General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Toontown]

Here in the UK we worked with our "terrorist bedevilers" and ended up with the Good Friday Agreement.

We still have problems in Northern Ireland. Partly it's because the terrorist organisations were also criminal organisations and these have continued to use violence and intimidation. Partly it's because there are extremists that still want to make terrorist attacks.

Because the mainstream terrorist organisations are now inside the process, when the extremist attacks happen, we're less tempted to reverse the entire process.

This model almost certainly wouldn't work in the Middle East but you don't have to drive the terrorist organisations to extinction.

To me it appears that Israel's strategy is to kill off the more intractable Hamas leaders and deal with survivors who are willing to deal - thereby bringing about a kind of selective pressure on the organization, wherein the fittest are the most reasonable. An incremental evolution away from radicalism and terrorism.

Since there is "no military solution...awk! no military solution...awk! no military solution..."

 

[The Don]

To me it appears that Israel's strategy is to kill off the more intractable Hamas leaders and deal with survivors who are willing to deal - thereby bringing about a kind of selective pressure on the organization, wherein the fittest are the most reasonable. An incremental evolution away from radicalism and terrorism.

If this is working then it isn't working quickly and the degree of support Hamas appear to engender every time one of the leaders is killed then it may be having the opposite effect - to further radicalise the Palestinian population.

Since there is "no military solution...awk! no military solution...awk! no military solution..."

There's no internationally acceptable military solution that could be undertaken by a rational and reasonable country. As suggested in some opinion piece linked a few days ago, Gaza could be bombed to dust and every single Palestinian in Gaza and the West Bank could be exterminated but reasonable people like the Israelis wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing.


I'm not sure how they pulled it of in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein's position was that the continued existence of Northern Ireland was unacceptable but somehow they were persuaded that devolution was an acceptable alternative to reunification and they convinced their colleagues at the Provisional IRA (who of course could be the same people as themselves) to cease firing. The brave move was to let them take part in the talks on the basis of a cease fire alone (the previous government had wanted disarmament - which would never have happened). Once the mainstream republican movement was on board, only extremists were left and the government chose not to stop the process even when a terrorist attack happened.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

IIRC, the way they did that was by telling the IRA "you may fight for years and years, but you will not be able to win", especially when many in the IRA had seen little success in the years of armed conflict.

 

[Toontown]

If this is working then it isn't working quickly and the degree of support Hamas appear to engender every time one of the leaders is killed then it may be having the opposite effect - to further radicalise the Palestinian population.

I don't see any evidence of anything increasing among the Palestinians except weariness.

There's no internationally acceptable military solution that could be undertaken by a rational and reasonable country. As suggested in some opinion piece linked a few days ago, Gaza could be bombed to dust and every single Palestinian in Gaza and the West Bank could be exterminated but reasonable people like the Israelis wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing.

What I described is a (surgical) military solution, focused on terrorists, which does not involve bombing every Palestinian to dust. Diplomacy and deal-making can also be involved in a process in which more reasonable Hamas leaders will fare better than unreasonable ones. But this requires first a willingness to deal.

How long it will take is irrelevant. The Israelis have not packed their bags. They have no trains to catch. As one Israeli official explained on CNN yesterday, "We've been here for thousands of years. We aren't going anywhere."

 

[WildCat]

And that they were snatched off the street that day, which was the misconception I was correcting

Do tell when they were arrested. What were the locations? Was there a warrant issued beforehand? What was the evidence that lead to the arrest? Etc etc.

IOW how do you know these were Israeli collaborators, and not just some rivals killed in Hamas infighting or other circumstances?

The sub-issue is why would Israelis subject themselves to a one-state solution by absorbing millions into their population who think this sort of stuff is the proper way to run a judiciary?

 

[The Don]

I don't see any evidence of anything increasing among the Palestinians except weariness.

Hamas' continuing popularity seems to me to show that sufficient Palestinians continue to believe the propaganda. The recent rhetoric about "victory" shows that there's still plenty of support there.

