Gaza and Israel suffer deadliest day

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

And the usual drivel about Israel "absorbing" (or annexing) the Gaza Strip and the West Bank - that there is no one of any

consequence in Israeli politics that wishes to annexe millions of Palestinians as Israeli citizens should probably be a clue.

 

 

The funny thing is that the Gaza strip originally belongs to Egypt. Israel occupied it in 1967 during the 6 days war after being attacked by (and defeated) its 4 surrounding neighbors.  Israel would be more than happy if Egypt would take it back, but the Egyptians refuse to take it, knowing what a hornet's nest it is.

 

So Israel has withdrawn/disengaged from the Gaza strip, relocating thousands of jewish Israelis into lands within the 1967 borders, while leaving all their houses, lands and properties to the Palestinians. Then the PA took control and full responsibility on the Gaza strip, which is basically no longer occupied, as its citizens can freely come and go to Egypt and through Egypt almost any time.

[Morch]

 

<snip>

 

I sincerely struggle to understand the attitude of non-Jewish supporters of Israel. It is as clear as day that Isreal is trying to expand and committing crimes and atrocities to do it. The apologists that cite "thousands of rockets" refuse to acknowledge that the rockets, aside from inflicting relatively little damage (relative to the damage Israeli weapons inflict on Gaza), are coming from freedom fighters fighting an aggressive occupier.

The Palestinians are the underdogs, brutally suppressed by Israel and unfairly treated by the West. If it was a different indigenous people invaded by a different occupier/settler, the UN would be doing something. But the Zionist lobby and the Zionist propaganda machine keeps certain UN members (mainly the US and Russia, and that's more than enough veto) off the subject of Israel's crimes.

 

 

How is Israel currently seeking to expand itself?

 

Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula twice, from southern Lebanon once, from the Gaza Strip once, and partially withdrew from selected areas in the West Bank. Compared with the 1947 UN partition plan - Israel could be seen as having massively expanded its borders, compared to post 1967 lines - its area grew smaller. Clear as day, how?

 

The rockets inflict little damage because Israel is actively defending and attacking against them. Without constant action and investment on this front, their effect would be worse. Even so, and without comparison to the damage inflicted on Gaza, there will not be many brave posters saying that rockets are "harmless" had they ever experienced being under rocket fire.

 

Said rockets are launched by "freedom fighters fighting an aggressive occupier" - only, there is no Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip (and before it is said, yes, there are troops there now - there weren't when things were relatively peaceful), and no illegal settlements. Yet practically all rocket attacks originate from the Gaza Strip, as opposed to no attacks from West Bank, which does have illegal settlements and constant troop presence. And again, before it is said - there is a blockade, yes.  Yet somehow, hardly any attacks against Egyptian forces which uphold it on their side of the border.

 

As for UN votes and resolutions, Russia is not well known for vetoing decisions against Israel. The USA veto holds for the security council, not all UN resolutions. Other UN bodies and councils, especially those dealing with human rights, actually discuss Israel and issue resolutions (statements, reports...whatever) in number not really proportionate to the evils Israel supposedly represents.

[Morch]

 

<snip>

 

There is a huge difference between Zionist, Israeli, and Jew. It’s people like Netanyahu and some posters on this forum who try to blur the difference.

 

 

Not really.

 

It was posted that people can be either of these three definitions, with or without a measure of the others.

It was posted that Zionism, as opposed to some opinions here, means different things to different people.

It was posted that Zionism is not an all or nothing stance, different versions, different applications of ideology.

It was posted that most Israeli Jews (discounting Orthodox Jews) see themselves as Zionist - although what they

mean by that can greatly vary.

 

Zionism is not a right wing stance, in Israel. For those having trouble coming to terms with it, go ahead and check

relevant political parties manifestos, it's usually stated quite clearly (again, different nuances and emphasis).

 

Many posters who showed support for Israel stated quite clearly that they do not support Netanyahu, but don't let

that stop you from making false generalizations.

