Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

[Ulysses G.]

Is that more of that "articulate reasoning" someone was going on about?  

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jay Sata]

Reasoning of any sort does not appear high on Netanyahu's agenda.

All he has done is stir up a hornets nest and got world public opinion against Israel.

[Ulysses G.]

He has also discovered and destroyed numerous tunnels into Israel, killed lots of terrorists and blown up loads of rockets and munitions. Israel has been getting unfair criticism since they became a country. I'm pretty sure that they are used to it. 

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jay Sata]

All propaganda from the IDF to justify the death toll that now tops 1,000 Palestinians, a Thai worker and left 46 Jewish mothers mourning the loss of their sons.

The last operation like this,Cast Lead, failed to achieve anything and so will this.

[up-country_sinclair]

The title of this thread:

 

Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

 

 

98.

 

That in and of itself is a moral outrage and a crime.  But Israel was not yet satiated.

 

In just over 2 weeks Israel has murdered 10X that number.

 

 

[Ulysses G.]

The last operation like this,Cast Lead, failed to achieve anything and so will this.

 

Really? The Hamas Interior Minister admitted the deaths of 700 militants - so there were probably many more. Senior Hamas military commanders were killed, as well as  50 explosives experts. Hamas experienced "widespread desertion" when Israeli advanced. They lost a large amount of weaponry and equipment and important storage facilities were discovered under mosques and public buildings. Sounds pretty successful  to me. 

[uptheos]

All this talk of ratio's.

 

Aren't the ratios set down by Hamas i.e. 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for 1 Israeli?

[Jingthing]

The title of this thread:

 

Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

 

 

98.

 

That in and of itself is a moral outrage and a crime.  But Israel was not yet satiated.

 

In just over 2 weeks Israel has murdered 10X that number.

 

 

Why should we take this seriously when the definition of murder is so blatantly distorted?

[CBR250]

 

The title of this thread:

 

Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

 

 

98.

 

That in and of itself is a moral outrage and a crime.  But Israel was not yet satiated.

 

In just over 2 weeks Israel has murdered 10X that number.

 

 

Why should we take this seriously when the definition of murder is so blatantly distorted?

 

 

Distorted? I think it is at the very least arguable that what the IDF has done to numerous civilians in Gaza can be seen to constitute the act of murder. Your one word rejection, BTW, does not constitute an argument. Have a look at some definitions of murder I rounded up for you in haste:

 

A USA slant:

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder)  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

 

Palestinians could probably argue for at least 2nd degree, although as the killings are during the course of a robbery (of land), hard liners would want a first degree conviction.

 

A British slant:

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/murder

 

I think that one is pretty clear. The firing of tank shells and missiles does not occur without some premeditation.

 

And you don't want to go near the Australian slant, it is so clearly murder all the way. Pay particular attention to the sections I have put in bold.

302 Definition of murder

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say”

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

(if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)( it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html

 

Murder for sure if we adopt that definition.

 

The main defence Israel and members of the IDF have to accusations of murder is to attempt to justify the killings as inadvertent deaths of civilians occurring during war. That's a hard one to argue against the footage of Israeli snipers murdering obviously unarmed civilians. However, the killing of large numbers of civilians during war can lead to an even more heinous charge than murder - that of committing war crimes. From my skim reading of what constitutes a war crime, I can see why Israel will not cooperate with any independent inquiry wishing to investigate what is happening in Gaza. Too much evidence of war crimes. Too many breaches of international conventions on war to ignore.

 

I hasten to add that I have no objection to also investigating Hamas in regard to war crimes - due to the indiscriminate nature of weapons being used (rockets with poor or absent guidance systems) and which they were fired into civilian areas. Although by sheer weight of the numbers of dead innocents Netanyahu and his cronies would be the first ones into the dock at the Hague.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2014 by CBR250

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed. 

 

Posters on this thread will not determine who is and is not a war criminal.  

[CBR250]

Just a quick tangent - a sincere vote of appreciation to you Scott for the effort it must take to keep this thread on track given the contentious nature of the situation.

 

PS And not because I think you favour "my" side in any way, as I know I would have posts deleted too were I to step over the boundaries.

[Morch]

 

 

 

...... if Hamas and Hezbollah destroyed all of their weapons tomorrow what would be the outcome? The answer is that there would be peace.

 

 

 

As there have been no weapons in the West Bank, and no armed resistance from Fatah for many years, we can judge what would happen in the event of peace by examining the Israeli record in the West Bank:

 

1. Land is stolen daily. Check

2. Deliberately refined forms of humilations and oppression are perpetrated on Palestinians by the IDF each day. Check

3. The 800 km long New Berlin (Apartheid) Wall would prevent Palestinian farmers from visiting their own lands, and the checkpoints would be used to inconvenience workers, students and families at the whim of the sociopaths in the IDF. Check.

4. People who have not committed any terrorist act, or committed any crime, would have their houses demolished. Check

5. Neighbours of people who have not committed any terrorist act, or committed any crime, would have their houses demolished. Check (Israel has the most advanced weaponry and military engineering in the world. Yet they can't figure out how to demolish one house without also demolishing adjoining houses).

6. Palestinian men, women and children would be imprisoned without trial. Check

7. Atrocities committed by the IDF will be investigated by...you guessed it, the IDF. They will find that no atrocity has been committed, that the children flung themselves underneath the tanks and in front of the bullets. (They did this to try to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world). Check.

8. Palestinian sources of income - such as olive trees and other farm crops wil be destroyed by settlers. The IDF will be present to ensure there is no violence againts the settlers. Check.

 

You get the idea? There is too much evidence of the perfidy of Israel over the years to believe that a non-negotiated peace would mean anything other than further oppression for Palestinians. Israel may be winning militarily, but their actions have led to losing the battle for the support of the international community. It will take many changes of government in Tel Aviv, many alterations of policy, and a set of more humane attitudes amongst Israelis before they will get it back. Even the flooding of social media (such as TV) with pre-prepared messages from the Israeli propaganda machine will make little, if any, difference. People now recognise that Israel is a rogue state.

 

 

 

There were shots fired just a couple of days ago on IDF soldiers in the West Bank, during demonstrations and riots in support of the Hamas and against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip. The PA security forces have weapons. The kidnappers who killed the three Israelis had weapons. Depending on what one considers "many years" - attacks by Fatah's military wing dwindled after 2007. The fact that the PA is currently in control of the West Bank does not mean that the Hamas does not have some presence there as well, and quite a bit of support. Same goes for other organizations.

 

Now, lets see about the rest:

 

Land is not stolen daily. Situation is bad enough without exaggerations.

 

Deliberate refined forms of humiliation. Again, things are bad enough without attributing additional nonsense.

 

The so-called wall is not even complete. It is not even designed to be a wall along the whole length, just in some areas. The Apartheid bit is a silly, if not unexpected nonsense - countries do put up barriers as borders and as a security measure, Arab villages and towns in Israel are not surrounded by anything. The Arab PMs are actually quite vocal in parliament. Not all of the IDF soldiers are sociopaths, but don't let that stop you from generalizations.

 

Do other armies around the world regularly submit to external investigations by international bodies? Do share.  Do IDF soldiers who come under investigation always come out clean? Hardly, but again, don't let this stop you.

 

 

Other issues raised - inconvenience at road blocks, house demolitions, extra-judicial arrests and behavior of the settlers, yes. These are indeed things which not many would have anything to say about but condemn. The olive trees bit, though....there was a related insurance scam going on years ago which demonstrated how Israelis and Palestinians can work together. Sadly (or not) this initiative came to a halt and pure old aggro is what's left instead.

 

Bottom line - situation in the West Bank is far from perfect. There are enough real things to bash Israel with (and bashed it ought to be on some fronts) - no need to dream up nonsense details or varnish the existing ones with fiery rhetoric.

 

Under the current Israeli government (and its like), there is little doubt that peace is not on the menu. The government sits in Jerusalem, though, not Tel-Aviv. While the it can be said that both Israel's leadership and the Israeli public (in general) are not quite ready to make the concessions peace demands, the same is true of the Palestinians. Anyone who, for some reason, assumes that the Palestinian leadership(s) and the Palestinian public is willing to willing to make concessions on its part, is quite wrong.

 

 

Firstly, and not to piss in your pocket, but I am happy to acknowledge that you are one of the few of the Israeli supporters on TV who makes an effort to achieve a little even-handedness, and to engage rationally. Maybe, from my perspective, not always successfully, but I wish to accord you the respect a considered stance deserves, and so have seriously responded to the above points. If you do enage seriously, we can continue an occasional discussion. If not, I am afraid I must banish you to the inarticulate, unreasoning world of Ulysses G!
 