What I described is a (surgical) military solution, focused on terrorists, which does not involve bombing every Palestinian to dust. Diplomacy and deal-making can also be involved in a process in which more reasonable Hamas leaders will fare better than unreasonable ones. But this requires first a willingness to deal.

There seems to be no shortage of terrorists and as you point out below, this could take a very, very long time. Subjecting a group of people who feel threatened (in this case the Palestinians) to ongoing bombardment which will inevitably involve civilian casualties is unlikely to reduce support for the terrorists (at least that's what happened in other countries).

How long it will take is irrelevant. The Israelis have not packed their bags. They have no trains to catch. As one Israeli official explained on CNN yesterday, "We've been here for thousands of years. We aren't going anywhere."

Sure, but Israelis will have to endure rocket attacks for the months or years that the programme of surgical strikes carries on.

 

[IDB87]

why does everything have to be black and white.
these are complex issues.

that being said, i believe that israel is the problem.
their treatment of palestinians is deplorable.
gaza is a travesty.

A million laughing dogs.

 

[WildCat]

A million laughing dogs.

When there are complex problems sometimes the answer is often surprisingly simple: it's the Jews' fault.

Hasn't history shown this over and over? Read that link bikerdruid provided earlier for example, where it is explained how the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves. History man, history.

 

[bikerdruid]

When there are complex problems sometimes the answer is often surprisingly simple: it's the Jews' fault.

Hasn't history shown this over and over? Read that link bikerdruid provided earlier for example, where it is explained how the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves. History man, history.

that link said nothing of the sort.

 

[Mycroft]

I didnt mention any of those things, i just pointed out that you've made numerous claims that they were snatched from the street that day - I simply asked for what evidence you had for your claims that contradicts the evidence you've seen. Pretty straight forward really.

I think any reasonable person would see a body being dragged through the streets as evidence that he didn't get due process.

 

[Mycroft]

What did I say wrong?

I could make a pretty long list, but what you did that led directly to that comment was to ascribe to me an opinion that I didn't say and that doesn't follow from anything that I said. If you want to have a dialogue, you should at least pay attention to what the other person is saying.

Previously you started a thread about "us versus them" thinking, as though you personally had risen above such partisanship, but in actual discourse you're very partisan. You have your opinions, and seem unwilling to even try to understand different points of view. Further, your actual knowledge is shallow, at best.

I was just asking whether Israel blows settlements outside the 1967 borders or not and, if yes, how is this supposed to help the peace process.

And you ask that of me...why? Have I ever claimed Israel doesn't make settlements in the West Bank? Have I ever claimed such settlements help the peace process? No? Then it's a nonsensical question and doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[WildCat]

that link said nothing of the sort.

Perhaps you can explain what the paper from your "history man, history" source says then?

Here's the conclusion:

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People."

 

[Mycroft]

that link said nothing of the sort.

Sometimes I wonder if what you're doing is some sort of parody.

For example when you say things are not black and white and that issues are complex, then follow it up with a black and white pronouncement and simplistic statements, it seems like you must be joking.

But I don't think you are.

 

[Mycroft]

On the contrary, there is a broad consensus that Hamas has been strengthened by Israel's most recent effort to destroy it, e.g.:

The "broad consensus" is among those who are anti-Israel to begin with, and they think it's advantageous to convince Israelis that it's wrong to resist Hamas.

Indeed and we only see one side out on the streets joyously celebrating the ceasefire and regarding it as an empowering victory, AFAIK.

It's difficult to imagine how you would consider that evidence of an actual Hamas victory without actually sympathizing with Hamas.

 

[Toontown]

Hamas' continuing popularity seems to me to show that sufficient Palestinians continue to believe the propaganda. The recent rhetoric about "victory" shows that there's still plenty of support there.

I don't know what you're getting at. Palestinians are mostly just happy the ground assault didn't come. And I wouldn't expect them to suddenly become completely disillusioned with Hamas simply because a couple of Hamas leaders were killed. Would the Palestinians prefer that civilians were specifically targeted, as Hamas does?