 

Mostly, this is about posters having little first hand experience with either Israel or Palestine, basing their opinions

on media, personal acquaintance with some people, and academic sources - and quite obviously not all of them

unbiased. 
 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

<snip>

 

I sincerely struggle to understand the attitude of non-Jewish supporters of Israel. It is as clear as day that Isreal is trying to expand and committing crimes and atrocities to do it. The apologists that cite "thousands of rockets" refuse to acknowledge that the rockets, aside from inflicting relatively little damage (relative to the damage Israeli weapons inflict on Gaza), are coming from freedom fighters fighting an aggressive occupier.

The Palestinians are the underdogs, brutally suppressed by Israel and unfairly treated by the West. If it was a different indigenous people invaded by a different occupier/settler, the UN would be doing something. But the Zionist lobby and the Zionist propaganda machine keeps certain UN members (mainly the US and Russia, and that's more than enough veto) off the subject of Israel's crimes.

 

 

How is Israel currently seeking to expand itself?

Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula twice, from southern Lebanon once, from the Gaza Strip once, and partially withdrew

from selected areas in the West Bank. Compared with the 1947 UN partition plan - Israel could be seen as having massively

expanded its borders, compared to post 1967 lines - its area grew smaller. Clear as day, how?

 

The rockets inflict little damage because Israel is actively defending and attacking against them. Without constant action and

investment on this front, their effect would be worse. Even so, and without comparison to the damage inflicted on Gaza, there

will not be many brave posters saying that rockets are "harmless" had they ever experienced being under rocket fire.

 

Said rockets are launched by "freedom fighters fighting an aggressive occupier" - only, there is no Israeli occupation of the

Gaza Strip (and before it is said, yes, there are troops there now - there weren't when things were relatively peaceful), and

no illegal settlements. Yet practically all rocket attacks originate from the Gaza Strip, as opposed to no attacks from West

Bank, which does have illegal settlements and constant troop presence. And again, before it is said - there is a blockade, yes.

Yet somehow, hardly any attacks against Egyptian forces which uphold it on their side of the border.

 

As for UN votes and resolutions, Russia is not well known for vetoing decisions against Israel. The USA veto holds for the

security council, not all UN resolutions. Other UN bodies and councils, especially those dealing with human rights, actually

discuss Israel and issue resolutions (statements, reports...whatever) in number not really proportionate to the evils Israel

supposedly represents.

 

 

You are 100% correct and accurate.

Due to the majority of Arab countries and the Arab lobby in the general assembly - Israel is, by far, the most discriminated country in the UN. The Arab majority can and does get any resolution against Israel automatically approved, which explains the world's largest quantity of resolutions against Israel.
Israel's only luck is to have the USA with its veto-right on its side in the security council, to balance the huge bias a bit.

[Morch]

 

 

 

Lies.

 

I read exactly what you are referring to, and it wasn't a "directive to the press", it was (supposedly...) a recommendation to what Hamas supporters should do to further its propaganda.

 

This is what you are talking about...it's hardly an unbiased source given that Alan Dershowitz, Ehud Barak, and many other Pro-Israel supporters are members of its board of advisors...

 

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8076.htma

 

What kind of lala land do you live in where you think the BBC and New York Times and co. are going to be just happily taking orders from Hamas?

 

 

I don't know about Memri's version, but something of the sort was on a few Palestinian government Facebook pages a few days ago. And there are similar emails doing the rounds, although can't say whether they are genuine or copies or what.  Guess it can be checked via electronicintifada if one was really interested, then again, they could just as probably be the source...

 

 

 

 

"Don't know" about Memri's version?  There is no "version". The report talking about a directive at activists was published by Memri. They cited the facebook pages of Hamas. I linked it above. That's the end of the story. 

 

 

"Don't know" as in not sure how credible it is. Memri generally does ok translations, but is obviously not unbiased. As for the "version" - there were others (both translations and copies of the original text). There was also at least one clip about this, not by Memri, although can't recall if it appeared earlier. The so-called directive (or other versions of it, didn't bother to run a full comparison) was available quite early on (personally got a couple of emails), and a similar one was around a couple of years ago, during the last round of hostilities.