So:

1. Yes, it does seem some of those on the West Bank had pistols and fired them, provoking a response from the IDF. But there was also the eye-witness account of Mustafa Baghouti, a pretty honest character, that firing from IDF occurred when there was no more than few stones being thrown. OK, the IDF doesn't have to accept this either, but the IDF has exhibited (again) what seems to be a disproportionate response. I would hope that the well-armed and protected IDF troops would show more forbearance in such situations. And overall, you must admit that the difference in armaments between the minimal Fatah weapons and the IDF is pretty vast.

But weapons are not the answer to peace for Israelis - I content that if Palestinians had absolutely no weapons, and even all of the loose stones lying around were confiscated, there could not be peace because of the continuing land grab. This is fundamental - the theft of land is the key issue, and can be attributed largely to fanatical Zionists, and so they can be seen as primarily responsible for the deaths in Gaza, and problems between Palestinians and Israelis. The oppression of the Palestinian people that has accompanied this land grab that has also helped generate the continuing cycle of violence. Failure to recognise these key facts doesn't bode well for peace in the foreseeable future.

 

2. Land may not be stolen - literally - on every day of the year. But that is merely splitting hairs. The accumulation of annexed Palestinian land is occurring rapidly. If the current rate continues, there will not be enough land left for a 2 state solution in a few years. (Not that this really matters - it has been accepted by many observers for some time that the Israeli government will not support a 2 state solution. It has used the peace process as a smokescreen while taking over ever more of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza).

 

Land is central to the conflict, so any peace negotiations, rightly, call for a freeze on land grabs to enable negotiations to occur without unnecessary provocation (and further theft). Yet:

* Just prior to peace talks in August last year, Netanyahu announced tthe appropriation of 100 acres of land from Palestinian families to build 240 housing units.

* Also in August 2013, the Israeli Housing Minister announced plans for 1,187 new Israeli homes in the Palestinian West Bank.

In November, Israel announced plans to build 20,000 new housing units in the West Bank.

* Time reported that Israel more than doubled its construction activity in 2013 over 2012. 

* Since 1967, Israel has confiscated nearly 750,000 acres of land from the 1.5 million acres that comprise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

* Palestinian land in East Jerusalem has been taken and designated as exclusively available for Jewish use.

 

* There are now over half a million Israelis living in annexed land in Palestine. And you really think they will happily move back if a 2 state solution is reached - even with minimal land available for Palestine ???? I doubt that even this Israeli government is so stupid to believe that, and to wish a monumental disaster onto its successors. The more parsimonious explanation is that this is pure and simply land theft.

 

So, please, no more questioning of land theft. It blatant and it is cynical and it is unarguably occurring rapidly. The fact that it isn't occurring each and every single day of the year is understandable. The bulldozers don't work on sabbath.

 

3. Refined and deliberate forms of humiliation. Nonsense you say? OK, I won't drag up too much to question your take on this. But the Jerusalem Post, which you must admit is not too anti-Israeli, is my source for this statement by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African anti-apartheid leader and Nobel Peace laureate. He said Israeli policies toward the Palestinians in the territories are "humiliating," and said:
"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," .....
"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."

 

4. The "New Berlin" Wall. No, it isn't yet complete, although work is continuing in contravention of the International Court of Justice's orders. Another "F*** you" to an international body. And the Wall is part of BOTH the land theft and the intentional humiliations. Over 80% of the route of the Wall runs inside the West Bank. And there are about 150 Palestinian communities which have part of their land isolated by the Wall, so if they wish to do any work on their own land they must seek permission and obtain ‘visitors’ permits and arrange for ‘prior coordination’. Workers living in the West Bank - but separated by the Wall from work, health care, family and friends, are often made to wait for hours each day to pass through one of the checkpoints. Not because there is any current threat.

 

<snip>

 

5. Israeli soldiers often do come out clean after the unwarranted deaths of civilians. Just one example - there are dozens, if not hundreds. I will leave Rachel Corrie's death under a bulldozer aside for now, but point to the blatant killing of by an IDF member of Bassem Abu Rahme, killed on April 17, 2009. He died when hit by a high-velocity tear gas canister, in an incident captured on video. In September 2013 (note the lengthy delay) Israel’s military advocate general closed the investigation into Abu Rahme’s death without any indictment, claiming it was impossible to identify the soldier involved (despite the presence of eyewitnesses and video footage). The judgement also claimed he could not establish whether there had been a breach of regulations that forbid tear gas canisters from being fired directly at human targets. What??? Eyewitnesses, videos, photos and forensic reports weren't enough. But at least he is consistent. IDF soldiers are rarely held accountable for their behaviour towards Palestinians.

 

6. There probably were some joint Israeli-Palestinian scams around olive destruction. But this is just another smokescreen. The  Israeli authorities have uprooted over 800,000 Palestinian olive trees since 1967. Millions of dollars of Palestinian income removed. There are, again, hundreds of such cases. I keep repeating this to ensure you know that ALL of my points are not isolated occurrences. See for example: http://www.timesofisrael.com/police-failing-to-protect-palestinian-olive-trees-ngo-charges/ - and note that, again, I am using yet another pro-Israeli source to highlight Israeli crimes. Please don't just ignore points because there are partial explanations that can obfuscate issues a little. You must know - behind your attempts at diversion - that the deliberate destruction of olive orchards by Israelis (particular the rabid settler types) is an irrefutable fact.

 

Finally, I reject your accusations absolutely - no, this is not fiery rhetoric. No, this is not Israel bashing. These are facts, not interpretations, not "nonsense details". The descent to a name calling level of debate is inconsistent with your usual approach to discussion. Maybe you need a day away from the computer and the constant emotional barrage of images from and facts about Gaza. I know I do.

 

 

No, my good CBR250, banish UG, banish Jingthing, banish dr_lucas, but for sweet Morch, kind Morch, true Morch, valiant Morch, and therefore more valiant being, as he is old Morch, banish not him thy CBR250’s company. Banish Morch, and

banish all the world.
 

Well, actually, I couldn't care less, but been a while since anyone used the word in relation to something I wrote or posted, and the quote seemed about as relevant as the threat of banishment itself.

 

Moving forward, then:

 

Weapons in the West Bank - My initial response was something like "huh?". Then I recalled that the whole point of the my previous post was to do with the uncalled for hyperbole and got my bearings. So, to make it clearer - the incident cited was just a recent example. It is by no means a singular event, shootings by Palestinians do happen, although figures certainly went down in comparison to the Second Intifada times. The example was not meant as an excuse or defense of IDF actions but to illustrate that "there have been no weapons in the West Bank..." bit was simply untrue. Again, the PA security forces are armed as well.

 

Land is not stolen daily - Thanks for acknowledging the point. This is not about splitting hairs, this is about not using fiery rhetoric and made up slogans, which later turn into "facts". This sort of thing, which is evident on both sides, is one of the worst obstacles, in my opinion, for getting anywhere. Same goes for the use of "annexed" - far as I know, Israel is not that keen on actual annexation of land in the West Bank, as it would give rise to a whole new set of legal issues. The rate of Palestinian land accumulation by Israel went up in recent years? Methinks not. It is nowadays less about building new (and illegal, no argument there) settlements, more about expanding the settler population within the existing settlements. There are, now and then, attempts by extreme right wing settlers to raise new settlements, but much less of this nowadays. From an alternative point of view - since the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians regained increasing control over their lands (having some from of government and control as opposed to non, prior to this).

 

In short - it is not that the land issue is not germane, and not like Israel's policy and actions are legitimate. But as this is pretty much a moot point, there is enough material for a dozen posts without resorting to rhetoric often seen on these topics.

 

I do not believe that dismantling the illegal settlements will be easy or that settlers will be cooperative. Quite the contrary. On the other hand, it was the same thing when Israel signed the peace agreement with Egypt and when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip - wasn't pretty, but got done anyway.

 

I will continue to question hyperbole statements as I see fit. Same goes for twisting of words and interest driven insinuations. For example "it is unarguably happening rapidly". It is arguable, and it does not.

 

Next...

 

Desmond Tutu? For real? Desmond Tutu has a rather lengthy record of expressing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian opinions. By itself, no problem with that, each to his own. Citing him as a source for everyday realities, and attributed intent of malice, is odd, seeing as to the best of my knowledge his first hand experience with both Israel and the West Bank is limited to a few official visits. I have no idea in which context his words appeared on the Jerusalem Post or why should the JP being the source be of an essence.

 

So we agree that the security barrier is not an 800km long wall. Good, that's a start. 700, not 800km. About 10% designated as wall, the rest are fences. Yes, it causes a lot of inconvenience and hardship for the Palestinians. Yes, a lot of the land related to the construction of the barrier is Palestinian. No argument there. It is worth noting that the Israeli Supreme Court rulings resulted in alterations in the project (in favor of plaintiffs), and dozens more are pending. There is no current threat, in large part because of the barrier. Suicide bombers, which took a heavy toll prior to the barrier being raised, find it harder to carry out attacks.

