Israel struggles to counter Palestinian rock-throwing threat

[Pakboong]

What has 2000 years ago got to do with anything? Should all Euro Americans go home because the native Americans owned the north American continent 2,000 years ago?

Should the Norman descendents leave Britain and go back to France, etc etc etc?

Occupation of land 2,000 years ago confers nothing on present day peoples.

This argument can be played both ways - if history is deemed irrelevant (or at least, unrealistically reversible), then basically "ownership" claims boil down to conditions (economical, social, political...whatever), and having the capability (or will) to make things happen.

Of course, it has a lot to do with the perceived "statuette of limitations" of such things - 2000 years? 500 years? A hundred? And, of course, who decides? Most times this would be dependent on each side's agenda and narrative, rather than based on some agreed upon principals.

Stating the historical background (and yes, culture and religion are a part of that) is useful for better understanding of the connection between people and land. That said, it does not necessarily have to be a very compelling argument for the opposition and its supporters. Getting bogged down in historical (or more often, pseudo-historical) debate on these issues usually does little to promote conflict resolution, and more often leads to each side digging heels or even moving further away from any common ground. The situation would possibly be better served by a temporary suspension of historical justification, which might allow dealing with more tangible issues pertaining to the conflict. Little hope for that, though, even on TVF.

Most cases, these things are not resolved based on "rights", but in accordance with contemporary conditions. The "rights" are secondary, in the sense that they do not, by themselves, affect the wished for change.

Back on topic:

Throwing rocks at traffic is a life-endangering act. Those wishing to claim otherwise are welcome to try it at home. There were a few cases of this in Thailand - Ayutthaya and Bangkok spring to mind. If I remember correctly, no one in his right mind condoned or justified it at the time. Matter of fact, kinda recall a popular notion was to stone the culprits when caught...

There is not good way for Israel, international public-opinion-wise, to deal with the rock throwing issue on an operative level. The Israeli government recognizes this, but given that the allowing the current state of things to carry on is not acceptable, and with its voter base displeasure augmented by general public sentiment - it might not have a lot of maneuvering space (from their point of view). The bad news, for the Israelis, are that even with enhanced enforcement and stricter rules, this isn't very likely to go away. The newly announced candidate for the Chief of Police post would probably play a significant part in tackling these issues.

As for the Palestinian leadership(s?) - a bit like playing with fire. Abbas cannot. due to political considerations, publicly go against it or even attempt to calm things down. He's already in hot water over a documented action of the Palestinian security forces against Palestinian demonstrators (part of them security cooperation agreements and understandings, which survive each crisis), and his public support is not much even on a good day. Worse, it is not even certain that he can actually do much about it. Many of those partaking do not answer to the Fatah or the PA, and many are not even well organized. Therefore, Abbas attempts to weather the storm, using it as much as possible without sinking the boat. The Hamas position is supportive of rock throwing in general, and this is no exception. While outright mayhem is probably not on their wishlist for this winter, some strife with religious connotations is welcome. Trouble is that their control over these things is tenuous as well, and that the fanning of the flames might have undesired results.

Oh, and without pointing fingers, the page width format for this topic seems to be messed up (or it could be just me). Mods?

Welcome back Morch. Although we seldom agree, your well thought through discourse is very much appreciated.

[RockyBeerbelly]

Someone claimed here that Jews are indigenous to Palestine since they were there 2500 years ago.

The concept of this is actually completely absurd because what this statement actually claims is that if I would become a Jew today, that would make me indigenous to Palestine.....I think not.

IMHO, indigenous people are the original inhabitants of a region (and the decedents thereof). Palestinians have a far bigger change of being decedents of the original inhabitants of Palestine than the imported Jews from Europe, the USA, or the black Jews from Africa. Facial features and skin color play a part in that also of course. Besides, as mentioned, religion has nothing to do with indigenous people per se, because the ancestors of the Christians living for many generations in Palestine had the Jewish religion (with Jesus Christ is the prime example), and for the original Muslims from Palestine it will not be different.