 

[Morch]

 

 

I sincerely struggle to understand the attitude of non-Jewish supporters of Israel. It is as clear as day that Isreal is trying to expand and committing crimes and atrocities to do it. The apologists that cite "thousands of rockets" refuse to acknowledge that the rockets, aside from inflicting relatively little damage (relative to the damage Israeli weapons inflict on Gaza), are coming from freedom fighters fighting an aggressive occupier.

The Palestinians are the underdogs, brutally suppressed by Israel and unfairly treated by the West. If it was a different indigenous people invaded by a different occupier/settler, the UN would be doing something. But the Zionist lobby and the Zionist propaganda machine keeps certain UN members (mainly the US and Russia, and that's more than enough veto) off the subject of Israel's crimes.

 

 

Israel is simply attempting to survive in the face of an implacable enemy dedicated to the destruction of their nation-state.  There is no occupation of Gaza as the Israelis retreated from Gaza in a forlorn attempt in a land-for-peace deal that of course failed to deliver any peace, although that failure pretty much eviscerated the Israeli "peace movement" of that time.  The Palestinians are indeed perceived as underdogs, but are equally supressed politically by both Israel and Hamas. I agree, they, the Palestinians, are not treated fairly by the West.  Neither the UN, nor the pro-Palestinian groups in the West have said boo regarding the occupation of Tibet by the Han Chinese, the occupation of northern Sri Lanka by Tamils, the lack of self-determination for the Kurds, and the list can go on ad nauseum if you begin to start naming the countless  non-Slavic groups east of the Urals or the entire continent of Africa.  To paraphrase The Bard, thou dost protest too much, methinks.

 

 

"No occupation of Gaza". 

They are certainly INSIDE of Gaza now. They control all the borders, except for those on the Egypt side, they control nearly all the coastal waters, they control what goes into Gaza, they control who can go into Gaza and who cannot. 

 

"Attempting to survive".  

Killing hundreds of civilians, destroying whole neighborhoods, inflicting life-altering injuries on thousands while some of your farmland gets hit by rockets and a couple of your civilians get killed = attempting to survive.

 

 

Saying that Israeli forces are inside Gaza now, does not mean that they were there before - there was no occupation of the Gaza Strip for some years now. Israeli troops went inside not without context, and did not re-occupy the area.

 

So yes, there's that pesky Egyptian border which sort of blows a hole threw this Evil Israel image. That is unless the next bit of wisdom will explain how Egypt is actually controlled by Israel and the USA (while conveniently ignoring both domestic and regional politics, not all having to do with Israel).

 

Attempting to survive might be overdoing it some, yes. Then again, the reason attacks from the Gaza Strip do less damage got plenty to do with Israel's effort and investment on this front. When borders were relatively open and suicide bombers (or just plain bomb attacks) were the method of choice for Hamas, casualty figures in Israel were higher.
 

[Morch]

25 Israeli soldiers now dead who might be alive today had not Netanyahu started this reckless round of violence.

 

Just a popularity stunt to win the next election. The man's a war criminal.

 

As an obvious expert on Israeli domestic politics, could you give many examples in which such action as currently

seen in the Gaza Strip actually benefited the ruling party in the next elections?

 

Until the next elections, Israelis will remember the death toll (on both sides, a lot of the voters are either Arabs or

left wing), they will moan about the financial cost of operations (which will come as new taxes and budget cuts),

they will still have the Hamas in the Gaza Strip (maybe bruised, but not totally beaten), and there are sure to be

many other events and circumstances changed by then.

[dr_lucas]

Pffft...A war criminal...

oh, Dexter, Dexter, you got it all backwards. You're completely mixing up between your beloved humanitarian Syrian friends Bashar al-Assad, the Lebanese Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas' Mohammed Deif.

Edited July 22, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Morch]

How low can Israel go?

 

Israeli tanks have shelled a hospital in the central Gaza Strip, killing at least five people and wounding at least another 50.

According to early reports the third floor of the al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah had been hit by at least three tank shells on Monday.