 

IDF soldiers getting a free pass from legal system - Citing one case (no links), which is supposed to attest to the norm. I would have thought that if this was the norm, there would have been mountains of legal outcome statistics out there. Individual cases are important, but personally, I find that being able to pull one as an example is usually an indicator of it not being less than common. This is not always the case, of course, but still - not way to treat this seriously as it is. Mind, I am not claiming that this does not happen, just that it was not demonstrated that it is as prevalent as suggested.

 

Not sure why you're riled up about the olive tree scam anecdote. It was not meant as a denial that this is an issue, just a bit that came to mind when I posted. There are actually quite a few variations of these things in connection with certain activities (such as car theft, and stolen car parts - less of this now that the security barrier is up).

 

Finally, I stand by the fiery rhetoric comment. Way too many emotional adjectives running loose on these topics, often by people without much (if any) first hand experience with the reality of the region and this specific conflict. Not only does this lead to further inaccuracies and exaggerations, which make hyped up emotions into facts. That serves to imprint certain attitudes, notions and mental images in a way which is not conductive to either debate nor advancement toward a solution for the conflict.

[Morch]

I quite agree with the points above and here is another fact.
The millions of Palestinian refugees which resulted from Al Nakba (1948) and The Six Day War (1967) remain refugees NOT because they are a "political tool", but because, plainly and simply put, in pursuit of its apartheid ambitions, Israel denies them the right of return (unlike the diaspora Jews).

 

Wondering what are your thoughts on the right of Israelis who immigrated (or ran away, or were driven away...whatever) from Arab and Muslim countries to return to their homelands and/or demand compensation? Also, how many generations do these rights hold, in your opinion?

 

Another issue, assuming the right of return is granted as per the Palestinian wishes - how, on a technical level, is this supposed to work out? Do refugees just stroll in, pick up their Israeli IDs and proceed to reclaim their property? What happens with the present population (Jewish and Arab alike) - do they just head for the nearest UN organization and ask for a refugee status?

 

Lastly, will this serve as a precedent for similar situations around the world ? (India and Pakistan come to mind)

[dr_lucas]

 

 

The title of this thread:

 

Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes

 

 

98.

 

That in and of itself is a moral outrage and a crime.  But Israel was not yet satiated.

 

In just over 2 weeks Israel has murdered 10X that number.

 

 

Why should we take this seriously when the definition of murder is so blatantly distorted?

 

 

 

 

Palestinians could probably argue for at least 2nd degree, although as the killings are during the course of a robbery (of land), hard liners would want a first degree conviction.

 

 

I think that one is pretty clear. The firing of tank shells and missiles does not occur without some premeditation.

 

 

 

I really missed my favorite left wing radical & Israel's demonizer & student of international law...

Robbery of land you say? Israel withdrew from Gaza since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

The firing of any any weapon can not occur without premeditation. This does not mean premeditation to kill innocent civilians obviously. In their case, premeditation to kill Hamas terrorists.

Again, murder it's not, no intent, no murder. I am sure if you keep on digging you may find something defining murder the way you like it to be, maybe in the Trinidad & Tobago's  dictionary, but fact is - it is not a murder.

If anything, the IDF is doing everything it can to prevent hurting civilians, while hunting down Hamas terrorist and terror tunnels (including but not limited to - using powerful audio announcement systems to telling to evacuate before the army arrives, throwing hundreds of thousands of warning leaflets, calling civilian phones and send text messages).

The IDF is one of the most moral armies in the world.

Here are just a few examples:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXrxLglOoRM&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpsxiMrgVK4&list=UUawNWlihdgaycQpO3zi-jYg

 

 

But don't let the fact get in your way.

[Morch]

All propaganda from the IDF to justify the death toll that now tops 1,000 Palestinians, a Thai worker and left 46 Jewish mothers mourning the loss of their sons.

The last operation like this,Cast Lead, failed to achieve anything and so will this.

 

Not sure which post you are referring to, as you usually avoid quoting.

 

If this was meant as a general comment - I would like to know if you think that the there is absolutely nothing the Hamas does or did that would merit an Israeli response. Not saying that the IDF and Israeli authorities are not engaged in propaganda, it goes without saying (and the same is true for both sides and most involved parties) - just doubting that ALL of it is propaganda.

 

In the sense that they lead nowhere as far as resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, it is true that operations such as this fail to achieve much, except providing more causes to fuel the next round (again, this sort of thing is done by both sides on different occasions). Fluff rhetoric aside, it seems that Israeli governments and the IDF do not really expect much, in terms of tangible long term diplomatic achievements, but rather, are resigned to accepting that these repeated military clashes can result in temporary limited operational benefits only. Sort of keeping a lead on things. That is without getting into the added value (from the right wing parties point of view, at least) of further delaying and derailing any chances for peace.

 

So judging whether this operation, or others, a success, is at least in part to do with goals and objectives. 

[Morch]

<snip>

 

I hasten to add that I have no objection to also investigating Hamas in regard to war crimes - due to the indiscriminate nature of weapons being used (rockets with poor or absent guidance systems) and which they were fired into civilian areas. Although by sheer weight of the numbers of dead innocents Netanyahu and his cronies would be the first ones into the dock at the Hague.

 

 

 

 

I am not aware of any UN motion to investigate Hamas's actions, though.  The calls for international inquires would go down much better with Israel and Israelis had there been more even-handedness  on this. One-sided Goldstone-like reports, regardless of their main author retraction, do more damage than good when it comes to resolving the conflict.
 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

As there have been no weapons in the West Bank, and no armed resistance from Fatah for many years, we can judge what would happen in the event of peace by examining the Israeli record in the West Bank:

 

1. Land is stolen daily. Check

2. Deliberately refined forms of humilations and oppression are perpetrated on Palestinians by the IDF each day. Check

3. The 800 km long New Berlin (Apartheid) Wall would prevent Palestinian farmers from visiting their own lands, and the checkpoints would be used to inconvenience workers, students and families at the whim of the sociopaths in the IDF. Check.

4. People who have not committed any terrorist act, or committed any crime, would have their houses demolished. Check

5. Neighbours of people who have not committed any terrorist act, or committed any crime, would have their houses demolished. Check (Israel has the most advanced weaponry and military engineering in the world. Yet they can't figure out how to demolish one house without also demolishing adjoining houses).

6. Palestinian men, women and children would be imprisoned without trial. Check

7. Atrocities committed by the IDF will be investigated by...you guessed it, the IDF. They will find that no atrocity has been committed, that the children flung themselves underneath the tanks and in front of the bullets. (They did this to try to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world). Check.

8. Palestinian sources of income - such as olive trees and other farm crops wil be destroyed by settlers. The IDF will be present to ensure there is no violence againts the settlers. Check.

 

You get the idea? There is too much evidence of the perfidy of Israel over the years to believe that a non-negotiated peace would mean anything other than further oppression for Palestinians. Israel may be winning militarily, but their actions have led to losing the battle for the support of the international community. It will take many changes of government in Tel Aviv, many alterations of policy, and a set of more humane attitudes amongst Israelis before they will get it back. Even the flooding of social media (such as TV) with pre-prepared messages from the Israeli propaganda machine will make little, if any, difference. People now recognise that Israel is a rogue state.

 

 

 

There were shots fired just a couple of days ago on IDF soldiers in the West Bank, during demonstrations and riots in support of the Hamas and against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip. The PA security forces have weapons. The kidnappers who killed the three Israelis had weapons. Depending on what one considers "many years" - attacks by Fatah's military wing dwindled after 2007. The fact that the PA is currently in control of the West Bank does not mean that the Hamas does not have some presence there as well, and quite a bit of support. Same goes for other organizations.

 

Now, lets see about the rest:

 

Land is not stolen daily. Situation is bad enough without exaggerations.

 

Deliberate refined forms of humiliation. Again, things are bad enough without attributing additional nonsense.

 

The so-called wall is not even complete. It is not even designed to be a wall along the whole length, just in some areas. The Apartheid bit is a silly, if not unexpected nonsense - countries do put up barriers as borders and as a security measure, Arab villages and towns in Israel are not surrounded by anything. The Arab PMs are actually quite vocal in parliament. Not all of the IDF soldiers are sociopaths, but don't let that stop you from generalizations.

 

Do other armies around the world regularly submit to external investigations by international bodies? Do share.  Do IDF soldiers who come under investigation always come out clean? Hardly, but again, don't let this stop you.

 

 

Other issues raised - inconvenience at road blocks, house demolitions, extra-judicial arrests and behavior of the settlers, yes. These are indeed things which not many would have anything to say about but condemn. The olive trees bit, though....there was a related insurance scam going on years ago which demonstrated how Israelis and Palestinians can work together. Sadly (or not) this initiative came to a halt and pure old aggro is what's left instead.

 

Bottom line - situation in the West Bank is far from perfect. There are enough real things to bash Israel with (and bashed it ought to be on some fronts) - no need to dream up nonsense details or varnish the existing ones with fiery rhetoric.

