Israel/Gaza Conflict

[TooNice]

Are there really that many true civilians in all this? What percentage of people living there don't really take a side?[...]

While every combatants have taken a side, not everyone taking a side is necessarily a combatant. I would say that of the examples you have given, some are definitely combatants, some may be combatants, and some are definitely not combatants. I do not view the concept of civilian / combatant as "anti-Israeli" since I do not believe a uniform is necessary in defining a combatant. Oh it, it makes identification easier, sure. The lack off makes it harder on the Israeli, sure. But it is not anti-Israeli.

Now let's be clear. I am sure that the rockets fired at Israel would also have caused significant civilian causalities if not for the Iron Dome. And even now citizens of Israel have to pay for the defence (I suspect it is more expensive to defend against the rocket then to make the rocket - or level Gaza). I am certainly not painting the Hamas as the good guys here.

But Israel is clearly the greater military power here. And with that power, I believe should comes responsibility. Civilian casualties may be a tragic consequence of any conflict (something unfortunate in itself), but that still doesn't mean it should be disregarded.

[Galant]

I've wondered about an option 3:

Israel takes advantage of Hamas' poor military arsenal and goes to the UN/allies and says, "We're not going to launch a single offensive strike against Hamas, we're going to be defensive only. It's going to be hell on the people living near the border who will be back and forth from the bomb shelter, but we're going to do it. When Hamas keep firing we're going to require you to go in there and stop them, eject them, destroy them, whatever. We will then work with you to build a prosperous Gaza since it benefits both sides."

The ball will then be in the court of the UN or whomever is approached.

Hamas can't be given the ball unless they're willing to officially acknowledge that a game exists and their opponent has a right to play.

If the UN/allies don't do anything within a good amount of time and if Hamas carry on with their rockets then there are two choices.

Destroy Hamas, or, better, find a way to help Gazans prosper despite Hamas. In the end I think it will be Gazan prosperity that turns the tables on Hamas, if anything.

[drone567]

What makes you English? Or Scottish? Or Yorkshirish?

I think whichever country they moved to, it was their Jewish identity which bound them together. I find it strange, the same people who bemoan the loss of say Aboriginal homelands, don't understand the Jews longing for the sacred sites, and security of their own homelands. Isn't this conflict just another hotspot in the ongoing conflict between Jew/Christian and muslim? I know they all originate
from the same core beliefs, at the time of Abraham. I think countries need to be established, clear boundaries drawn. Otherwise many countries could be drawn in; muslims here sympathise with muslims fighting abroad. This age old antipathy could draw many countries in! So I just checked Hamas means 'Islamic Resistance Movement', and are an offshoot of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. So maybe they don't like the idea of Jews returning to the homelands they originally drove them out of, a few centuries ago!

[wasabi]

I've wondered about an option 3:

Israel takes advantage of Hamas' poor military arsenal and goes to the UN/allies and says, "We're not going to launch a single offensive strike against Hamas, we're going to be defensive only. It's going to be hell on the people living near the border who will be back and forth from the bomb shelter, but we're going to do it. When Hamas keep firing we're going to require you to go in there and stop them, eject them, destroy them, whatever. We will then work with you to build a prosperous Gaza since it benefits both sides."

The ball will then be in the court of the UN or whomever is approached.

Hamas can't be given the ball unless they're willing to officially acknowledge that a game exists and their opponent has a right to play.

If the UN/allies don't do anything within a good amount of time and if Hamas carry on with their rockets then there are two choices.

Destroy Hamas, or, better, find a way to help Gazans prosper despite Hamas. In the end I think it will be Gazan prosperity that turns the tables on Hamas, if anything.

Won't work. UN is a toothless nervous maiden aunt. Even if they did accept the poison chalice, they'd back down vs Hamas aggression at every step in the name of peace. Apart from that it would delegitimize the israeli state so again, not going to happen.

[wasabi]

Reminds me of West Wing.

[Galant]

Won't work. UN is a toothless nervous maiden aunt. Even if they did accept the poison chalice, they'd back down vs Hamas aggression at every step in the name of peace. Apart from that it would delegitimize the israeli state so again, not going to happen.

Toothless yes, but it would at least show willingness.

Don't understand how it would delegitimize Israel though - quite the opposite now? Israel working with the UN and the UN defending Israel?

[wasabi]

Don't understand how it would delegitimize Israel though - quite the opposite now? Israel working with the UN and the UN defending Israel?

Israel would be seen to be handing over the right to make defensive decisions to an outside body. Any attempt to take it back would be portrayed in idiot-media as a hostile power grab and keenness to resume hostilities. The UN would never actually defend Israel, just concede to Hamas at every step after a lot of huffing and puffing and stern words.