 

The interesting thing is Netanyahu's spokesperson Mark Regev's knee jerk propaganda reaction..

 

"You are allowed to hit targets where their [Hamas] war machine is using to hide rockets."

"I have no doubt Hamas uses, has used and continues to use, hospitals … we do not target civilians," Regev said.

 

"But I am not aware of this specific situation."

 

 

 

More a question of how low some posters go....the next part of the article, which you did not link (maybe because it was from the impartial Al-Jazeera) says:

 

 

Later on Monday, the Israeli military said an initial investigation suggested that anti-tank missiles were stored near the hospital and that the cache was successfully targeted.

 

"Civilian casualties are a tragic inevitability of the brutal and systematic exploitation of homes, hospitals and mosques in Gaza," the army said.

 

So, not really a knee-jerk propaganda reaction, more like the spokesperson did not have details on the specific event and was giving a general answer.

 

The article, by the way, goes on to quote hospital personnel denying the allegations. Nothing conclusive, then. Here's the link (not that hard, is it?) - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/deaths-as-israeli-tanks-shell-gaza-hospital-2014721124111171397.html

 

 

[Morch]

didnt know you could be a terrorist in your own land, ??

 

Probably not following Thai News since 2008, then.
 

[Morch]

 

 

25 Israeli soldiers now dead who might be alive today had not Netanyahu started this reckless round of violence.

 

Just a popularity stunt to win the next election. The man's a war criminal.

 

I agree that the current ground invasion is reckless and ill-advised given the global failure of ground forces to be effective in achieving both tactical and strategic goals when involved in urban asymetric warfare. This is especially exasperating given the Israeli failures in Lebanon dating back 30 years, not to mention Israel's ally faulures in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade when faced with a similar aysmetric conundrum.  But to reduce Netanyahu's decisions to merely an election stunt is a rather shallow concept and to acuse Netanyahu of being a war criminal is simply ignorant.

 

 

 

Netanyahu a War Criminal says Nobel Peace Laureate

 

In a speech delivered in Belfast on 24 October 2012, Mairead Maguire declared that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Premier, is a war criminal.

 

 

 

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102818

 

 

 

Ah, so that settles it. A Nobel Peace Laureate spoke. Wait, didn't Obama get one too?  So ok, not the same as Obama, but what would you expect her to say?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire

 

Netanyahu is many things, most of them unflattering, but a war criminal? He'll probably have to take a number and wait in line - much worse than him around, and that's without having a quick look around the neighboring countries.
 

[Morch]

 

 

 

Why not just answer the question? You said there might be thousands of Israeli dead right now without "Protective" Edge. How?

 
Is that a tricky question? or you really can not see how?
 
Killed by rockets

 

 

That's strange because the terrorists have already launched well over a thousand rockets and only one civilian was killed by them. He was near a border crossing. Seems a bit far-fetched to say thousands would be killed by rockets eh?

 

 

Which part do you find strange? The fact that IAF has destroyed half if not more rocket launchers?

 

I could go as far as say millions, when Hamas was targeting nuclear reactor for 2 straight days.

 

How many would you estimate die if nuclear reactor was hit?

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives. But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before

Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas

launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there

and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be

more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives.

But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

 

 

Let's also not underdo things. If a rocket hits Haifa industrial area in general or the oil refinary or the ammonia containers there in particular, hundreds of thousands of Israelis (Mostly jews, but many muslims and christians) who live nearby are expected to die in the blast and chain-reaction.

Rockets did fall just 10km from there.

[Morch]

Israel's peace plan.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9KDhsFFfGU

 

Which is of course not what the clip says - actually makes a clear distinction between Netanyahu (the prime minister) and Israel.

 

You may also note that many of the pro-Israel posters on this forum, are not pro-Netanyahu.

 

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before

Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas

launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there

and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be

more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives.

But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

 

 

Let's also not underdo things. If a rocket hits Haifa industrial area in general or the oil refinary or the ammonia containers there in particular, hundreds of thousands of Israelis (Mostly jews, but many muslims and christians) who live nearby are expected to die in the blast and chain-reaction.