 

Under the current Israeli government (and its like), there is little doubt that peace is not on the menu. The government sits in Jerusalem, though, not Tel-Aviv. While the it can be said that both Israel's leadership and the Israeli public (in general) are not quite ready to make the concessions peace demands, the same is true of the Palestinians. Anyone who, for some reason, assumes that the Palestinian leadership(s) and the Palestinian public is willing to willing to make concessions on its part, is quite wrong.

 

 

Firstly, and not to piss in your pocket, but I am happy to acknowledge that you are one of the few of the Israeli supporters on TV who makes an effort to achieve a little even-handedness, and to engage rationally. Maybe, from my perspective, not always successfully, but I wish to accord you the respect a considered stance deserves, and so have seriously responded to the above points. If you do enage seriously, we can continue an occasional discussion. If not, I am afraid I must banish you to the inarticulate, unreasoning world of Ulysses G!
 

So:

1. Yes, it does seem some of those on the West Bank had pistols and fired them, provoking a response from the IDF. But there was also the eye-witness account of Mustafa Baghouti, a pretty honest character, that firing from IDF occurred when there was no more than few stones being thrown. OK, the IDF doesn't have to accept this either, but the IDF has exhibited (again) what seems to be a disproportionate response. I would hope that the well-armed and protected IDF troops would show more forbearance in such situations. And overall, you must admit that the difference in armaments between the minimal Fatah weapons and the IDF is pretty vast.

But weapons are not the answer to peace for Israelis - I content that if Palestinians had absolutely no weapons, and even all of the loose stones lying around were confiscated, there could not be peace because of the continuing land grab. This is fundamental - the theft of land is the key issue, and can be attributed largely to fanatical Zionists, and so they can be seen as primarily responsible for the deaths in Gaza, and problems between Palestinians and Israelis. The oppression of the Palestinian people that has accompanied this land grab that has also helped generate the continuing cycle of violence. Failure to recognise these key facts doesn't bode well for peace in the foreseeable future.

 

2. Land may not be stolen - literally - on every day of the year. But that is merely splitting hairs. The accumulation of annexed Palestinian land is occurring rapidly. If the current rate continues, there will not be enough land left for a 2 state solution in a few years. (Not that this really matters - it has been accepted by many observers for some time that the Israeli government will not support a 2 state solution. It has used the peace process as a smokescreen while taking over ever more of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza).

 

Land is central to the conflict, so any peace negotiations, rightly, call for a freeze on land grabs to enable negotiations to occur without unnecessary provocation (and further theft). Yet:

* Just prior to peace talks in August last year, Netanyahu announced tthe appropriation of 100 acres of land from Palestinian families to build 240 housing units.

* Also in August 2013, the Israeli Housing Minister announced plans for 1,187 new Israeli homes in the Palestinian West Bank.

In November, Israel announced plans to build 20,000 new housing units in the West Bank.

* Time reported that Israel more than doubled its construction activity in 2013 over 2012. 

* Since 1967, Israel has confiscated nearly 750,000 acres of land from the 1.5 million acres that comprise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

* Palestinian land in East Jerusalem has been taken and designated as exclusively available for Jewish use.

 

* There are now over half a million Israelis living in annexed land in Palestine. And you really think they will happily move back if a 2 state solution is reached - even with minimal land available for Palestine ???? I doubt that even this Israeli government is so stupid to believe that, and to wish a monumental disaster onto its successors. The more parsimonious explanation is that this is pure and simply land theft.

 

So, please, no more questioning of land theft. It blatant and it is cynical and it is unarguably occurring rapidly. The fact that it isn't occurring each and every single day of the year is understandable. The bulldozers don't work on sabbath.

 

3. Refined and deliberate forms of humiliation. Nonsense you say? OK, I won't drag up too much to question your take on this. But the Jerusalem Post, which you must admit is not too anti-Israeli, is my source for this statement by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African anti-apartheid leader and Nobel Peace laureate. He said Israeli policies toward the Palestinians in the territories are "humiliating," and said:
"I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces," .....
"Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."

 

4. The "New Berlin" Wall. No, it isn't yet complete, although work is continuing in contravention of the International Court of Justice's orders. Another "F*** you" to an international body. And the Wall is part of BOTH the land theft and the intentional humiliations. Over 80% of the route of the Wall runs inside the West Bank. And there are about 150 Palestinian communities which have part of their land isolated by the Wall, so if they wish to do any work on their own land they must seek permission and obtain ‘visitors’ permits and arrange for ‘prior coordination’. Workers living in the West Bank - but separated by the Wall from work, health care, family and friends, are often made to wait for hours each day to pass through one of the checkpoints. Not because there is any current threat.

 

<snip>

 

5. Israeli soldiers often do come out clean after the unwarranted deaths of civilians. Just one example - there are dozens, if not hundreds. I will leave Rachel Corrie's death under a bulldozer aside for now, but point to the blatant killing of by an IDF member of Bassem Abu Rahme, killed on April 17, 2009. He died when hit by a high-velocity tear gas canister, in an incident captured on video. In September 2013 (note the lengthy delay) Israel’s military advocate general closed the investigation into Abu Rahme’s death without any indictment, claiming it was impossible to identify the soldier involved (despite the presence of eyewitnesses and video footage). The judgement also claimed he could not establish whether there had been a breach of regulations that forbid tear gas canisters from being fired directly at human targets. What??? Eyewitnesses, videos, photos and forensic reports weren't enough. But at least he is consistent. IDF soldiers are rarely held accountable for their behaviour towards Palestinians.

 

6. There probably were some joint Israeli-Palestinian scams around olive destruction. But this is just another smokescreen. The  Israeli authorities have uprooted over 800,000 Palestinian olive trees since 1967. Millions of dollars of Palestinian income removed. There are, again, hundreds of such cases. I keep repeating this to ensure you know that ALL of my points are not isolated occurrences. See for example: http://www.timesofisrael.com/police-failing-to-protect-palestinian-olive-trees-ngo-charges/ - and note that, again, I am using yet another pro-Israeli source to highlight Israeli crimes. Please don't just ignore points because there are partial explanations that can obfuscate issues a little. You must know - behind your attempts at diversion - that the deliberate destruction of olive orchards by Israelis (particular the rabid settler types) is an irrefutable fact.

 

Finally, I reject your accusations absolutely - no, this is not fiery rhetoric. No, this is not Israel bashing. These are facts, not interpretations, not "nonsense details". The descent to a name calling level of debate is inconsistent with your usual approach to discussion. Maybe you need a day away from the computer and the constant emotional barrage of images from and facts about Gaza. I know I do.

 

 

No, my good CBR250, banish UG, banish Jingthing, banish dr_lucas, but for sweet Morch, kind Morch, true Morch, valiant Morch, and therefore more valiant being, as he is old Morch, banish not him thy CBR250’s company. Banish Morch, and

banish all the world.
 

 

 

LoL!     

Morch, you cracked me up!

 

The only person he can banish is his own self, because no matter where he goes trying to spread his radical left wing disinformation, we will be there!

Edited July 27, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Jay Sata]

 

The title of this thread:
 

Israel prepares for ground military operation, 98 dead in Gaza Strip airstrikes
 

 
98.
 
That in and of itself is a moral outrage and a crime.  But Israel was not yet satiated.
 
In just over 2 weeks Israel has murdered 10X that number.
 
 

Why should we take this seriously when the definition of murder is so blatantly distorted?
 

 
Distorted? I think it is at the very least arguable that what the IDF has done to numerous civilians in Gaza can be seen to constitute the act of murder. Your one word rejection, BTW, does not constitute an argument. Have a look at some definitions of murder I rounded up for you in haste:
 
A USA slant:
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder)  and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
 
Palestinians could probably argue for at least 2nd degree, although as the killings are during the course of a robbery (of land), hard liners would want a first degree conviction.
 
A British slant:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/murder
 
I think that one is pretty clear. The firing of tank shells and missiles does not occur without some premeditation.
 
And you don't want to go near the Australian slant, it is so clearly murder all the way. Pay particular attention to the sections I have put in bold.
302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;
(if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.
(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1)( it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s302.html
 
Murder for sure if we adopt that definition.
 
The main defence Israel and members of the IDF have to accusations of murder is to attempt to justify the killings as inadvertent deaths of civilians occurring during war. That's a hard one to argue against the footage of Israeli snipers murdering obviously unarmed civilians. However, the killing of large numbers of civilians during war can lead to an even more heinous charge than murder - that of committing war crimes. From my skim reading of what constitutes a war crime, I can see why Israel will not cooperate with any independent inquiry wishing to investigate what is happening in Gaza. Too much evidence of war crimes. Too many breaches of international conventions on war to ignore.
 