There seems to be no shortage of terrorists and as you point out below, this could take a very, very long time. Subjecting a group of people who feel threatened (in this case the Palestinians) to ongoing bombardment which will inevitably involve civilian casualties is unlikely to reduce support for the terrorists (at least that's what happened in other countries).

There needn't be any ongoing bombardment if there are no attacks from Hamas. The idea is to apply selective pressure to Hamas. Attacking them when they haven't done anything would be counterproductive.

Sure, but Israelis will have to endure rocket attacks for the months or years that the programme of surgical strikes carries on.

Again, if and only if Hamas attacks does the strategy require strikes on Hamas leaders, rocket launching sites, and such. Hamas leaders who do not attack do not need to be hit. That would be counter to the concept of selective pressure. A Hamas leader who does not initiate attacks might be exactly what Israel is looking for - someone they can do business with. As Netanyahu says, Israel will accept a Palestinian state which accepts a Jewish state.

 

[dudalb]

Just struck me that living in Gaza under Hamas would be a lot like living In Gotham City during when Bane was in charge.
The Northren Ireland solution is not going to work because Hamas and the other Islamic Militants are a LOT more radical in their goals then the IRA ever was. In the end, was the IRA had political goals, however unrealistic, but Haman, Hezbollah, and company have religious goals. Huge difference.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Here's how The Economist described the start of the latest escalation:

"The temperature rose earlier this month when a rocket fired from Gaza, probably by a Palestinian group that is a lot wilder than Hamas, which has generally abided by an informal ceasefire since 2009, hit an Israeli jeep across the border, wounding four soldiers. A retaliatory Israeli air raid killed four Palestinians at a funeral. More Palestinian rockets were fired, some by Hamas itself. Then, on November 14th, Ahmad Jabari, Hamas’s military commander, was killed in an Israeli air strike, prompting a still more vigorous Hamas response. The next day, in an even more dangerous escalation, a rocket killed three Israeli civilians in a town between Gaza and Tel Aviv, Israel’s biggest city.


Though hundreds of rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza in the past year, most of them have been inaccurate home-made contraptions; not a single Israeli had previously been killed by one this year (and about a score since 2004), so the latest Israeli fatalities may prompt Mr Netanyahu to retaliate more fiercely still. As The Economist went to press, there were the usual futile worldwide calls for restraint."

 

[Safe-Keeper]

why does everything have to be black and white.
these are complex issues.

that being said, i believe that israel is the problem.
their treatment of palestinians is deplorable.
gaza is a travesty.

A million laughing dogs.

A million is not nearly enough.

 

[trustbutverify]

The "broad consensus" is among those who are anti-Israel to begin with, and they think it's advantageous to convince Israelis that it's wrong to resist Hamas.

Mostly, but there are both Israeli citizens and sympathetic international media moaning about a Hamas "victory"... due to their unrealistic expectations. (Although this is starting to turn around as cooler heads gain reasonable perspective.)

Personally, I can't stand Likud, Lieberman or the Netanyahu administration. But in this case, I think they handled the crisis fairly well.
The IDF was able to eliminate a healthy portion of the Hamas command structure, weapons storage facilities and transport tunnels. The lion's share of their missile arsenal was bled out with very little actual results, due to the stunning effectiveness of Iron Dome- a system that just a few years ago was considered by some analysts to be a colossal waste of resources which would never have a significant role on the battlefield. And this was accomplished without having to resort to a ground assault.

From what I've read so far, the cease fire extracted no serious concessions from Israel. Halting targeted assassinations would naturally be included, and loosening restrictions on Palestinian movement was being planned before the crisis began. Meanwhile, shortly after the cease fire took effect, Mashaal stated that Hamas accepts 2 states based on the '67 borders and was willing to proceed without resorting to violence in any form. IIRC, this is the first time this stance has been put on record; it might have been a negotiated condition for the agreement.

Who knows... a few more of these spectacular Hamas "victories" and we may even live to see Israel recognized as a legitimate Jewish state.

 

[theprestige]

Here's how The Economist described the start of the latest escalation:

You know the economy has been hard on print media, when even the Economist is reduced to hiring high school students to write and edit copy.