It's WAR in the Middle East!

4 deaths compared to 400 hard to justify even on religious grounds.

 

The West Bank is, but Gaza is not. Not since 2005.

I don't see any connection. Hamas is running Gaza. Israel packed up and left. Therefore Gaza is not occupied.

Recognition of Hamas is complicated, particularly when Fatah doesn't recognise Hamas's government either. Hamas is illegal in Jordan, and many countries consider it a terrorist organisation. But all that could be put aside if they could take a rational, constructive line and start negotiation a real peace.

But Hamas refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. Surely anyone can see the problem here?

Well in that region everything is disputed. I think there is confusion about recognising Hamas as the democatically elected government, and cooperating with it/engaging with it. They were elected, that's a fact. Nobody is obligated to deal with them when they won't meet basic preconditions like accepting Israel's right to exist and renouncing terrorism.

 

You try to blame the rocket attacks on Israeli agents, and you talk to me about "spin"? What complete bullshit.

If you really didn't want conflict you'd stop bending over backwards to find excuses for Hamas.

 

Ah ok, that'll be a geography failure on my part.

I would say it's a problem of about the same size ideologically.
Pragmatically, Hamas are the military underdogs, meaning Israel's rejection of them is the more immediate problem, since Israel actually has the power to enact their wishes and take a great many innocent civilians with them.
I'm more sympathetic to Israel than most who move in my political circles, it's absurd to expect Israel to lie down and accept a political party whose stated aim is to drive them into the sea, but that doesn't give Israel carte blanche when dealing with Hamas.

The number of civilian casualties in these conflicts are horrendous, Hamas hiding in civilian areas is no justification for that.

Well Israel recognised the election but not the result of the election, which is the problem for me. And then Israel and the states imposed crippling economic sanctions to destroy them, when this failed, they resorted to military measures.

Hamas are bad people, but they also build hospitals, schools and libraries, and are the only visible military presence that Palestinians see defending them when Israel indiscriminantly attacks them. It is hardly a surprise that they were a popular election choice.

Israel may dislike Hamas, and may not want to deal with them, and do not have to, but they are a legitimate authority, and undermining them this way does not bring peace or resolution any closer.

 

I would disagree because Israel is willing to negotiate with Fatah in the west bank, which is the larger area geographically and by population. Hamas is the roadblock here, Israel is willing to move forward with peace with the right partner. There isn't enough evidence that Hamas wants to negotiate peace with anyone.

I'd disagree because Israel is not attacking Hamas because they don't recognise them. Hamas is not attacking Israel to get recognised. Recognition is not the issue. The issue is rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

We're in the same boat then. If Hamas can meet the preconditions then I'd say deal with them.

I think it has been proportionate and necessary, but of course I respect your view on that.

I don't think it matters as much as people make it sound like it does. There is no point in negotiating with someone who calls for your destruction. What is there to talk about?

I don't think so. Israel is not attacking Hamas just because they don't like them. They attack them because Hamas is an active, deadly threat. From Israel's perspective, Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction and is doing everything it can to get weapons. How can you trust a group like that? Every humanitarian avenue is corrupted by Hamas's violent intentions. Why allow your enemy to build up?

But how are they defending Gaza by inciting Israeli attacks? I think Gazans will figure this out eventually. They aren't popular on the west bank and I doubt they will be popular much longer in Gaza.

This assumes there is some point to dealing with them. Israel's opening offer is an independent palestinian state, a process they have been working on with other Palestinian parties. They have allowed the creation of the Palestinian Authority, and they ended the occupation of Gaza. Its not just talk. Hamas on the other hand has the destruction of Israel as its opening "offer". There is no middle to meet in there.

 

I certainly agree that Hamas needs to give a lot of ground, but as always I think the issue is a lot more complex.
The civilian (especially child) casualties inflicted on Palestinians by Israel, the daily abuses of human rights, the degredation every day citizens are subjected to are appalling.
Hamas is brutal and radical, but is it any surprise? and is it a surprise that Palestinians are turning to Hamas in elections?

Hamas isn't just a terrorist group, they also provide healthcare, welfare and support to their people.

Hamas winning an election would not have heralded Israel's destruction, and whilst they are able to inflict terrorist assault on Israel, they simply lack the capacity to defeat her militarily in any real terms.
To respond to an election victory by starving and killing those who voted the party into power seems heavy handed to me.
The appropriate responses to terrorists and terrorist cells are not wholesale bombing of a predominantly unarmed territory.

Hamas' ideology is a problem, but for me the more immediate problem is Israel's treatment of palestinians and their brutal approach to the problem.

I think this may be oversimplification. I will agree that recognition isn't the whole of the issue, but to say the "only" issue here is hamas rocket attacks is to ignore a lot of what goes in.