I hasten to add that I have no objection to also investigating Hamas in regard to war crimes - due to the indiscriminate nature of weapons being used (rockets with poor or absent guidance systems) and which they were fired into civilian areas. Although by sheer weight of the numbers of dead innocents Netanyahu and his cronies would be the first ones into the dock at the Hague.
 
 

A good assessment and the in the case of any issues regarding The Hague the path has already been paved via Bosnia etc which was a similar situation.

The USA has a strong record of extradition hence some of the recent UK court cases but they would oppose any extradition from Israel of the likes of Netanyahu.

[simple1]

 

The last operation like this,Cast Lead, failed to achieve anything and so will this.

 

Really? The Hamas Interior Minister admitted the deaths of 700 militants - so there were probably many more. Senior Hamas military commanders were killed, as well as  50 explosives experts. Hamas experienced "widespread desertion" when Israeli advanced. They lost a large amount of weaponry and equipment and important storage facilities were discovered under mosques and public buildings. Sounds pretty successful  to me. 

 

 

Yes, tactical military success, but a strategic result 'no'; is this going to be the same outcome with the current situation, right now looks like 'yes'.

 

IDF has stated in the current fighting Hamas had learned a lot of lessons & is a lot more skilled in on the ground war fighting, as evidenced by IDF casualties. From a report dated 23 July.

 

"They have undergone extensive training, they are well supplied, well motivated and disciplined. We have met a more formidable enemy on the battlefield," said Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Lerner. Israel says it has so far killed more than 200 Palestinian fighters"

 

"We are not surprised about it because we knew that they were preparing for this battle. They didn't just invest in the tunnels for the last two or three years

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-palestinians-israel-hamas-idUSKBN0FS1XJ20140723

Edited July 27, 2014 by simple1

[CBR250]

 

 

Robbery of land you say? Israel withdrew from Gaza since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

 

But don't let the fact get in your way.

 

Look, I am not going to keep visiting the same territory. Either you choose not to read my posts, are too lazy, or are unable to assimilate information. The land robbery is the over-riding agenda of the Israeli government, and is a primary factor in the cycle of violence being perpetuated. The current battle may be focused on Gaza, but the war is with the Palestinian people, and it is over the ownership of land on the West Bank.

 

If Israel withdrew from the West Bank - where the land theft is occurring - we would see some interesting developments indeed!

Why do all of the pro-Netanyahu Zionist posters stay silent on the issue of the land theft? This is THE issue. If you want to ensure that war and the resultant deaths do not occur again, it means resolving this issue. All of the "Israel has a right to defend itself" and "look  how evil Hamas is" posts are merely diversions to satisfy jingoistic sentiments.

If you are concerned with the problems of Israel, start discussing the question of land. Do you support the theft of land from Palestinians? If so, what is your justification? If not, what can be done to stop it occurring? There are of course other substantive issues. But this is the biggest elephant in the middle of the room by far.
 

[Morch]

 

 

 

Robbery of land you say? Israel withdrew from Gaza since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

 

But don't let the fact get in your way.

 

Look, I am not going to keep visiting the same territory. Either you choose not to read my posts, are too lazy, or are unable to assimilate information. The land robbery is the over-riding agenda of the Israeli government, and is a primary factor in the cycle of violence being perpetuated. The current battle may be focused on Gaza, but the war is with the Palestinian people, and it is over the ownership of land on the West Bank.

 

If Israel withdrew from the West Bank - where the land theft is occurring - we would see some interesting developments indeed!

Why do all of the pro-Netanyahu Zionist posters stay silent on the issue of the land theft? This is THE issue. If you want to ensure that war and the resultant deaths do not occur again, it means resolving this issue. All of the "Israel has a right to defend itself" and "look  how evil Hamas is" posts are merely diversions to satisfy jingoistic sentiments.

If you are concerned with the problems of Israel, start discussing the question of land. Do you support the theft of land from Palestinians? If so, what is your justification? If not, what can be done to stop it occurring? There are of course other substantive issues. But this is the biggest elephant in the middle of the room by far.
 

 

 

People may read your posts and not agree with you, such is forum life.

 

If you wish to narrow down the conflict to one dimension, that's alright too - just not a very interesting or enlightening point of view in itself. Things are rarely all that simple as some posters keep on making them seem.

 

One may claim that the land issue (again, personally not into the whole "theft" style, leaves less room for debate) is the main issue and everything else is fluff. Others may disagree that it is the only thing worthy of discussion, or the foremost aspect that needs resolving. Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip.

 

No one seems to be ignoring the issue, just that indeed, it has less relevancy as far as the Gaza Strip goes, compared with the West Bank. There were also quite a lot of posters mixing condition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which led to some of the present dynamics of the discussion.

 

There are not going to be any long term solution negotiations under current conditions. This can be attributed to failures of both sides (less interested with who's share is bigger, not going to solve anything), a reluctance to let go of past grievances and conceptions. Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best.

[CBR250]

 

 

 

 

Robbery of land you say? Israel withdrew from Gaza since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

 

But don't let the fact get in your way.

 

Look, I am not going to keep visiting the same territory. Either you choose not to read my posts, are too lazy, or are unable to assimilate information. The land robbery is the over-riding agenda of the Israeli government, and is a primary factor in the cycle of violence being perpetuated. The current battle may be focused on Gaza, but the war is with the Palestinian people, and it is over the ownership of land on the West Bank.

 

If Israel withdrew from the West Bank - where the land theft is occurring - we would see some interesting developments indeed!

Why do all of the pro-Netanyahu Zionist posters stay silent on the issue of the land theft? This is THE issue. If you want to ensure that war and the resultant deaths do not occur again, it means resolving this issue. All of the "Israel has a right to defend itself" and "look  how evil Hamas is" posts are merely diversions to satisfy jingoistic sentiments.

If you are concerned with the problems of Israel, start discussing the question of land. Do you support the theft of land from Palestinians? If so, what is your justification? If not, what can be done to stop it occurring? There are of course other substantive issues. But this is the biggest elephant in the middle of the room by far.
 

 

 

People may read your posts and not agree with you, such is forum life.

 

If you wish to narrow down the conflict to one dimension, that's alright too - just not a very interesting or enlightening point of view in itself. Things are rarely all that simple as some posters keep on making them seem.

 

One may claim that the land issue (again, personally not into the whole "theft" style, leaves less room for debate) is the main issue and everything else is fluff. Others may disagree that it is the only thing worthy of discussion, or the foremost aspect that needs resolving. Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip.

 

No one seems to be ignoring the issue, just that indeed, it has less relevancy as far as the Gaza Strip goes, compared with the West Bank. There were also quite a lot of posters mixing condition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which led to some of the present dynamics of the discussion.

 

There are not going to be any long term solution negotiations under current conditions. This can be attributed to failures of both sides (less interested with who's share is bigger, not going to solve anything), a reluctance to let go of past grievances and conceptions. Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best.

 

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my views. Although I must admit I prefer it when they do so with some semblance of rationality, a rare commodity amongst a few of the posters on here.

 

No, I didn't say "everything else is fluff". I didn't imply "everything else is fluff. I didn't suggest "everything else is fluff". I assure you I didn't even think "everything else is fluff". Read what I wrote again, I did in fact note quite carefully near my conclusion that "there are of course other substantive issues". But the main point I made is that there is a gigantic elephant in the room of conflict that no one is discussing - and it is the question of land. Sure, there are other issues that won't be easily resolved. For example, right of return. Compensation. And, as you note, security. Of course for both sides. And these concerns matter as well, but the largest piece of the peace puzzle is land. 

 

And you didn't respond to my invitation to offer views on this issue of land annexation, other than to acknowledge it is an issue. Then you say "No-one seems to be ignoring the issue". Well, they sure ignore it here on TV. Or maybe I missed the posts where you wrote about it? And it's largely absent from western media. As to Israeli media, I am not aware of even one Israeli spokesperson acknowledging that land annexation is even a small problem!

 

So let's accept for the moment that land annexation is, as you say, only one dimension of the overall picture -  but not just ignore it. In fact, isolating it from the confounding issues may help to clarify what part it plays.

 

So, a few questions for you: Do you approve of what is occurring on the West Bank with the annexation of land? Do you believe such annexation is defensible - or perhaps even justifiable? How can the divergent views on the issue of land best be brought together? I'm sure others, not only I, would welcome a few positive suggestions about a way forward rather than the constant "Israel is under attack by evil Muslims" posts that proliferate in threads about Israel on TV. And sure, I agree with your statement "Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and(sic) armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip". But that thoughtful "some" clearly does not include Netanyahu and his cronies, unfortunately for the majority of people in Gaza and Israel. I strongly believe that if Netanyahu had allowed issues of land annexation and future borders to be addressed candidly during the last peace negotiations, rather than using the pause in hostilities to annex even more land, there would not be a battle in Gaza today. It would have shown a willingness to find a solution, to show he is not merely an instrument of the Zionist project.

And WTF - "Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best."??? Where did that come from???  Have you been mixing up your posts?