[Galant]

But could that not be mitigated by specifying certain requirements/deadlines?

People were outraged when the USA acted independently with regard to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Are we now saying that any attempt to work with the UN or allow them to have a fuller role is counter-productive?

[opel80uk]

I think I can pretty much guarantee that just about any other country would be reacting very firmly to 14000 rockets. What would the US do if 14000 rockets had been fired from Mexico, or Cuba? What would France do if the UK had fired 14000 rockets, or vice versa? We'd be at war. How would Putin react to 14, let alone 14000 tockets from Ukraine? Odds are troops would be over the border 10 minutes after they finished breakfast. What country would put up with it?

That’s not quite the right question to ask though, is it? The question would have to be how France would react if the UK fired 14000 rockets whilst France was occupying the south coast of England, contrary to the views of the international community, and blockading the English channel which has been deemed illegal by the ICJ. The response from France would be much the same either way, and similar to Israel’s, but I imagine the response from the wider community may be very different to what we see now.

Adter decades of intense international effort, including from repeated US presidents, what actual progress has there been in getting any solution sorted? From what I can tell. Naff-all. Zip. Nowt. Not-a-bleeping-thing.

What's that definition of stupidity? Keep repeating the same actions and expecting different results?

Hamas is not going to stop firing rockets until, first, the blockade is lifted, which is a step towards their objective of the destruction of the state of Israel. And Israel is not going to lift the blockade until it sees a credible way of ensuring it's own security, which it can't do given Hamas' objective of its destruction.

We have two directly opposing and apparently intractable opponents, both of whom have non-negotiable fundamental positions, and peace cannot exist with both sets of preconditions. Since I can't see Israel ever deciding to commit national suicide, it seems to me that either Hamas is going to have give up on destroying Israel, and actually talk about some sort of two-state solution, or the killing will go on, flaring up and settling down, repeatedly, ad nauseum.

It takes both sides being prepared to deal to get any chance if peace. If it wasn't for that stunning sight of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness sitting down and actually working with Ian Paisley, I'd say Israel and the Palestinians have no chance at all. As it is, I'd say very little chance, and none at all unless Hamas gives up tryjng to destroy Israel and accepts there's going to have to be talk, and compromise, or the blood will continue to flow.

I think there is a certain naivety in what the above suggests. It implies that it is only Hamas that is seeking the destruction of the opposite side when, in both practise an rhetoric, Israel is equally culpable. The continued expansion of settlements (and if you look at land taken then yes, it is expanding) is the most obvious territory grab there is, and offers the state of Israel no more protection than if they didn’t exist. If that is not destruction by stealth, what is it?

Moshe Feiglin, not a 2 bit backbencher, but Deputy Speaker of the Knesset outlined his proposals for “peace” with a 7 point plan. You can find it online, but here’s the bit that’s most interesting:

“Sovereignty – Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever. Liberation of parts of our land forever is the only thing that justifies endangering our soldiers in battle to capture land. Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel. The coastal train line will be extended, as soon as possible, to reach the entire length of Gaza.

According to polls, most of the Arabs in Gaza wish to leave. Those who were not involved in anti-Israel activity will be offered a generous international emigration package. Those who choose to remain will receive permanent resident status. After a number of years of living in Israel and becoming accustomed to it, contingent on appropriate legislation in the Knesset and the authorization of the Minister of Interior, those who personally accept upon themselves Israel’s rule, substance and way of life of the Jewish State in its Land, will be offered Israeli citizenship.”

Did this view meet with widespread condemnation from within Israel, either inside or outside political circles? No, it did not. Was it rejected by his Governing party? No, it was not. And there are plenty more quotes from big hitters inside the Government alluding to the same. This Israeli Government is one of the most Right-wing in living history, and to assume that it is just one side seeking the destruction of the other is simply the selective picking of facts, and the towing of the Israeli line of just wanting security, when all the indicators are of something else.

[Saracen]

Feiglin a a right-wing hardliner and, while leading a significant minority, it is a minority even inside Likud, let alone Israel. Twice, he's stood against Netanyahu to lead Likud, and twice he's lost, 3 to 1. And yes, he's deputy speaker, but it's a typical political move, and has only been in the Knesset for year and a bit, never mind deputy speaker. His views are not those of the government.

[wasabi]

Interestingly Warsi has jumped over the issue. Not sure what she thinks the Tories should be doing. I read her resignatioin letter and it was rather light on specifics.

[Galant]

Interestingly Warsi has jumped over the issue. Not sure what she thinks the Tories should be doing. I read her resignatioin letter and it was rather light on specifics.

It's a bit odd that she's resigned over the government's policy when, as to my knowledge there isn't an official government policy. And the new Sec of State Hammond has barely even had a chance to find his seat.