Rockets did fall just 10km from there.

 

 

Citizens of Haifa should be out rioting to move the damn thing. It's been talked about as a potential catastrophe waiting to happen, for years (even without the danger of rockets).

 

That said, the nuclear reactor is "slightly" more protected than that.

 

 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before

Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas

launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there

and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be

more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives.

But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

 

 

Let's also not underdo things. If a rocket hits Haifa industrial area in general or the oil refinary or the ammonia containers there in particular, hundreds of thousands of Israelis (Mostly jews, but many muslims and christians) who live nearby are expected to die in the blast and chain-reaction.

Rockets did fall just 10km from there.

 

 

Citizens of Haifa should be out rioting to move the damn thing. It's been talked about as a potential catastrophe waiting to

happen, for years (even without the danger of rockets).

 

That said, the nuclear reactor is "slightly" more protected than that.

 

 

 

 

I agree they should, but that's beyond the discussion of this thread. I believe we are talking about real potential threats of the missiles shot by the Palestinians. 

Make no mistake, they do try to target the area, as did Hassan Nasrallah during the 2nd Lebanon war and as did Saddam Hussain in 1991 before him.

This just proves that they are interested in causing a huge catastrophe and hurt/kill as many civilians as they can, while Israel's IDF is doing its' best to avoid hurting civilians and only acts to surgically eliminate terrorism.

Huge differences.

Edited July 22, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Morch]

 

 

I sincerely struggle to understand the attitude of non-Jewish supporters of Israel.

It is simple. The Arabs started the conflict in the first place, they started a bunch of wars and lost them and they have acted like savages ever since. Israel are far from perfect, but they are far more on the side of good than their enemies and have far more reason to have done the things they have done. All the Palestinians want to destroy them and all they want is to be left in peace.

I struggle to understand the attitude of those that make lame excuses and justifications for Islamic terrorists that purposely target innocent men, women and children for murder.

 

If Israel wants to be left in peace, stop settlement building and withdraw all it's citizens from all settlements in Palestine. Retreat to the 1967 borders and recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. Very simple. They should also try to resolve Palestinian grievances because there are thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who have lost family members to Israeli aggression.. If they did that and let Palestine alone without blockades or embargoes, with no harassment, and then Hamas did something, I would support proportionate punitive action by Israel.

 

 

So basically the plan is for Israel to comply with Palestinian territorial rights (or demands, for those who like to see it this way), recognize Palestine and everyone will live happily ever after?

 

I see you thought of that - if after this Hamas misbehaves, Israel may spank it on the wrist.

 

Not sure if true naivety or a cunning plan.

 

Israel should lift the blockade, stop messing with Hamas, and wait to see if this goodwill approach works its magic on a group committed to Israel's destruction. I'm not likely to get an answer now more than I did before on any of these topics, but here goes - what (other than saying that the current one is not) would be considered a proportionate punitive response?

 

And according to this visionary scheme - does Hamas have any obligations toward Israel? Does the PA? Who does Israel talk to when things need to be sorted out? And what about all the Palestinian refugees oversees - are they allowed back?  Back to where?

 

It is good to have a dream. It is necessary to have a viable plan and to consider details in a realistic manner.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

I sincerely struggle to understand the attitude of non-Jewish supporters of Israel.

It is simple. The Arabs started the conflict in the first place, they started a bunch of wars and lost them and they have acted like savages ever since. Israel are far from perfect, but they are far more on the side of good than their enemies and have far more reason to have done the things they have done. All the Palestinians want to destroy them and all they want is to be left in peace.

I struggle to understand the attitude of those that make lame excuses and justifications for Islamic terrorists that purposely target innocent men, women and children for murder.

 

If Israel wants to be left in peace, stop settlement building and withdraw all it's citizens from all settlements in Palestine. Retreat to the 1967 borders and recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. Very simple. They should also try to resolve Palestinian grievances because there are thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who have lost family members to Israeli aggression.. If they did that and let Palestine alone without blockades or embargoes, with no harassment, and then Hamas did something, I would support proportionate punitive action by Israel.