The justification the Israeli use to put a claim on Palestine is that according to the scriptures, some 3800 years ago God apparently gave Palestine to the Israelites. Justifying the current claim on Palestine because it was written down in a fairytale 3000 years ago is what makes the claim completely absurd. I am however not questioning the existence of the state of Israel with this statement. I think a group of people who have through history been prosecuted as much as the Jews have, deserve some sort of protection and a refuge. However, the only right the Israeli have on Palestine is UN resolution 181. Nothing more, nothing less. Thus they have no right what so ever to prosecute, and imprison in camps the original (indigenous) inhabitants of Palestine, let alone the illegal and unjust confiscating of Palestinian land.

What is actually quite funny, is that the supporters of the state of Israel on this forum are using the 3800year old fairytale again and again. I doubt that they agree as much with the rest of the BS written in the scriptures as well (murder, rape, genocide, human sacrifice, etc.).....

My educated guess is that the vast majority of the Israel friends on TV actually don't give a damn about Israel, let alone the Jewish religion. Most of these so called Israel friends are Islamophobic racists with a strong fascist tendency who's main reason for their support to "the Israel plight" is the destruction of the Islam....

[dexterm]

Sorry, thread full..

Morch wrote,

If rock throwing is to be seen as an acceptable form of resistance (while acknowledging it can be fatal) - why would there be an outrage over harsher measures taken to counter it?

Because it is counter productive

It is disproportionate

It will only escalate the situation rather than calm things down...but maybe that is Israel’s aim.

It doesn’t work

It will create more martyrs

It will produce more bad PR for Israel.

When an IDF colonel fires lethal bullets into the back of a fleeing Palestinian youth all because his windscreen was cracked by a stone it is disproportionate and unnecessary. Rubber bullets and tear gas would have been more efficacious as far as Israel's reputation is concerned, and a young man would still be alive today.

Palestinian teenager 'shot in back by senior Israeli soldier while fleeing'

Claims by multiple witnesses that Mohammed Kasbeh, 17, was shot as he ran away appear consistent with medical examination of his body

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/palestinian-teenager-shot-back-senior-israeli-soldier-mohammed-kasbeh

When the IDF shoot a fleeing Palestinian teenager in the back, then to add to the IDF shame, senior Israeli cabinet members including education minister Naftali Bennett bask in the crime by congratulating the colonel, they shoot themselves in the foot.

Edited September 28, 2015 by dexterm

[Steely Dan]

Here is an article about the vile Palestinian family who gladly encourage their children to risk injury or death in order to provide fodder for press photographers In their daily search for Israeli soldiers to attack like performing chimps for the world press.

As Golda Meir once remarked, there will be peace as soon as the Palestinians love their children more than they hate us. Of course the Palestinians would be given a huge leg up if those who purport to support them would stop encouraging the press to serve up a daily diet of stage managed photographs for them to peruse from the safety of their breakfast tables thousands of miles away.

http://ukmediawatch.org/2015/09/25/what-you-wont-read-at-the-guardian-about-the-exploitation-of-the-tamimi-children/

Edited September 28, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Morch]

Morch wrote...

Throwing rocks at traffic is a life-endangering act.

Yes, of course it is. The solution is easy. As an illegal Israeli colonist don't put yourself in a position where you provoke rocks being thrown at you by Palestinians resisting occupation. End the occupation = end the stone throwing resistance.

Get out of the occupied West Bank to the safety of pre 67 borders. Israelis are playing the victim card when they are in fact the invaders/aggressors.

Morch actually wrote a few more relevant things besides, which, conveniently, failed to be quoted.

Almost all "easy" solutions touted with regard to this conflict are either props to launch an agenda diatribe or indicate a lack of understating concerning conditions and realities. Goes without saying that they often exhibit the difficulty of holding discourse on these matters, as detailed in my post (sticking to the side's narrative above all, vilifying the opposition) - and the above is an a good example. Would have imagined those attempting to highlight instances of non-violent resistance by the Palestinians to be somewhat more critical of rock throwing.

