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.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
And that's why I hate Israel, among things.

That's not really the conclusion I was after.

My point is to just look past moral judgement, about picking one side or the other, or both, and saying 'I hate them they are bad people'. Truth is most everyone on Earth, if placed in the positions of the Israeli's would act as they have, and most people if placed in the position of the Palestinians would act as they have.

So you just step back from the judgement, and look with impartial eyes, and ask who could solve this issue, and how. And the answer is that Israel has the power in this situation, economically, militarily and politically.

I would of thought that Israel could simply grab the moral high ground but sorting out the settlement issue. It is basically a land grab after all. I know that their belief is that "God" gave it to them, but lets be practical here. The whole area is too complex for there to be b&w answers to everything. At least if they resolve the settlement issue, then they will be able to gain the moral high ground on the international stage.

sebster wrote:
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.

I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.

That's one of the most simplistic views of the conflict I think I've ever heard. Do you honestly believe that if Israel did those things, the Palestinians would pull out the guitars and join them for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya?

I don't think anyone is looking at Isreal and Palestine as an example of a working solution. On-going low level warfare for three generations with no end in sight? Please give me some of that!

It works in that not many Israelis get killed these days. As long as that's the case, everything else is small potatoes to Israel.

Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians work in Israel, and travel through checkpoints on the wall on a daily basis. And there are many hundreds of thousands of ethnic Palestinians who happen to live within Israel, many with loyalty to Palestine.

While defenders of the wall often point to the drop in bombings after 2004, the truth is that 2001 to 2004 was a spike in bombings (suicide bombing campaigns are rarely sustained, for one fairly obvious reason ). The rates are now pretty much back to what they were in 1990s.

Sure. If things are up for long enough, people always find ways to circumvent them. Tunnels, forged documents, etcetc. But I think the key point there, was that bombings DID drop for a period of time. No doubt Hamas will come up with some way of circumventing Iron Dome. They'll figure out where the counter-launchers are placed, and work out better targeting systems. But in the meantime? Less people get killed. Just because something doesn't work forever doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile to do it in the first place.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
My view of Israel's policy over these kinds of threats are that every country in the region hates them, so they need to provide a deterrent.

Nah. Israel has a military that can gak on anyone else in the region. At the same time their former enemies are now tied to the hip of the US just as Israel are. Hell, Egypt actually enforces the border quarantine for Israel. Times have changed. The existential threat to Israel simply isn't there anymore.

And besides, if Israel really was worried and needed to keep it's military in a constant state of readiness, then the last thing they'd want is to grind that military down in local security operations. Ask any American servicemen on here who served in Iraq if that improved the US' military strength?

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.

I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.

Because that wouldn't end the issue. Unless you're suggesting the Palestinians weren't fighting Israel before the settlements started cropping up.

 Ketara wrote:
That's one of the most simplistic views of the conflict I think I've ever heard.

Then you clearly haven't spent much time on dakka in an Israel thread. Get prepared to hear about two dozen opinions that are much, much more simplistic.

Do you honestly believe that if Israel did those things, the Palestinians would pull out the guitars and join them for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya?

I think it's just plain rude to try and interpret another person's comment in the least flattering way, and so please don't do that again.

And no, obviously I don't think it would automatically lead to an immediate end to hostilities and bad blood. But it would be the first step, and without that step no other move can be made.

It works in that not many Israelis get killed these days. As long as that's the case, everything else is small potatoes to Israel.

That is, interestingly enough, quite simplistic. While Israeli casualties are quite low, I think if you asked any Israeli citizen in, say, 1980, if they would accept a policy that meant conflict was still on-going in 2014 with no progress made on borders (and only grudging acceptance of a two state solution), but only a handful of Israelis are abducted/killed each year, you wouldn't find many takers.

Sure. If things are up for long enough, people always find ways to circumvent them. Tunnels, forged documents, etcetc. But I think the key point there, was that bombings DID drop for a period of time. No doubt Hamas will come up with some way of circumventing Iron Dome. They'll figure out where the counter-launchers are placed, and work out better targeting systems. But in the meantime? Less people get killed. Just because something doesn't work forever doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile to do it in the first place.