[dr_lucas]

CBR250, I prefer to see Morch reply you in detail instead of me addressing all the (very good) questions you asked him.

While I won't get into the whole very complex background, reasons, origins and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and its multiple dimensions in my post, I do want to discuss the current unfortunate war going on in Gaza and possible solutions to the unfortunate innocent Gazan casualties.

As I do know, for a fact, that the IDF is doing its very best to operate in Gaza against Hamas terrorists, terrorist infrastructures, rockets, rocket launchers, rocket factories and the impressive "city" of underground terror tunnels going into Israeli territories which Hamas has built, I also acknowledge the incredible difficulty of operating in a hostile & condensed urban area without hurting innocent civilians, especially innocents who are not even supposed to be there in the first place after all the advanced warnings they receive from the IDF.

I realize that some may say that they are under blockade and thus got nowhere to evacuate to. That would not be correct as they do have many places to evacuate to, especially UN shelters and safe-zones.

Another problem is that the UN personnel in Gaza, as we've seen multiple times, are anything but impartial, and UN shelters are being used by Hamas terrorists for hiding and attacking the IDF, with full cooperation or no objection of UN personnel.

Sitting in my safe shelter in Bangkok, behind my safe keyboard, I was trying to think about possible solutions to the problem of innocent casualties in Gaza, while this justified reactive operation is proceeding. Then I got an idea.

As the UN force is ineffective, partially because it also does not have mandate (or will) to engage in any fights (they only have mandate to observe and "keep the peace"), maybe it would be best if NATO will send "boots on the ground" troops (with mandate to fight), to create safe zones in Gaza for Palestinian civilians during the operation.

Surely this will reduce or possibly eliminate the amount of civilian casualties.

What do you reckon?

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

 

Robbery of land you say? Israel withdrew from Gaza since 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

 

But don't let the fact get in your way.

 

Look, I am not going to keep visiting the same territory. Either you choose not to read my posts, are too lazy, or are unable to assimilate information. The land robbery is the over-riding agenda of the Israeli government, and is a primary factor in the cycle of violence being perpetuated. The current battle may be focused on Gaza, but the war is with the Palestinian people, and it is over the ownership of land on the West Bank.

 

If Israel withdrew from the West Bank - where the land theft is occurring - we would see some interesting developments indeed!

Why do all of the pro-Netanyahu Zionist posters stay silent on the issue of the land theft? This is THE issue. If you want to ensure that war and the resultant deaths do not occur again, it means resolving this issue. All of the "Israel has a right to defend itself" and "look  how evil Hamas is" posts are merely diversions to satisfy jingoistic sentiments.

If you are concerned with the problems of Israel, start discussing the question of land. Do you support the theft of land from Palestinians? If so, what is your justification? If not, what can be done to stop it occurring? There are of course other substantive issues. But this is the biggest elephant in the middle of the room by far.
 

 

 

People may read your posts and not agree with you, such is forum life.

 

If you wish to narrow down the conflict to one dimension, that's alright too - just not a very interesting or enlightening point of view in itself. Things are rarely all that simple as some posters keep on making them seem.

 

One may claim that the land issue (again, personally not into the whole "theft" style, leaves less room for debate) is the main issue and everything else is fluff. Others may disagree that it is the only thing worthy of discussion, or the foremost aspect that needs resolving. Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip.

 

No one seems to be ignoring the issue, just that indeed, it has less relevancy as far as the Gaza Strip goes, compared with the West Bank. There were also quite a lot of posters mixing condition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which led to some of the present dynamics of the discussion.

 

There are not going to be any long term solution negotiations under current conditions. This can be attributed to failures of both sides (less interested with who's share is bigger, not going to solve anything), a reluctance to let go of past grievances and conceptions. Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best.

 

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my views. Although I must admit I prefer it when they do so with some semblance of rationality, a rare commodity amongst a few of the posters on here.

 

No, I didn't say "everything else is fluff". I didn't imply "everything else is fluff. I didn't suggest "everything else is fluff". I assure you I didn't even think "everything else is fluff". Read what I wrote again, I did in fact note quite carefully near my conclusion that "there are of course other substantive issues". But the main point I made is that there is a gigantic elephant in the room of conflict that no one is discussing - and it is the question of land. Sure, there are other issues that won't be easily resolved. For example, right of return. Compensation. And, as you note, security. Of course for both sides. And these concerns matter as well, but the largest piece of the peace puzzle is land. 

 

And you didn't respond to my invitation to offer views on this issue of land annexation, other than to acknowledge it is an issue. Then you say "No-one seems to be ignoring the issue". Well, they sure ignore it here on TV. Or maybe I missed the posts where you wrote about it? And it's largely absent from western media. As to Israeli media, I am not aware of even one Israeli spokesperson acknowledging that land annexation is even a small problem!

 

So let's accept for the moment that land annexation is, as you say, only one dimension of the overall picture -  but not just ignore it. In fact, isolating it from the confounding issues may help to clarify what part it plays.

 

So, a few questions for you: Do you approve of what is occurring on the West Bank with the annexation of land? Do you believe such annexation is defensible - or perhaps even justifiable? How can the divergent views on the issue of land best be brought together? I'm sure others, not only I, would welcome a few positive suggestions about a way forward rather than the constant "Israel is under attack by evil Muslims" posts that proliferate in threads about Israel on TV. And sure, I agree with your statement "Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and(sic) armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip". But that thoughtful "some" clearly does not include Netanyahu and his cronies, unfortunately for the majority of people in Gaza and Israel. I strongly believe that if Netanyahu had allowed issues of land annexation and future borders to be addressed candidly during the last peace negotiations, rather than using the pause in hostilities to annex even more land, there would not be a battle in Gaza today. It would have shown a willingness to find a solution, to show he is not merely an instrument of the Zionist project.

And <deleted> - "Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best."??? Where did that come from???  Have you been mixing up your posts?

 

 

You are answered in the spirit you post.

Making decisive claims without care for factual errors, calling posters lazy, or talking about banishing them, and in general using rhetoric which does little to promote discussion or debate. Latest in this line is announcing what the main point is (according to...?) with the added claim that it is an elephant in the room.

 

Writing a whole post about how the land issues (sorry, not going to play along with the "theft" bit) are the main problem, with a one liner mention that there are other issues, yeah....that sounds as if them other issues are fluff. That the land issues are paramount is your own opinion, and presenting this as an accepted fact is not something everyone need to accept.

 

I am still at a loss as to why anyone would claim that the land issues are ignored, and who are the ones ignoring them. This comes up almost every time the conflict is mentioned, and yet....an elephant in the room? How so? The claims that this topic does not appear on TVF (within related topics), Western and Israeli media is quite hilarious.  Not even sure where to begin here, when one makes such a claim.

 

One issue for this may be the terminology used - annexation in this context carries a quite specific meaning. Example, Israel did annexe the Golan Heights, thereby making it officially (at least as far as Israel is concerned, most countries do not recognize this) a part of the country. This is not the legal situation as far as most of the West Bank is concerned. It could be raised as a relevant issue with regard to east Jerusalem, though.

 

If you wish to talk about Israeli occupation, illegal settlements and, to an extent, land grabs - that's fine. When you call it all annexation that makes the initial claim inaccurate and harder to respond to in a serious manner.

 

Not being a Netanyahu fan, to say the least, as is quite apparent from my posts, not going to defend his conduct or his policies. My line on armed conflict not being the most conductive way to deal with real estate issues was actually more to do with Hamas. Hamas is basically a one trick pony. Netanyahu at least goes through the charade of diplomacy (all meant to waste time, for sure), but is not quite as one-dimensional as Hamas when it comes to dealing with the other side. In other words, for all his high talk, he can be pressured into accepting certain things.

 

One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them. Netanyahu represents a sizable public of Israelis, Hamas represents a sizable public as well. The pro-peace camps, on both sides are not in power and do not necessarily represent that many people. This is especially true for the Palestinian side (and there are understandable reasons for that). A lot of the people of both sides got an aggro set of mind.

 

While I do believe that Netanyahu is obstructive when it comes to peace, he is not alone and gets full cooperation from his Palestinian counterparts, especially the Hamas leadership. Hamas, despite what some posters repeatedly claim, does not see the 1967 lines as final borders.

 

I believe that the denying existence of security issues was either with another one of your posts in mind, or a bit carried over while editing my reply to one (if memory serves, something to do with the construction of the security barrier). If it is not something you feel rightly attributed to you, I apologize.

[simple1]

Regarding the settlements in the West Bank. I believe I am correct that expansion of the settlements has often been used by the Israeli government as a policy tool to 'punish' actions by Palestinian groups.The IDF provides protection for settlers in the West Bank. Has their been offers to shut down and remove the settlers in the West Bank (mainly extremist US Jews?) over time as a means for a pathway to peace, should Palestinians cease attacks? If Hamas does stop attacks, no doubt even more extreme groups such as Islamic Jihad / IS cells will carry on, then what happens, would collective punishment continue?