 

 

So basically the plan is for Israel to comply with Palestinian territorial rights (or demands, for those who like to see it this way),

recognize Palestine and everyone will live happily ever after?

 

I see you thought of that - if after this Hamas misbehaves, Israel may spank it on the wrist.

 

Not sure if true naivety or a cunning plan.

 

Israel should lift the blockade, stop messing with Hamas, and wait to see if this goodwill approach works its magic on a

group committed to Israel's destruction. I'm not likely to get an answer now more than I did before on any of these topics,

but here goes - what (other than saying that the current one is not) would be considered a proportionate punitive response?

 

 

 

Let me be the one to answer you:

Israel will do all what @Seatallion suggested, just to be "thanked" with thousands of missiles soon after that for some excuse the Palestinians will come up with. (after all, the Hamas charter clearly calls for the annihilation of all of Israel and re-occupying ALL of it. They clearly repeat saying they will never acknowledge Israel and it's right to exist.) 

Israel will have to react, invade Gaza again, to eliminate the terrorism and protect its' citizens, and be condemn by the world, UN and the rest of the impartial world and media for doing what any normal country in the world would have done - self defend itself.

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right.

Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

[Johpa]

The funny thing is that the Gaza strip originally belongs to Egypt. Israel occupied it in 1967 .....

 

The tragedy of Gaza has a complicated history. It was originally part of Transjordan and the people were part of the larger Levantine Arab population, which is distinct both linguistically and culturally from Egypt.  Egypt attacked Israel in 1947 and of course failed to defeat Israel, but it did manage to capture Gaza and occupy Gaza for next 40 years, treating the people as any other conquored peoples, as second class citizens at best.  So in 1947 you had native Gazans as well as refugees who fled Israel living in Gaza. The entire area became one extended refugee camp. Something somwhat similar happened in the West Bank where Arab refugees from Israel were forced to either stay in refugee camps on the West Bank or emmigrate elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge this is the only case I can think of where people of identical cultural identity were forced to stay in refugee camps by their cultural bretheren rather than being allowed to be absorbed into the larger popuation. The situation should be compared to that of India which was also partitioned around the same time. In India, during the partition,  there was a very large exchange of populations based upon religion, but in both situations HIndus refugees were absorbed into India just as Muslim refugees were absorbed into Pakistan.

[dexterm]

June 1-11        2 rockets fired by IJ fall harmlessly in fields

June 12           Netanyahu blames Hamas for 3 teens murder

All hell breaks loose. Result...

 

>600 Palestinians killed many of whom are innocent civilians; 3640 injured

118,300 homeless refugees.

Israelis living in fear in air raid shelters

Flights cancelled into Ben Gurion airport.

[Social] media awash with images of bloodied children

A new generation of bitter freedom fighters created

Anti Israeli protests world wide

Anti Semitic riots in Paris

2000 rockets fired

Israeli soldier missing, believed captured by Hamas.

30 Israelis dead

 

I wonder if Netanyahu sometimes thinks...Was it all worth it? What has been achieved that he couldn’t have got from an indefinite, unconditional truce with Hamas?

 

At a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ban Ki Moon urged Israel to exercise "maximum restraint", adding that "military action will not increase Israeli security in the longer term".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28416221

 

The only thing that will make Israel permanently secure is a just peace agreement.

[simple1]

 

Sounds familiar? Oh, that's exactly what happens now, right. Then what's the solution now? NATO/UN/Multi-national force to keep the peace? We saw how they run away at the first sign conflicts re-arise in so many places (most recently in Lebanon). Let's be real, which foreign soldier will want to risk his life for other people's lands? none, as history proved. 

And history, my friend, tends to repeat itself.

 

 

Posts removed to permit response.

 

Your comment is very unfair. UN forces from contributing countries are deployed for monitoring, humanitarian assistance and peace keeping; these days very rarely have a mandate for war fighting. You may like to recall UNIFIL forces suffered a number of killed when accidentially hit by Israeli forces. Whatever your views on the UN, perhaps a bit more respect is due for those killed whilst fulfilling their mission.