No, you missed the point. The bombing did drop, and never rose again. There's three or four a year now, whereas at the peak of the bombing there was about 40 a year.

The point is that in the 90s, before the wall, there was also about three or four a year. It was really just a period of about three or four years where bombings really spiked before subsiding again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Because that wouldn't end the issue. Unless you're suggesting the Palestinians weren't fighting Israel before the settlements started cropping up.

I think it's a bit silly to claim there's been no evolution in the stance of either side in the last hundred odd years.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.

I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.

Because that wouldn't end the issue. Unless you're suggesting the Palestinians weren't fighting Israel before the settlements started cropping up.

But it would give them the moral high ground. The same with Hamas, if they redacted their wish to see Israel wiped off the map. Otherwise this is the same old cycle that happens again and again. I could understand it if this type of action gives Israel peace for 5 - 10 years, but it doesn't even do that.

 sebster wrote:


Then you clearly haven't spent much time on dakka in an Israel thread. Get prepared to hear about two dozen opinions that are much, much more simplistic.

..........touche.

I think it's just plain rude to try and interpret another person's comment in the least flattering way, and so please don't do that again.

Least flattering? You've commented that Israel has the power to make it 'end'. Your word there. As in, if Israel took the actions you've laid out, everything would be fine and hunky dory, and peace would prevail across the land. Because by doing those things, Israel can make 'an end to the issue'.

And no, obviously I don't think it would automatically lead to an immediate end to hostilities and bad blood. But it would be the first step, and without that step no other move can be made.

Then you phrased your initial comment badly. You didn't say that Israel could make the first step, and hopefully Hamas would reciprocate in kind. You laid the entire responsibility at Israel's door. If you're retracting that now in favour of the above, I have no major quarrel with it. I'm not convinced that it's true, but it could be. I think that the results of that one lie in the lap of the Gods, so to speak.

That is, interestingly enough, quite simplistic.

Not everything need be complex.

While Israeli casualties are quite low, I think if you asked any Israeli citizen in, say, 1980, if they would accept a policy that meant conflict was still on-going in 2014 with no progress made on borders (and only grudging acceptance of a two state solution), but only a handful of Israelis are abducted/killed each year, you wouldn't find many takers.

I daresay if I offered an alternative scenario with ongoing conflict in 2014 with no progress made on borders, but five times as many casualties, they'd grab it with both hands.

You're playing what-if history here, where you assume that if certain actions hadn't been taken, then you think something else more positive would have happened. But that's complete guesswork.

No, you missed the point. The bombing did drop, and never rose again. There's three or four a year now, whereas at the peak of the bombing there was about 40 a year.

The point is that in the 90s, before the wall, there was also about three or four a year. It was really just a period of about three or four years where bombings really spiked before subsiding again.

I think you just contradicted your initial point then...?

 Wolfstan wrote:
But it would give them the moral high ground. The same with Hamas, if they redacted their wish to see Israel wiped off the map. Otherwise this is the same old cycle that happens again and again. I could understand it if this type of action gives Israel peace for 5 - 10 years, but it doesn't even do that.

What good does the moral high ground do them? It doesn't stop indiscriminate rocket attacks. It doesn't get anybody outside of Israel to play hardball with the Palestinians. It does, in effect, absolutely nothing.

It means that you may actually get support from the rest of the world. What if Hamas made some gestures that actually got the US onboard? Something that made your current administration say to Israel "hold on a mo, they are making an effort here"

Evictions started yet in Gaza?

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.

I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.

I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.

Except of course Israel was being attacked back when the West Bank and Gaza were still Jordan and Egypt. Even Jordan and Egypt don't want them back.
They pulled out of Gaza and Hamas started firing rockets at them that day.

Frankly both sides suck. Keep us out of it.

Oh and for grins, Hamas says it was tryign to hit the nuke reactor yesterday. Nothing like your enemy trying to wipe you out as a people to show where your mental state is...
http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Rocket-alert-sirens-sound-in-Zichron-Yaakov-120-km-north-of-Gaza-362087

 Wyrmalla wrote:
(Tel Aviv seems to be a sure target for nuclear attack in fiction for some reason)

So just like New York then

 Wolfstan wrote:
Here's an idea. Why don't one of the warring sides pull the rug from under the other side by doing something profoundly positive?