 

As Morch mentioned UN members countries peace keepers/observers are usually from developing countries, does anyone believe deployment of poor quality troops into Palestinian held areas will be constructive? NATO member countries, along with the US, are strongly trending to disengage from conflict areas in the M.E., no matter the mandate, unlikely to committ forces into Palestinian held territory.

 

Looking at conflict areas with a lot less complexity, what's the timeline average to negotiate pathways to peace 30/40 years? There will be secret back channel talks between Israel, PA & Hamas. Away from the glare of megaphone diplomacy, hopefully at some point these talks will acheive success. I think will all agree the only long term solution will be reached via direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinain representatives.  Deployment of third party country forces would at best be a temporary bandaid, with the risk of adding yet more diplomatic colours of grey.

[Scott]

Posts deleted.   A post and reply that violates Fair Use Policy has been deleted.  

 

The topic of the West Bank settlements is not particularly relevant to this thread.

[CBR250]

CBR250, I prefer to see Morch reply you in detail instead of me addressing all the (very good) questions you asked him.

While I won't get into the whole very complex background, reasons, origins and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and its multiple dimensions in my post, I do want to discuss the current unfortunate war going on in Gaza and possible solutions to the unfortunate innocent Gazan casualties.

As I do know, for a fact, that the IDF is doing its very best to operate in Gaza against Hamas terrorists, terrorist infrastructures, rockets, rocket launchers, rocket factories and the impressive "city" of underground terror tunnels going into Israeli territories which Hamas has built, I also acknowledge the incredible difficulty of operating in a hostile & condensed urban area without hurting innocent civilians, especially innocents who are not even supposed to be there in the first place after all the advanced warnings they receive from the IDF.

I realize that some may say that they are under blockade and thus got nowhere to evacuate to. That would not be correct as they do have many places to evacuate to, especially UN shelters and safe-zones.

Another problem is that the UN personnel in Gaza, as we've seen multiple times, are anything but impartial, and UN shelters are being used by Hamas terrorists for hiding and attacking the IDF, with full cooperation or no objection of UN personnel.

Sitting in my safe shelter in Bangkok, behind my safe keyboard, I was trying to think about possible solutions to the problem of innocent casualties in Gaza, while this justified reactive operation is proceeding. Then I got an idea.

As the UN force is ineffective, partially because it also does not have mandate (or will) to engage in any fights (they only have mandate to observe and "keep the peace"), maybe it would be best if NATO will send "boots on the ground" troops (with mandate to fight), to create safe zones in Gaza for Palestinian civilians during the operation.

Surely this will reduce or possibly eliminate the amount of civilian casualties.

What do you reckon?

 

 

Cheers doc - but in my post I make it clear I want to move on to the underlying issue of figuring out what Israel is doing about returning land in the interests of ensuring a long-term peace that prevents yet another cycle of violence..

 

[Scott]

A comment on moderation has been removed.  

 

[CBR250]

 

 

People may read your posts and not agree with you, such is forum life.

 

If you wish to narrow down the conflict to one dimension, that's alright too - just not a very interesting or enlightening point of view in itself. Things are rarely all that simple as some posters keep on making them seem.

 

One may claim that the land issue (again, personally not into the whole "theft" style, leaves less room for debate) is the main issue and everything else is fluff. Others may disagree that it is the only thing worthy of discussion, or the foremost aspect that needs resolving. Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip.

 

No one seems to be ignoring the issue, just that indeed, it has less relevancy as far as the Gaza Strip goes, compared with the West Bank. There were also quite a lot of posters mixing condition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which led to some of the present dynamics of the discussion.

 

There are not going to be any long term solution negotiations under current conditions. This can be attributed to failures of both sides (less interested with who's share is bigger, not going to solve anything), a reluctance to let go of past grievances and conceptions. Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best.

 

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my views. Although I must admit I prefer it when they do so with some semblance of rationality, a rare commodity amongst a few of the posters on here.

 

No, I didn't say "everything else is fluff". I didn't imply "everything else is fluff. I didn't suggest "everything else is fluff". I assure you I didn't even think "everything else is fluff". Read what I wrote again, I did in fact note quite carefully near my conclusion that "there are of course other substantive issues". But the main point I made is that there is a gigantic elephant in the room of conflict that no one is discussing - and it is the question of land. Sure, there are other issues that won't be easily resolved. For example, right of return. Compensation. And, as you note, security. Of course for both sides. And these concerns matter as well, but the largest piece of the peace puzzle is land. 

 

And you didn't respond to my invitation to offer views on this issue of land annexation, other than to acknowledge it is an issue. Then you say "No-one seems to be ignoring the issue". Well, they sure ignore it here on TV. Or maybe I missed the posts where you wrote about it? And it's largely absent from western media. As to Israeli media, I am not aware of even one Israeli spokesperson acknowledging that land annexation is even a small problem!

 

So let's accept for the moment that land annexation is, as you say, only one dimension of the overall picture -  but not just ignore it. In fact, isolating it from the confounding issues may help to clarify what part it plays.

 

So, a few questions for you: Do you approve of what is occurring on the West Bank with the annexation of land? Do you believe such annexation is defensible - or perhaps even justifiable? How can the divergent views on the issue of land best be brought together? I'm sure others, not only I, would welcome a few positive suggestions about a way forward rather than the constant "Israel is under attack by evil Muslims" posts that proliferate in threads about Israel on TV. And sure, I agree with your statement "Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and(sic) armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip". But that thoughtful "some" clearly does not include Netanyahu and his cronies, unfortunately for the majority of people in Gaza and Israel. I strongly believe that if Netanyahu had allowed issues of land annexation and future borders to be addressed candidly during the last peace negotiations, rather than using the pause in hostilities to annex even more land, there would not be a battle in Gaza today. It would have shown a willingness to find a solution, to show he is not merely an instrument of the Zionist project.

And <deleted> - "Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best."??? Where did that come from???  Have you been mixing up your posts?

 

 

You are answered in the spirit you post.

Making decisive claims without care for factual errors, calling posters lazy, or talking about banishing them, and in general using rhetoric which does little to promote discussion or debate. Latest in this line is announcing what the main point is (according to...?) with the added claim that it is an elephant in the room.

 

Writing a whole post about how the land issues (sorry, not going to play along with the "theft" bit) are the main problem, with a one liner mention that there are other issues, yeah....that sounds as if them other issues are fluff. That the land issues are paramount is your own opinion, and presenting this as an accepted fact is not something everyone need to accept.

 

I am still at a loss as to why anyone would claim that the land issues are ignored, and who are the ones ignoring them. This comes up almost every time the conflict is mentioned, and yet....an elephant in the room? How so? The claims that this topic does not appear on TVF (within related topics), Western and Israeli media is quite hilarious.  Not even sure where to begin here, when one makes such a claim.

 

One issue for this may be the terminology used - annexation in this context carries a quite specific meaning. Example, Israel did annexe the Golan Heights, thereby making it officially (at least as far as Israel is concerned, most countries do not recognize this) a part of the country. This is not the legal situation as far as most of the West Bank is concerned. It could be raised as a relevant issue with regard to east Jerusalem, though.

 

If you wish to talk about Israeli occupation, illegal settlements and, to an extent, land grabs - that's fine. When you call it all annexation that makes the initial claim inaccurate and harder to respond to in a serious manner.

 

Not being a Netanyahu fan, to say the least, as is quite apparent from my posts, not going to defend his conduct or his policies. My line on armed conflict not being the most conductive way to deal with real estate issues was actually more to do with Hamas. Hamas is basically a one trick pony. Netanyahu at least goes through the charade of diplomacy (all meant to waste time, for sure), but is not quite as one-dimensional as Hamas when it comes to dealing with the other side. In other words, for all his high talk, he can be pressured into accepting certain things.

 

One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them. Netanyahu represents a sizable public of Israelis, Hamas represents a sizable public as well. The pro-peace camps, on both sides are not in power and do not necessarily represent that many people. This is especially true for the Palestinian side (and there are understandable reasons for that). A lot of the people of both sides got an aggro set of mind.

 

While I do believe that Netanyahu is obstructive when it comes to peace, he is not alone and gets full cooperation from his Palestinian counterparts, especially the Hamas leadership. Hamas, despite what some posters repeatedly claim, does not see the 1967 lines as final borders.

 

I believe that the denying existence of security issues was either with another one of your posts in mind, or a bit carried over while editing my reply to one (if memory serves, something to do with the construction of the security barrier). If it is not something you feel rightly attributed to you, I apologize.

 

 

Play pedant if it pleases you. I altered my terminology to "land annexation" to allow for your sensibilities to the term "theft". So let's return to the original term, as we both know what it refers to. Theft of land is a fundamental reason behind the current conflict. Hamas would have been sidelined if Israel had sincerely addressed the issue of land with Fatah during the last peace talks. The odds are that the killings in Gaza at present would not be occurring if that last peace process had been approached by Israel with anything like sincerity.