 

 

[dexterm]

 

The funny thing is that the Gaza strip originally belongs to Egypt. Israel occupied it in 1967 .....

 

The tragedy of Gaza has a complicated history. It was originally part of Transjordan and the people were part of the larger Levantine Arab population, which is distinct both linguistically and culturally from Egypt.  Egypt attacked Israel in 1947 and of course failed to defeat Israel, but it did manage to capture Gaza and occupy Gaza for next 40 years, treating the people as any other conquored peoples, as second class citizens at best.  So in 1947 you had native Gazans as well as refugees who fled Israel living in Gaza. The entire area became one extended refugee camp. Something somwhat similar happened in the West Bank where Arab refugees from Israel were forced to either stay in refugee camps on the West Bank or emmigrate elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge this is the only case I can think of where people of identical cultural identity were forced to stay in refugee camps by their cultural bretheren rather than being allowed to be absorbed into the larger popuation. The situation should be compared to that of India which was also partitioned around the same time. In India, during the partition,  there was a very large exchange of populations based upon religion, but in both situations HIndus refugees were absorbed into India just as Muslim refugees were absorbed into Pakistan.

 

 

According to the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, when the fighting stops refugees are allowed to return home, if they wish to. Israel has prevented this.

[dexterm]

Dr Lucas,

>>after all, the Hamas charter clearly calls for the annihilation of all of Israel and re-occupying ALL of it. They clearly repeat saying they will never acknowledge Israel and it's right to exist.

 

...wrong!

 

Haaretz reports something different

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

 

Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

 

The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative. 

 

...plus an indefinite truce.

[johna]

June 1-11        2 rockets fired by IJ fall harmlessly in fields

June 12           Netanyahu blames Hamas for 3 teens murder

All hell breaks loose. Result...

 

>600 Palestinians killed many of whom are innocent civilians; 3640 injured

118,300 homeless refugees.

Israelis living in fear in air raid shelters

Flights cancelled into Ben Gurion airport.

[Social] media awash with images of bloodied children

A new generation of bitter freedom fighters created

Anti Israeli protests world wide

Anti Semitic riots in Paris

2000 rockets fired

Israeli soldier missing, believed captured by Hamas.

30 Israelis dead

 

I wonder if Netanyahu sometimes thinks...Was it all worth it? What has been achieved that he couldn’t have got from an indefinite, unconditional truce with Hamas?

 

At a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ban Ki Moon urged Israel to exercise "maximum restraint", adding that "military action will not increase Israeli security in the longer term".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28416221

 

The only thing that will make Israel permanently secure is a just peace agreement.

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land. Israel will never agree to any peace, If Hamas disarmed and met all Israel present demands, Israel would come up with a whole new set of impossible demands.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9KDhsFFfGU

[Ulysses G.]

According to the Geneva Convention and UN Charter, when the fighting stops refugees are allowed to return home, if they wish to. Israel has prevented this.

That is very controversial, which is why most people realize that it is never going to happen. There are many International norms that support Israel's side of the argument. Because an Arab and Palestinian-initiated war against Israel created a similar number of Jewish and Palestinian refugees, and because Israel settled the Jewish refugees, the Arab side should have settled the Palestinian refugees.
If Arabs have the "right to return", then Jews should also be compensated for having been exiled from Arab countries, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. A political settlement with the Palestinians would have to take into account that some 850,000 Jews once lived in these countries. Many were stripped of their assets and expelled in the aftermath of Israel's establishment in 1948, or because of the rise of Arab nationalism in the 20th century. This issue is not one sided in any way.

[Ulysses G.]

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land.

That is what they probably should have done 66 years ago, but is certainly is not their plan today. 

[kblaze]

 

 

 

"No occupation of Gaza". 

They are certainly INSIDE of Gaza now. They control all the borders, except for those on the Egypt side, they control nearly all the coastal waters, they control what goes into Gaza, they control who can go into Gaza and who cannot. 

 

"Attempting to survive".  