Because it won't work.

We're talking about the last decolonization war.

Instead of building a jewish state on the ashes of the Third Reich, we built it in our former colonies, for european people to settle there, because these were our colonies and these land belong to european people...

Great idea. Just imagine what would have happened if Great Britain decided to give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to Zulus. Most of them never landed a foot there before, but their imaginary best friend told them it should belong to them and you feel guilty about the Anglo-Zulu War, so...
Because hey, it's your colonies, you can do whatever you want. Seriously, who cares about what texan people think? We don't even know if they can actually think.

Caricature ? Nope. Colonization was exactly like that, and Israel is its last avatar.

Let's build a football stadium, and there will be peace. Yeah, sure.

I'm all for moving all the Israelis to McAllen, Texas. Tex Mex Motza balls!

Litcheur wrote:
We're talking about the last decolonization war.

Instead of building a jewish state on the ashes of the Third Reich, we built it in our former colonies, for european people to settle there, because these were our colonies and these land belong to european people...

Great idea. Just imagine what would have happened if Great Britain decided to give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to Zulus. Most of them never landed a foot there before, but their imaginary best friend told them it should belong to them and you feel guilty about the Anglo-Zulu War, so...
Because hey, it's your colonies, you can do whatever you want. Seriously, who cares about what texan people think? We don't even know if they can actually think.

Caricature ? Nope. Colonization was exactly like that, and Israel is its last avatar.

Let's build a football stadium, and there will be peace. Yeah, sure.

Except for the fact that the US was not a colony of the British Empire for about 100 years before that conflict you mentioned. And at the time that the land that would become the US was a colony none of the States you mentioned were established.

Well considering that Israel people were "given" land in the aftermath of WW2 without asking anybody whose land was given away and the size and magnitude of expansion of Israel I think I feel sorry for those Palestinians. I mean look at this graphic



I know that I would be pissed off is someone tried something like this with my country. I went trough one war when Serbs in the aftermath of dissolving of Yugoslavia tried to occupy big part of Croatia (they managed to do that but we won after all and liberated those parts of Croatia).

The biggest problem in Israel/Palestina is closed circle of hate and sorrow, after three generations there are few families that werent affected by this war (either by losing someone to the opposing side or losing home) so people are thought from birth to hate "the ones over the wall" be it from Palestinian or Israeli side.

Reasoning of giving Israel land is also unbelievable, ok this is your ancestor land so we will transfer and populate this land by people which are Judes and we will not care whatever happens when we leave from here, and yes of course you can have nuclear weapons why not. Maybe Croats should try to get some part of Iran or Karpat mountain region since we came from there in the 7th century.

Also Israel is military country I think they are probably one of the most organized and trained armed forces in the world and on the other side you have AKs (good gun but not so good for assault on Israel) and suicide bombers. I am afraid that there is no solution to this problem and that it will eventually end with extinction of Palestinian people, I only feel sorry for the civilians and innocent people that die because of some, to put it sarcastically, "land dispute".

Hope that I didnt insult anyone it was not my intention.

 Wolfstan wrote:
It means that you may actually get support from the rest of the world. What if Hamas made some gestures that actually got the US onboard? Something that made your current administration say to Israel "hold on a mo, they are making an effort here"

Israel doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't care about any moral high ground.

 kronk wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
It means that you may actually get support from the rest of the world. What if Hamas made some gestures that actually got the US onboard? Something that made your current administration say to Israel "hold on a mo, they are making an effort here"

Israel doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't care about any moral high ground.

They care what the US thinks.

They really don't.

They care about US $$$.

dubovac wrote:
Well considering that Israel people were "given" land in the aftermath of WW2 without asking anybody whose land was given away and the size and magnitude of expansion of Israel I think I feel sorry for those Palestinians. I mean look at this graphic



I know that I would be pissed off is someone tried something like this with my country. I went trough one war when Serbs in the aftermath of dissolving of Yugoslavia tried to occupy big part of Croatia (they managed to do that but we won after all and liberated those parts of Croatia).

The biggest problem in Israel/Palestina is closed circle of hate and sorrow, after three generations there are few families that werent affected by this war (either by losing someone to the opposing side or losing home) so people are thought from birth to hate "the ones over the wall" be it from Palestinian or Israeli side.