 

"One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them." Here we go again!! Maybe people do make that mistake. I certainly don't, and I made no claim along those lines, and nowhere even inferred this. Why introduce such red herrings? It's tiresome. Of course Netanyahu gets support from the Israeli people. As does Hamas from Gazans - I suspect even more so now that they have witnessed Israel's destruction of much of the city and killed so many people - it's the perfect strategy if you wish to alienate and radicalise a population. If peace is the aim, not a very clever move, is it?

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

People may read your posts and not agree with you, such is forum life.

 

If you wish to narrow down the conflict to one dimension, that's alright too - just not a very interesting or enlightening point of view in itself. Things are rarely all that simple as some posters keep on making them seem.

 

One may claim that the land issue (again, personally not into the whole "theft" style, leaves less room for debate) is the main issue and everything else is fluff. Others may disagree that it is the only thing worthy of discussion, or the foremost aspect that needs resolving. Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip.

 

No one seems to be ignoring the issue, just that indeed, it has less relevancy as far as the Gaza Strip goes, compared with the West Bank. There were also quite a lot of posters mixing condition in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which led to some of the present dynamics of the discussion.

 

There are not going to be any long term solution negotiations under current conditions. This can be attributed to failures of both sides (less interested with who's share is bigger, not going to solve anything), a reluctance to let go of past grievances and conceptions. Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best.

 

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my views. Although I must admit I prefer it when they do so with some semblance of rationality, a rare commodity amongst a few of the posters on here.

 

No, I didn't say "everything else is fluff". I didn't imply "everything else is fluff. I didn't suggest "everything else is fluff". I assure you I didn't even think "everything else is fluff". Read what I wrote again, I did in fact note quite carefully near my conclusion that "there are of course other substantive issues". But the main point I made is that there is a gigantic elephant in the room of conflict that no one is discussing - and it is the question of land. Sure, there are other issues that won't be easily resolved. For example, right of return. Compensation. And, as you note, security. Of course for both sides. And these concerns matter as well, but the largest piece of the peace puzzle is land. 

 

And you didn't respond to my invitation to offer views on this issue of land annexation, other than to acknowledge it is an issue. Then you say "No-one seems to be ignoring the issue". Well, they sure ignore it here on TV. Or maybe I missed the posts where you wrote about it? And it's largely absent from western media. As to Israeli media, I am not aware of even one Israeli spokesperson acknowledging that land annexation is even a small problem!

 

So let's accept for the moment that land annexation is, as you say, only one dimension of the overall picture -  but not just ignore it. In fact, isolating it from the confounding issues may help to clarify what part it plays.

 

So, a few questions for you: Do you approve of what is occurring on the West Bank with the annexation of land? Do you believe such annexation is defensible - or perhaps even justifiable? How can the divergent views on the issue of land best be brought together? I'm sure others, not only I, would welcome a few positive suggestions about a way forward rather than the constant "Israel is under attack by evil Muslims" posts that proliferate in threads about Israel on TV. And sure, I agree with your statement "Some may think of several better courses of action conductive to real estate issues in the West Bank, other than getting into and(sic) armed confrontation in the Gaza Strip". But that thoughtful "some" clearly does not include Netanyahu and his cronies, unfortunately for the majority of people in Gaza and Israel. I strongly believe that if Netanyahu had allowed issues of land annexation and future borders to be addressed candidly during the last peace negotiations, rather than using the pause in hostilities to annex even more land, there would not be a battle in Gaza today. It would have shown a willingness to find a solution, to show he is not merely an instrument of the Zionist project.

And <deleted> - "Denying that Israel faces security issues related to the Palestinians (currently or even after an agreement is reached) is disingenuous at best."??? Where did that come from???  Have you been mixing up your posts?

 

 

You are answered in the spirit you post.

Making decisive claims without care for factual errors, calling posters lazy, or talking about banishing them, and in general using rhetoric which does little to promote discussion or debate. Latest in this line is announcing what the main point is (according to...?) with the added claim that it is an elephant in the room.

 

Writing a whole post about how the land issues (sorry, not going to play along with the "theft" bit) are the main problem, with a one liner mention that there are other issues, yeah....that sounds as if them other issues are fluff. That the land issues are paramount is your own opinion, and presenting this as an accepted fact is not something everyone need to accept.

 

I am still at a loss as to why anyone would claim that the land issues are ignored, and who are the ones ignoring them. This comes up almost every time the conflict is mentioned, and yet....an elephant in the room? How so? The claims that this topic does not appear on TVF (within related topics), Western and Israeli media is quite hilarious.  Not even sure where to begin here, when one makes such a claim.

 

One issue for this may be the terminology used - annexation in this context carries a quite specific meaning. Example, Israel did annexe the Golan Heights, thereby making it officially (at least as far as Israel is concerned, most countries do not recognize this) a part of the country. This is not the legal situation as far as most of the West Bank is concerned. It could be raised as a relevant issue with regard to east Jerusalem, though.

 

If you wish to talk about Israeli occupation, illegal settlements and, to an extent, land grabs - that's fine. When you call it all annexation that makes the initial claim inaccurate and harder to respond to in a serious manner.

 

Not being a Netanyahu fan, to say the least, as is quite apparent from my posts, not going to defend his conduct or his policies. My line on armed conflict not being the most conductive way to deal with real estate issues was actually more to do with Hamas. Hamas is basically a one trick pony. Netanyahu at least goes through the charade of diplomacy (all meant to waste time, for sure), but is not quite as one-dimensional as Hamas when it comes to dealing with the other side. In other words, for all his high talk, he can be pressured into accepting certain things.

 

One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them. Netanyahu represents a sizable public of Israelis, Hamas represents a sizable public as well. The pro-peace camps, on both sides are not in power and do not necessarily represent that many people. This is especially true for the Palestinian side (and there are understandable reasons for that). A lot of the people of both sides got an aggro set of mind.

 

While I do believe that Netanyahu is obstructive when it comes to peace, he is not alone and gets full cooperation from his Palestinian counterparts, especially the Hamas leadership. Hamas, despite what some posters repeatedly claim, does not see the 1967 lines as final borders.

 

I believe that the denying existence of security issues was either with another one of your posts in mind, or a bit carried over while editing my reply to one (if memory serves, something to do with the construction of the security barrier). If it is not something you feel rightly attributed to you, I apologize.

 

 

Play pedant if it pleases you. I altered my terminology to "land annexation" to allow for your sensibilities to the term "theft". So let's return to the original term, as we both know what it refers to. Theft of land is a fundamental reason behind the current conflict. Hamas would have been sidelined if Israel had sincerely addressed the issue of land with Fatah during the last peace talks. The odds are that the killings in Gaza at present would not be occurring if that last peace process had been approached by Israel with anything like sincerity.

 

"One mistake that many people make is imagining that leaderships on both sides do not have public support behind them." Here we go again!! Maybe people do make that mistake. I certainly don't, and I made no claim along those lines, and nowhere even inferred this. Why introduce such red herrings? It's tiresome. Of course Netanyahu gets support from the Israeli people. As does Hamas from Gazans - I suspect even more so now that they have witnessed Israel's destruction of much of the city and killed so many people - it's the perfect strategy if you wish to alienate and radicalise a population. If peace is the aim, not a very clever move, is it?

 

 

 

I do not think it pedantic. My believe is that the words used in expressing opinions have a lot of bearing on the shaping of underlying concepts. If one talks about "theft" or "annexation" then those terms create and enhance preconceptions with regard to a the side's relative positions and conduct. Being also legal terms, and one of them used in everyday speech, the effect is magnified. As I do not see either term as reflecting the situation or past events, I choose not to use the terminology picked. The tired "we both know" is rejected as well - I do not share your position.

 

Hamas's stance is that getting the 1967 lines back is just a step. There was never a clear statement that they will agree to a permanent existence of Israel as a state within those lines. The best offers made were to do with a variations of truces, in the context of continuing the armed struggle when condition allow it.

 

That most Israeli governments were not keen on making concessions when it came to peace with the Palestinians is a moot point. The same goes for most of the relevant Palestinian leaders, and hence, both sides leaders serve to prolong the issue.  Laying this on one of the sides is disingenuous, and as stated in many posts, I do not find it very conductive to tally and to compare each side's relative share of the blame - plenty to go around.

 

The point about both leadership having popular support was not a red herring at all. A lot of post talk about how common folk like nothing better than peace etc. This is not exactly how reality looks at ground level. There is a lot of hate, anger and trust issues on both sides, and willing crowds for those advocating violence. Leaders do not necessarily operate in a vacuum, and not always against the wishes of their voters. Perhaps what is needed are leaders who are brave enough to apply that old Rolling Stones line  - you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime you find You get what you need.