Israel/Gaza Conflict

[j1979]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-9653894.html

George Galloway...

“We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford, if any of them had thought of doing so"

Has Bradford ever had a tourist?

He's just getting votes to maintain his MP paycheck, as the majority of his constituency are Sunni Muslims from Pakistan and most Palestinians are also Sunnis, as is ISIS and the Taliban.

[TheAnimus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28687233

[j1979]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28687233

Well many will see it as incitement to racial and religious hatred. Which is a joke. I think he's worded his statements well enough to avoid charges being brought. But who knows. I don't agree with most of what Galloway has to say, but I don't think he should be facing criminal charges.

We shouldn't be suppressing peoples opinions, it just stores up tension.

[sam0]

Part of the problem is Hamas is made up of different tribes, 1 tribe in particular causes most of the problems; the Qawasameh often without Hamas' authorisation. During 'peace time', the rocket attacks aren't commited by Hamas but by other cells in Gaza, they actively try to keep the peace. References: [1][2][3].

The only way I see lasting peace in the region is a 1 state solution, perhaps with Jerusalem as an international city like the Vatican. This would likely put an end to all the fighting (except the extremists on both sides, that will never stop). However, it could result in the Jews becoming a minority, so they'll never agree to it.

[drone567]

It's amazing how much media coverage (particularly social media), has become the new battleground. Hamas keep on firing rockets to harass Isrealis, and wait for the inevitable reaction, and then turn it into a propaganda war. All these groups are just trying to get powerful nations, or people to support their cause. I have notied certain newspapers back off from several stories recently, for fear they may be inflaminig the conflicts!

[neonplanet40]

It's amazing how much media coverage (particularly social media), has become the new battleground. Hamas keep on firing rockets to harass Isrealis, and wait for the inevitable reaction, and then turn it into a propaganda war. All these groups are just trying to get powerful nations, or people to support their cause. I have notied certain newspapers back off from several stories recently, for fear they may be inflaminig the conflicts!

There is more to it than that.

[TheAnimus]

There is more to it than that.

Actually I think that is a fair representation of certain Hamas elements playbook.

That isn't to say Palestine is hunky dory, and that settlers are only occupying land legally, but there is certainly a strategy of look how bad the retaliation we forced is. That certainly changes things!

[neonplanet40]

Maybe. But it seems that's the only way that they can get any help? I couldn't imagine living under the conditions they do. If the people in Gaza were US citizens, even if they were firing rockets. I would imagine peoples opinion of them would be much different.

[wasabi]

Maybe. But it seems that's the only way that they can get any help? I couldn't imagine living under the conditions they do. If the people in Gaza were US citizens, even if they were firing rockets. I would imagine peoples opinion of them would be much different.

Devil's advocate hat on. Should they be there in the first place? Aren't they're bascially refugees from other Arab nations? 'Palestine' as a concept didnt' even really exist unil the 60s. Sure, Israelis have a slightly sketchy historical rights to be there, but by the same measure 'Palestinians' much less.

[neonplanet40]

Devil's advocate hat on. Should they be there in the first place? Aren't they're bascially refugees from other Arab nations? 'Palestine' as a concept didnt' even really exist unil the 60s. Sure, Israelis have a slightly sketchy historical rights to be there, but by the same measure 'Palestinians' much less.

My history on that area is a little cloudy (there is quite a lot) but they have been there for a very long time. It has been the centre of conflict for hundreds of years but I don't see it as being a refugee camp for them.

Maybe someone who knows the entire history a little better could contribute?

[sam0]

Devil's advocate hat on. Should they be there in the first place? Aren't they're bascially refugees from other Arab nations? 'Palestine' as a concept didnt' even really exist unil the 60s. Sure, Israelis have a slightly sketchy historical rights to be there, but by the same measure 'Palestinians' much less.