Reasoning of giving Israel land is also unbelievable, ok this is your ancestor land so we will transfer and populate this land by people which are Judes and we will not care whatever happens when we leave from here, and yes of course you can have nuclear weapons why not. Maybe Croats should try to get some part of Iran or Karpat mountain region since we came from there in the 7th century.

Also Israel is military country I think they are probably one of the most organized and trained armed forces in the world and on the other side you have AKs (good gun but not so good for assault on Israel) and suicide bombers. I am afraid that there is no solution to this problem and that it will eventually end with extinction of Palestinian people, I only feel sorry for the civilians and innocent people that die because of some, to put it sarcastically, "land dispute".

Hope that I didnt insult anyone it was not my intention.

Its a false graph. There is no Palestine. There is Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.

I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.

I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.

You're making the huge (and likely incorrect) assumption that the Arabs will stop attacking Israel, so long as Israel stops building settlements.

These aren't rational people. Hezbollah attacked Israel in 2006 using the Shebaa Farms area as justification. It's an area that is literally 14 square miles, located geographically on the Golan heights, and wasn't really disputed when Syria controlled the heights. Kind of silly to kick off a war and get over a thousand people killed.

If Israel forces settlers to stop building and return to Israel proper, they will find another reason to justify conflict.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.

I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.
And while one could argue that Hamas is also at fault for placing their installations in densely populated areas, they really do not have much choice on that. The Gaza Strip is hugely overcrowed.

 sebster wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
My view of Israel's policy over these kinds of threats are that every country in the region hates them, so they need to provide a deterrent.

Nah. Israel has a military that can gak on anyone else in the region. At the same time their former enemies are now tied to the hip of the US just as Israel are. Hell, Egypt actually enforces the border quarantine for Israel. Times have changed. The existential threat to Israel simply isn't there anymore.

And besides, if Israel really was worried and needed to keep it's military in a constant state of readiness, then the last thing they'd want is to grind that military down in local security operations. Ask any American servicemen on here who served in Iraq if that improved the US' military strength?

Actually, in many ways Iraq strengthened the US military. Prior to 2003 the Israelis were the premiere experts in urban combat. I firmly believe that the US does it better these days. Equipment-wise, the military was strengthened in many ways (vehicles, PPE, TTPs, ISR technologies, etc.), and the US military also gained a ton of combat experience. US trauma surgeons are now the best in the world hands down.

Low intensity conflicts can be useful for maintaining readiness and giving younger soldiers experience .FWIW, the IDF IS in a constant state of readiness. During my time there we conducted national readiness exercises multiple times. We aren't going to get caught with our pants down again like we did in 73.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.

I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.

Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!

The truth is, though, that's exactly what Hamas wants. The more dead kids they can video tape, the better for their PR. It's disgusting and monstrous.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.

I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.

Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!

I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.

I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.

Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!

I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.

Again with the "proportionate" nonsense. If someone is shooting at you and happens to wound you, you don't shoot until you wound him. You shoot until the threat has stopped.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!

I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!

I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.

 kronk wrote:

Israel doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't care about any moral high ground.

They only care about the moral high ground as a good place to sight their artillery

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Except for the fact that the US was not a colony of the British Empire for about 100 years before that conflict you mentioned. And at the time that the land that would become the US was a colony none of the States you mentioned were established.

Take any example that suits you.

White people were persecuted for centuries by white people because they didn't agree if they should say "Shalom" or "Salut" (or "Salam", now...) to the same imaginary best friend. Then a huge war was started by white people because they held a grudge against the outcome of the first one (that was started by white people). During that war, millions of white people were exterminated by white people. So, some of these white people (not gypsies, hey...) who have been persecuted by white people and exterminated by white people need a new state to protect them from any further persecution.

Then you expel arab people from the lands they've lived on for centuries.
(I know, they're white too. You get the point.)

Makes perfect sense to me. Palestinians have absolutely no reason to be pissed of. How do they even dare complaining?

Before Israel was created, relations between jews and muslims weren't that bad. Of course, they weren't perfect, but seriously, we're comparing to christians, here. Christians who considered the jews to have commited deicide and persecuted them for centuries before even thinking about putting them in gas chambers.