As mentioned both in my post and in the OP itself, the rock throwers are not organized by the Palestinian leadership, and that the level of its influence over their actions is limited. Diplomatic agreements are made between leaderships, rather than between people. If the Palestinian leadership is unable to exert control over rock throwers, it is hard to take statements such as in the post above seriously. I am not aware of anyone involved which actually subscribes to the notion that a solution will be easy, simple, or that hostilities will abruptly end. The brand of instant peace touted is not on offer.

Not really sure what passes for "playing the victim card" (although, guess some such is a requisite entry in the above narrative). Most of the comments by Israeli authorities are along the lines of taking stricter measures to counter these attacks. The overall tone of the OP is rather plain, and stating that rock attacks can be fatal is simply keeping things factual and real, not playing a victim card.

And the last bit from my second post:

But regardless of how one sees it - where does it lead?

The rock throwing, by itself, is not an existential threat to Israel. It does not affect a constructive change with Israeli public opinion. It does not earn the Palestinians much international support, except in cases where the perpetrator gets shot or is young and arrested (sadly, sometimes both). It damages the credibility of non-violent resistance claims. Saying it is a way to channel anger, ok, but that's not really a productive solution. It seems that the only thing it "does" is feed the cycle of violence - with the ever present risk of things getting out of hand and going too far for anyone's taste.

[Steely Dan]

Morch wrote...

Throwing rocks at traffic is a life-endangering act.

Yes, of course it is. The solution is easy. As an illegal Israeli colonist don't put yourself in a position where you provoke rocks being thrown at you by Palestinians resisting occupation. End the occupation = end the stone throwing resistance.

Get out of the occupied West Bank to the safety of pre 67 borders. Israelis are playing the victim card when they are in fact the invaders/aggressors.

Morch actually wrote a few more relevant things besides, which, conveniently, failed to be quoted.

Almost all "easy" solutions touted with regard to this conflict are either props to launch an agenda diatribe or indicate a lack of understating concerning conditions and realities. Goes without saying that they often exhibit the difficulty of holding discourse on these matters, as detailed in my post (sticking to the side's narrative above all, vilifying the opposition) - and the above is an a good example. Would have imagined those attempting to highlight instances of non-violent resistance by the Palestinians to be somewhat more critical of rock throwing.

As mentioned both in my post and in the OP itself, the rock throwers are not organized by the Palestinian leadership, and that the level of its influence over their actions is limited. Diplomatic agreements are made between leaderships, rather than between people. If the Palestinian leadership is unable to exert control over rock throwers, it is hard to take statements such as in the post above seriously. I am not aware of anyone involved which actually subscribes to the notion that a solution will be easy, simple, or that hostilities will abruptly end. The brand of instant peace touted is not on offer.

Not really sure what passes for "playing the victim card" (although, guess some such is a requisite entry in the above narrative). Most of the comments by Israeli authorities are along the lines of taking stricter measures to counter these attacks. The overall tone of the OP is rather plain, and stating that rock attacks can be fatal is simply keeping things factual and real, not playing a victim card.

And the last bit from my second post:

But regardless of how one sees it - where does it lead?

The rock throwing, by itself, is not an existential threat to Israel. It does not affect a constructive change with Israeli public opinion. It does not earn the Palestinians much international support, except in cases where the perpetrator gets shot or is young and arrested (sadly, sometimes both). It damages the credibility of non-violent resistance claims. Saying it is a way to channel anger, ok, but that's not really a productive solution. It seems that the only thing it "does" is feed the cycle of violence - with the ever present risk of things getting out of hand and going too far for anyone's taste.

Morch, you mention that the rock the rock throwing is not organized by the Palestinian leadership, however the incitement to such violent 'resistance' is clearly visible in the Palestinian media, which Abbas does control if he sees fit. Perhaps more shocking is the clear antisemitism and incitement of children to violence in schools run by UNRWA. I could show you scores of examples of this all pointed out the Chris Gunness of UNRWA.

I would suggest international pressure on UNRWA or the Palestinian leadership would greatly reduce the amount of stone throwing, which would mean less dead and injured people on both sides, which is what we all want is it not?

[Morch]

I think it's time for Israel to get more HARD CORE with the rock throwing terrorists. Israeli government has been too tolerant in the past. Enough is enough. The way to any path towards peace is not with these murder rocks.