If I have my history correct;

The Palestinians were in what is now Israel/Gaza/Westbank being ruled by the Ottomans. The British promised the Palestinians independence if they helped us against the Ottomans during WWI. A few years later we promised the same land to the Jews. After the Ottoman empire fell, the British ruled Palestine (aka British Mandate), trying to keep our promise to both ethnic groups. We tried to control Jewish immigration into Palestine but weren't very successful. There was large scale unrest over our rule, both ethnicities felt they were the sole owner of the land. There were extremists on both sides attacking each other and attacking the British. After the King David Hotel bombing by a Jewish terrorist group, the British Mandate became so unpopular with the British public that we pulled out in 1948. The UN tried to get involved and proposed partition (a two state solution) but the Palestinians refused the plan. The Palestinians and the Jews went to war, the Palestinians lost, and thus Israel was born in 1948.

I don't know about the Jewish claim to Israel before the 20th century.

[DeludedGuy]

What bugs me is...

If you have a system that can intercept 99.9% of missile attacks and have had 0 civilian casualties since you have implemented the system why do you need to respond with an attack that will possibly kill dozens of innocent civilians, including children?

Surely there is no need, Hamas will eventually realise it is not working, they will lose support, but if Israel ends up killing children you are actually increasing the support Hamas within the palestinian camp and vilifying yourself internationally.

[TooNice]

Hmm, but as far as I know, the civilian casualty is not zero though and at least in the short term the Hamas do not seem deterred by it. But I do feel like they are opting for a "kill one of us and we will kill a hundred of yours". Either that, or they feel like they must retaliate lest they invites further attacks. It is extremely highly effective but not 100% perfect after all.

OT, but I am not sure if it warrants a new thread as I am not sure if there is much to interest. But as part of the present Middle East crisis, the situation in Iraq is not looking good.

[sam0]

I don't know the current Israel civilian death toll, but a few days ago it was 3 compared to 1000 on Gaza's side. Israel does have a right to defend itself but their response needs to be proportionate.

[DeludedGuy]

I don't know the current Israel civilian death toll, but a few days ago it was 3 compared to 1000 on Gaza's side. Israel does have a right to defend itself but their response needs to be proportionate.

It is entirely possible to defend yourself without massacring people.

[Saracen]

What bugs me is...

If you have a system that can intercept 99.9% of missile attacks and have had 0 civilian casualties since you have implemented the system why do you need to respond with an attack that will possibly kill dozens of innocent civilians, including children?

Surely there is no need, Hamas will eventually realise it is not working, they will lose support, but if Israel ends up killing children you are actually increasing the support Hamas within the palestinian camp and vilifying yourself internationally.

The lack of civilian casualties can't be put down entirely to Iron Dome, though. Firstly, effectiveness claims vary, but I've seen claims suggesting about 90% success of incoming rockets it engaged. Not all are engaged. The suggested cost is about $100,000 per attempted interception, so with some 2000 rockets over the last few weeks, even that is expensive, and is just the cost of the intercepting rockets, not the system itself.

But that's not really my point. Part of the Israeli effort to minimise casualties has been many years of very intensive infrastructure development, requiring all public buildings to be capable of withstanding direct hits, of extensive reinforcing even of homes and building code in some areas effectively requiring it of new builds. They've even reinforced hundreds of public bus shelters to withstand rocket fire, though whether it's proof against direct hit or just against shrapnel damage, I don't know.

Even before Iron Dome went operational, fatalities from rockets were relatively few. Injuries, even permanent disabilities a lot higher, but fatalities pretty low. So, when looking at the effectiveness of Hamas rockets in terms of casualties, or fatalities, you have to consider the effectiveness of a HUGE civil works program designed specifically to protect civilians from such rockets.

But the result of that, and (depending on which figures you take) between 10000 and 16000 rockets since 2001, is a large part of southern Israel living in a permanent state of fear of incoming rockets, with casualties only as low as they are because of the bomb shelters, reinforced homes, etc.

Regardless of whether we think Hamas is entitled to be firing all these rockets or not, or whether Israel's recent response is proportionate (or justified) or not, the lack of casualties can't be put exclusively, or even in major part, down to Iron Dome. Sure, it helps, but it's the bomb-proof buildings largely responsible for keeping casualties down.