[opel80uk]

Feiglin a a right-wing hardliner and, while leading a significant minority, it is a minority even inside Likud, let alone Israel. Twice, he's stood against Netanyahu to lead Likud, and twice he's lost, 3 to 1. And yes, he's deputy speaker, but it's a typical political move, and has only been in the Knesset for year and a bit, never mind deputy speaker. His views are not those of the government.

Sorry, but that’s a fudge. It’s hard to imagine any Government that is serious about peace elevating someone with views that run so contrary to achieving it to such a prominent position, even more so if, like you say, he’s only been in for a year and a bit. But ok, let’s dismiss him as a complete one off. What about Hotovely, the rising star of Likud, quoted as saying ‘Arabs have a different D.N.A. that lacks humanity’? Another one off and not the Governments position, no doubt. Ok, so lets look at what the Government parties stated position is. Likud’s 1999 election campaign stated, amongst other things that –

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

And

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Now some will claim that this is old (whilst perversely happy to refer to the Hamas charter written over 25 years ago), and that Netanyahu has dismantled some settlements and constantly referred to a 2 state solution, but here’s what he said during this crisis last month –

“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan”

Furthermore, during the last round of peace talks before the latest crisis, Israel increased settlement work fourfold with the construction of nearly 14,000 homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem according to Peace Now. Is that the actions of a party who are serious about a viable homeland for Palestinians?

Hamas are appalling. You only need to look at their documentation to see that they are appealing to the most base instincts imaginable, with Jews painted as some sort of monsters. But there is nothing, in either action or words, that suggests to me Israel are serious about Peace either, and to imply that the onus is mainly on Hamas to recognise Israel is to ignore what has been happening for the past God knows how many years. One of the reasons the Good Friday Agreement worked is because all parties were very open about what their goals were. It could never have worked if Adams was telling those opposite that he had no interest in a United Ireland, when his actions and words, and those of the IRA, indicated the exact opposite. That’s why Middle East peace talks have, through the years, been little more than a charade.

[pp05]

The only thing we know about Israel is they are a bunch of liars who can't be trusted. All the politicians know it and yet they keep quiet in order to keep their funding going after all we are headed for general elections.

Myth no1: "Palestinians use human shields" - UN and other human rights organizations and Israel themselves acknowledge that THEY have used Palestinians as human shields.

Myth no2: "they want to wipe us off map". Reality: Rhetoric among those in Israeli government and leading figures: killing, raping, exterminating Palestinians from Gaza strip is fair game and to be encouraged. This is unofficial policy for the Gaza strip.

Israel knew about the kidnapping of 3 teenagers days earlier and yet kept quiet about the details, later they would use this as a pretext for bombing. So they lied about Hamas involvement.

Israel also knew their soldier died in combat yet made a fool of the US president by telling them it was a kidnapping in order to carry on bombing.

Once the ceasefire had been agreed they carried on trying to destroy tunnels knowing that they would be attacked by fighters in the area and then broke the ceasefire by blaming the other side for defending their territory.

Israel also said Hamas didn't agree to the ceasefire that they were not present to or involved in. It was just something drawn up between them and Eygpt for propaganda purposes.

Israel is an occupier under international law, that makes them responsible for all civilians in the Gaza strip. What they have carried out is genocide and unfortunately Hamas cannot rely on UN or anyone else for justice. Hamas don't have any serious weapons to defend themselves with, Israel knows this and so wanted to go in and destroy them economically.

[Saracen]

....

But ok, let’s dismiss him as a complete one off. What about .....

As I said at the start of this thread,

I'm not really interested in discussing this at length, not least because it's an apparently intractable problem that I've been watching news reports about for, oh, 50 years, and not a lot has changed. And I'm not sure I see any realistic prospect of much changing in the future either.

And, In both my first two posts, while I depore civilian casualties on both sides, AND in othsr conflicts, the casualties in which make the totals in this latest round look tiny in comoarison, for the combatants (and those includes authorities on both sides giving orders), a pox on both their houses.

There have been so many attempts at peace talks, so much international effort, and what has it achieved? Nothing, that I can see. And even if the current ceasefire sticks, in a few months or a few years, we'll be right back here again.

Again, while I deplore the civilian casualties, I'm bored rigid by the perennial bloodshed between two parties neither of whom seem to want peace. There's nothing I can do about it, and for all the prognsticating by the government, and. moral outrage from the , ikes of Miliband, nothing the UK can do about it.

So, beyond that regret for civilans, I've given up caring what they do, or try their best to do, to each other.

[pp05]

So, beyond that regret for civilans, I've given up caring what they do, or try their best to do, to each other.

On LBC the presenter made the same remark. This conflict will never be solved so he questioned whether we are better off to avoid it altogether and stop giving it any attention.