years of violence didn't solve things, maybe they should give the diplomatic way a try one of these days...

Sorta on topic...
Morsi is now a de-facto Dictator now...

And the Egyptians just figured this out;
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/23/opponents-egypt-islamic-president-clash-with-backers-over-new-powers/

We want this guy to facilitate any Peace agreement between Gaza and Israel?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
If military force could solve this issue, it would have been solved a long time ago. However, since we are talking about it, military force must not be the answer.

To argue that this time military force will solve the problem seems.... impractical.

Thaty so wrong its not funny.
Its military force that is giving Hamas power
Inversely Israel could literally wipe out every man, woman, and child opposing it.

Which is exactly my point. If a pure military solution would work.... then Israel would have used it and been done with it by now.

Since they haven't, it must not be the optimal solution. Therefore, considering ways to solve the problem now in a purely military way is.... impractical.

Surely if we are allied with Israel, We let them deal with it and IF they go to war, we go to war with them?

We'd fight alongside the U.S so where's the difference?

EDITED:

 whembly wrote:


We want this guy to facilitate any Peace agreement between Gaza and Israel.

Yeah, you're welcome.

 nomsheep wrote:
Surely if we are allied with Israel, We let them deal with it and IF they go to war, we go to war with them?

We'd fight alongside the U.S so where's the difference?

There would be so much opposition to that course of action in the UK, I very much doubt an already unpopular tory government would choose to take the political damage.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:


We want this guy to facilitate any Peace agreement between Gaza and Israel.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Oh feth that was hilarious!

Wait... they MIGHT just let him do it!

 Doctadeth wrote:
Why yes, it is very much more of a complex issue then simply stopping firing rockets.

Absolutely.

I will concede that the israeli blockade on gaza city is not helpful towards inciting violence their way. However, palestinian overtures have been not to find a peaceful solution, but rather using civilian casualties to try and discredit israeli attempts to halt violent acts.

Honestly it depends on the Israeli and Palestinian governments in power at that time. Wikileaks recently exposed a private communication from Hamas to the Israeli government, in which Hamas conceded basically everything. Every land claim, every security restriction. Israel rejected it out of hand.

Why not just have a DMZ? patrolled by UN forces or NATO forces which counter any rocket strikes or military attack by either side? Still works for north Korea and those guys have Nukes.

Look at the range of even the low end rockets, and then look at the size of the region. It'd be nice but unfortunately it's not really practical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
You always said "the rocket attacks are wrong, but...", the "but" kind of disavows your previous condemnations...

Oh, so when I state that the rockets are wrong, you just tell me I don't really mean that. That is a unique approach to debate.

The rocket attacks are just the newest way that terrorists found to continue their campaign of terror, since the blockade actually put a cramp on their previous "human being filled with explosives" method of delivery. Trying to pretend that they are solely a reaction to Israel's latest actions is naive at best, yes the escalation in numbers may be a reaction the the killing of the Hamas leader, but they had never really stopped before that, had they?

Duh. If you'd cared to read the thread you'd have noticed I also stated that if the Iron Dome proved effective, then you'd just see Palestinians go back to the old methods of sneaking a bomb over the border.

Though I expect now you'll just claim I didn't really mean that, either.

Repeat after me: its not their country, it never was their country. The Palestinians themselves reneged on the UN division of the region in 1947 and again reneged on the division of the area offered to them in 2000.

Repeat after me - when you're born somewhere you have a basic right to live there, and have a government from there. And any political nonsense about what your grandparent's generation did is stupid bs spouted by people who think politics matters more than people's livelihoods.

I think that they don't deserve to have self governance because they actually refused it again in 2000 and also because in the first elections that they had, they chose to vote for the party that had "pushing all the Jews to the sea" as their political platform... That doesn't sound like a group wiling to enter negotiations to me...

And again we have people confusing political theatre with political reality.

Accept this one basic piece thing - Israel gives money to Hamas to goven Palestine, provide hospitals, schools, stuff like that. Once you accept that, you have to either claim the unbelievably stupid - that Israel would give money to an organisation absolutely dedicated to the destruction of Israel, or that Hamas, like Fatah before it, makes a lot of anti-Israel claims that it has no interest nor ability to follow through on.

And the Palestinians have always rejected that partition, if they would accept it, then there would be peace, they would have their own country and THEN we could talk about Israeli expansionism.

You really know nothing of the peace process at all, do you?

And why is the argument nonsense? Did you condemn the UK every time they built something in Northern Ireland just because the IRA didn't like it?

If they were changing the borders, then they would have been worthy of scorn.

Hamas needs to grow the feth up and realise that if 60+ years of violence didn't solve things, maybe they should give the diplomatic way a try one of these days...

You really, honestly know absolutely nothing of the peace process... and yet you want to go on line and shout about it anyway. Remarkable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sorta on topic...
Morsi is now a de-facto Dictator now...

And the Egyptians just figured this out;
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/23/opponents-egypt-islamic-president-clash-with-backers-over-new-powers/

We want this guy to facilitate any Peace agreement between Gaza and Israel?

The recent decrees by Morsi are very disappointing, but why would that change anything in regards to Israel and Palestine? Weren't you lot fine with Mubarak when he was dictator?