Killing hundreds of civilians, destroying whole neighborhoods, inflicting life-altering injuries on thousands while some of your farmland gets hit by rockets and a couple of your civilians get killed = attempting to survive.

 

 

Saying that Israeli forces are inside Gaza now, does not mean that they were there before - there was no occupation of the Gaza Strip for some years now. Israeli troops went inside not without context, and did not re-occupy the area.

 

So yes, there's that pesky Egyptian border which sort of blows a hole threw this Evil Israel image. That is unless the next bit of wisdom will explain how Egypt is actually controlled by Israel and the USA (while conveniently ignoring both domestic and regional politics, not all having to do with Israel).

 

Attempting to survive might be overdoing it some, yes. Then again, the reason attacks from the Gaza Strip do less damage got plenty to do with Israel's effort and investment on this front. When borders were relatively open and suicide bombers (or just plain bomb attacks) were the method of choice for Hamas, casualty figures in Israel were higher.
 

 

 

Morch, you seem reasonable and I appreciate that. Please don't start throwing around "Evil Israel" in replies to me because I do not believe that at all and it is really tiresome how criticism of Israel gets spun by so many posters into something much more devious than what it actually is. I support Israel's right to exist. I also believe there should be a Palestinian state. 

 

your first paragraph; I never said that they were there before Protective Edge.

 

Your last paragraph; "the reason attacks from the Gaza Strip do less damage got plenty to do with Israel's effort and investment on this front" 

 

Why leave out the fact that Iron Dome is so successful largely because of US Taxpayer dollars? 

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/senate-subcommittee-approves-doubling-us-funds-israels-iron-dome-system-1629580

[dexterm]

 

Dr Lucas,

>>after all, the Hamas charter clearly calls for the annihilation of all of Israel and re-occupying ALL of it. They clearly repeat saying they will never acknowledge Israel and it's right to exist.

 

...wrong!

 

Haaretz reports something different

http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders-1.256915

 

Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

 

The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel's naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative. 

 

...plus an indefinite truce.

 

Clearly you don't understand the nature of the beast.

A truce (hudna) is something arabs cry for, when they are weak.

When the power shifts in their way, they break it and attack.

There will never be peace in Israel...only when one side is annihilated.

 

 

It seems foolish not to accept an indefinite truce from Hamas if you really are serious about peace.

Talking is better than warring.

 

Shalom.

[kblaze]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could say whatever you like, it won't make it even remotely accurate.

 

There weren't thousands or even hundreds of Israeli casualties from rockets, and that is including the years before

Iron Dome came to be.

 

If you imagine that Israel's nuclear reactor can be destroyed or even significantly damaged by any of the rockets Hamas

launches, then you are gravely mistaken. If this was the situation, the government would have it shut down long since.

 

I estimate no one would die if the nuclear reactor near Dimona is hit by a rocket (maybe other than people working there

and not taking cover). If the nuclear reactor is that flimsy a rocket could blow it up, maybe the citizens of Israel need to be

more worried about that rather than the Hamas?

 

There's no need to overdo things. The rockets are not harmless, they do cause damage and can take lives.

But by themselves, they are not an existential threat to Israel.

 

 

Let's also not underdo things. If a rocket hits Haifa industrial area in general or the oil refinary or the ammonia containers there in particular, hundreds of thousands of Israelis (Mostly jews, but many muslims and christians) who live nearby are expected to die in the blast and chain-reaction.

Rockets did fall just 10km from there.

 

 

Yes, because that it is entirely reasonable and well within the realm of probability.

[kblaze]

 

Of course Netanyahu et al think its worth it, Its their game plan to drive the Palestinians into Jordan and occupy all of this land.

That is what they probably should have done 66 years ago, but is certainly is not their plan today. 

 

 

 

In your mind UG, how would you envision such a thing happening? Would they drive them out by force? Line the Palestinians up and march them across the land to Jordan by gunpoint? Ask them politely? Load them up on jets? 

 

Given that you have already said that all Gazans could be terrorists, I can't imagine you would let them on planes. So I'm assuming a physical march would be in order eh?