Yes, deal and negotiate with them when they meet those conditions. That is one thing. But we aren't just talking about whether or not Israel will negotiate, we are talking about an armed state (a nuclear one at that) conducting warfare against non-combatants.
Hamas would have a lot harder time recruiting if Israel was not sending daily armed patrols into Palestine, if Israel was not constantly trying to control palestinian democracy.
These things need to go a step at a time. Hamas needs to stop rocket attacks, but Israel also needs to stop human rights abuses.

It doesn't appear to have achieved any of it's military goals yet, and has killed hundreds of people not involved.
So I'll have to disagree there, I can see why Israel wants to take action, but I do not think this action is fair or proportionate.

Everything I should have thought. Not everybody in Palestine who has supported Hamas supports Israel's destruction. I think they can be negotiated with, but it is only possible to negotiate between equals.
You cannot claim to be fairly negotiating when one party is on their knees.

Hamas field similar arguments to their own people against Israel.
There will never be peace until someone takes a leap of faith and trusts the others

Israeli attacks on civilians have been known to take place even when Hamas is not actively attacking Israel.
Getting elected was not an incitement, and yet violence was Israel's response to Hamas taking part in democracy.

Again, it is complex. I think it is hard to talk of Hamas as a singular entity. There are moderates within them and I think they can be reached, but Israel is not making such discriminations. It's war on Hamas is equally a war on all other Palestinians in Hamas' immediate vicinity

 

It looks to me like Hamas reaped what it sowed. Israel did in fact break the cease fire agreement. It did so by bombing a tunnel constructed by Hamas for the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Was Israel justified in bombing this tunnel in light of the ceasefire? In my opinion, yes.

In the complete attached article (it's from PBS in case you think it's from some conservative blog) , Israel states it's emphatic wish to continue the cease fire as long as the rockets stop raining down on Israel. But goes on to say that it wants the truce to continue, but an escalation in rocket fire could bring strong retaliation.

The Hamas response: "The cease-fire is over and there won't be a renewal...We issue a warning to the Zionist enemy: all attacks against the Gaza Strip or any new crime will trigger a large-scale confrontation and we will retaliate very fiercely."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/july-dec08/mideast_12-19.html
Hamas leaders in Gaza declared an end to a troubled six-month truce with Israel and vowed to respond to any attack, as Egypt -- which helped broker the ceasefire -- called for restraint on Friday.

 

I think it's time for a showdown in the Middle East. I say that based on the amount of hatred stored in all concerned. It's time to call the zionist hand.

What has been accomplished with diplomacy these past 30 years or so? This is a festering sore that needs to be cured instead of "treated".

The sooner ya'll get on with it, the sooner we'll come out the other end.

It's put up or shut up time, O' Israel. Harlot of the Middle East. You don't look so nice in the light of day. We need to drag you out more often so you can be seen.

If we can ever sober up Uncle Sam, he'll have orders to stay away from you.



x

 

They do suffer repression, and their are civilian casualties. But this is an armed conflict.

So the argument goes. But Palestinians are not the only repressed people in the world. Oppressed people everywhere don't react with the same stupidly self destructive way to their oppression. We only have to look to the west bank to see that Palestinians are not obligated to vote for a death cult of islamic extremists. The other point is that this is taking away any sense of accountability - "Palestinians are oppressed you see, so they have no responsibility for their actions". Well no actually, they are responsible.

This is often pointed out but so what? Yes they provide children's television that glorifies martyrdom for preschoolers. Is that good?

Its not just about losing a war and being destroyed. Israel has no obligation to acccept daily attacks on its citizens. Until Hamas understands this, Gaza is going to be a violent place.

Yes an election victory. Again, like gardener, you think there is something holy about a democratically elected government, that we can't oppose it. But if a death cult group of Islamic extremists gets elected, why would anybody be obligated to cooperate with them? Hamas themselves can't even get along with Fatah, and soon after they were elected they were in a civil war. Hundreds were killed, although apparently if Hamas ties people up and throws them off apartment buildings it isn't a big deal, whereas if Israel drops bombs on Hamas after suffering hundreds of rocket attacks, its a humanitarian catastrophe.

Then why isn't Hamas in power in the west bank? Why isn't Israel bombing targets in the west bank in response to rocket attacks? Its a mistake to go down this apologist road that says Palestinians have to engage in terrorism. They obviously don't, so why reward the ones that do?

THe whole conflict is about alot more, but these Israeli airstrikes are about the rocket attacks. Hamas chose to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. Israel gave warnings. Hamas ignored the warnings and continued the rockets. They got the retaliation they had been warned about. So here we are.

Israel is not targetting civilians. And Hamas are hardly non-combatants. The distinction is important - Israel does not target civilians, Hamas specifically targets civilians.

Well this is what you want to be true, what you hope is true. But the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the forced removal of 9,000 settlers, was not a small gesture. It was a very big move and it was what everyone had been telling them they must do. It was rewarded with the election of Hamas, rocket attacks, and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. See the problem? Concessions didn't lead to more peace, they led to more violence.

Whe the Palestinians thought they were equals they tried to invade and destory the country with help for Arab neighbors.

Which Israel did by ending the occupation of Gaza.

I'm sure Israel targets those it cannot deal with. Similarly, moderate Palestinians have given targetting information to Israel to help eliminate the radicals. But the point is, Israel cannot stand by and watch its citizens get bombarded. Hamas chose this policy, Hamas is targetted for the response. That is the best choice Israel can make. Doing nothing is not an option.

 

A quick question for Xenon, Pressed-Rat, Bonzi, Gardener...and the other Hamas apologists.

What future do you see for the land of Israel?

Is it a one state option where Muslim and Jew (and all other faiths) live side by side as equals in of peace and prosperity?
How do you think Jewish people would be treated in a Muslim dominated united Israel? (Presently the population of Jews is about equal to the number of Palestinians in Israel Gaza and the West Bank but Palestinians have a much higher birth rate).

Do you think a 2 state solution is possible where the two parties live side by side peacefully? Do you think a Islamic lead government could ever reign in the militants and terrorists or would they stand by while shells and bombs fall over Israel? Could an Islamic government ever allow a Jewish state to live peacefully in the region?

 

Israel united as one nation, one people.

The idea of a "Jewish Homeland " has to be surrendered. As does the current flag, which will always be seen as a racist symbol of a turbulent past.



x

 

Xenon...As per my question, please describe this one nation as you see it. Is it a nation of two equal parties or is it a simple democracy where majority rules? How would Jews be treated in a Muslim dominated Israel?

 

You HAVE to take religion out of government. Any government.

A democratic goverment can only function when citizen A is equal to citizen B. Israel parades itself as a democracy, but in reality is just a good looking corpse. Same as the United States. Our governments are currently beyond the control of the people.

We are "democratic" mice running in a maze built just for us. Democratic in name only. And we are both dangerous to the rest of the world.

The question is... what will the rest of the world do about it when push comes to shove?

The USA and Israel versus the rest of the world. Odds are not in our favor if we continue down this path to our own destruction.

Zionism must be unplugged, beheaded, and buried at sunrise.

Then, maybe Israel can have a normal existance.

Us too.




x

 

Innocent civilians is a term being bandied about on this thread, let’s take a look at it.

Innocent civilians, innocent means in this sense not guilty of a crime or offense or not intending to cause harm and civilian is a citizen who is not a member of the armed forces.

What a civilian is has been blurred over recent years, when man, woman or child can be rigged with a suicide bomb and children as young as 7 or 8 can be seen carrying AK47s, in a war there really is no such thing as a civilian anymore.

Now let’s take a look at innocent, as for harmless really who can be said to be harmless anymore and guiltless, if you democratically elect a government that openly advocates the destruction of your neighboring country and then acts on it, can you really be said to be guiltless?

Personally I don’t believe in war being the solution to anything but once you cross that line all sorts of people are going to die in some horrible and gruesome ways and bringing attention to it only shows war for what it is and does not prove your point that the other side is unfair, I mean it’s war after all isn’t it?

 

Xenon...And yet you fail to answer my simple question. How do you see Jews being treated in a Muslim dominated Israel? I am not asking for what you envision as the best possible result but what do you see as a result with the present Hamas regime being the dominant political force within a united Israel?

 

This fantasy isn't going to happen. There is no point in discussing it.

Israel has nuclear weapons, which is a bigger stick than Hamas has.

The biggest danger is from Israel, not Hamas.



x

 

Xenon...Regarding the one state solution...You said...

Followed by "This fantasy isn't going to happen. There is no point in discussing it."... regarding a democratic Israel where Jews and Muslims cooperate in a democracy.


So what is it that you see replacing Israel in light of the parties we are dealing with presently?

I really don't know why you can't try to answer this simple question.

 

I've answered the question.

The only future Israel has is where everyone is treated as an equal. The idea of Jew or Muslim must never enter the equation.

Israeli. That's all anybody needs to call themselves.

It can still be a holy land for 3 religions, it just can't use that race card in the game anymore.

I don't think it's too much to ask.

Israel's future is one of a radioactive keep-away zone otherwise.


x

 

As a I side note, I just finished watching an article on the CBS evening news. They were pretty harsh with Israel.

Perhaps the tide is turning?



x

 

No Xenon, you never fully answered my question. I don't know how to ask it in a clearer way.

Hamas is admittedly a Muslim organization. They will not set aside their Islamic ideals.

How do you think Jews would be treated in a Muslim dominated Israel?

Based on present population numbers, the much higher birth rate among Palestinians, along with the likelihood of throngs of returning refugees from the region, the Muslim population would be the dominant group in a unified Israel.

How do you see a Muslim dominated government treating the Jewish population if this were to come about?
Do you think there could be a civil democracy with a Muslim majority in Israel?