I love how these "progressives" (and also Islamists and fascists) want to give morality lectures to Israel. They speak with no moral authority on the matter. They don't think Israel should have ever existed and want it to stop existing. Israel should not listen to people with such hostile intentions towards Jews and no sympathy for WHY the Zionist movement gained traction to begin with. They say Jews go home but Israel IS home to many millions of Jews, the vast majority BORN there, and the majority with backgrounds from the MIDDLE EAST / NORTH AFRICA REGION.

No, dudes, Israel is NOT the victim now. (Been there. Done that. Didn't like it!) THAT IS THE POINT OF ISRAEL. For Jews, a TINY global minority, to NO LONGER be the eternal victims of the whims of the hostile and often GENOCIDAL majority.

What would "hard core" be, exactly?

The proposed legislation is rather problematic as it is, within the framework of Israeli law, and enacting it could have some undesired (as far as certain interested parties go) over cases involving illegal settlers and Orthodox Jews.

Netanyahu & Co,'s actions do not usually match the tough talk (and this is a growing negative sentiment even among traditional supporters). If anything by way of such legislation will be pushed through and effectively applied, it would be more a public opinion countering measure, rather than a counter-rock-throwing-attacks action. Basically, the Israeli government needs to be perceived as doing something about it, even though it is surely aware that the suggested course of action is probably futile. Such are politics.

The OP paints the chances of anything of the sort to actually succeed in grim colors, and it is pretty much on target. But the flip side is that if these harsher measures are indeed effective, there will also be a load of incidents, images and casualties to further support the Palestinian narrative.

If I'm reading the current Israeli-Palestinian political map correctly, no one is looking forward to a new major conflagration, at this time. That it might happen anyway, well...re: playing with fire.

[dexterm]

Morch wrote...

Throwing rocks at traffic is a life-endangering act.

Yes, of course it is. The solution is easy. As an illegal Israeli colonist don't put yourself in a position where you provoke rocks being thrown at you by Palestinians resisting occupation. End the occupation = end the stone throwing resistance.

Get out of the occupied West Bank to the safety of pre 67 borders. Israelis are playing the victim card when they are in fact the invaders/aggressors.

Morch actually wrote a few more relevant things besides, which, conveniently, failed to be quoted.

Almost all "easy" solutions touted with regard to this conflict are either props to launch an agenda diatribe or indicate a lack of understating concerning conditions and realities. Goes without saying that they often exhibit the difficulty of holding discourse on these matters, as detailed in my post (sticking to the side's narrative above all, vilifying the opposition) - and the above is an a good example. Would have imagined those attempting to highlight instances of non-violent resistance by the Palestinians to be somewhat more critical of rock throwing.

As mentioned both in my post and in the OP itself, the rock throwers are not organized by the Palestinian leadership, and that the level of its influence over their actions is limited. Diplomatic agreements are made between leaderships, rather than between people. If the Palestinian leadership is unable to exert control over rock throwers, it is hard to take statements such as in the post above seriously. I am not aware of anyone involved which actually subscribes to the notion that a solution will be easy, simple, or that hostilities will abruptly end. The brand of instant peace touted is not on offer.

Not really sure what passes for "playing the victim card" (although, guess some such is a requisite entry in the above narrative). Most of the comments by Israeli authorities are along the lines of taking stricter measures to counter these attacks. The overall tone of the OP is rather plain, and stating that rock attacks can be fatal is simply keeping things factual and real, not playing a victim card.

And the last bit from my second post:

But regardless of how one sees it - where does it lead?

The rock throwing, by itself, is not an existential threat to Israel. It does not affect a constructive change with Israeli public opinion. It does not earn the Palestinians much international support, except in cases where the perpetrator gets shot or is young and arrested (sadly, sometimes both). It damages the credibility of non-violent resistance claims. Saying it is a way to channel anger, ok, but that's not really a productive solution. It seems that the only thing it "does" is feed the cycle of violence - with the ever present risk of things getting out of hand and going too far for anyone's taste.

Sorry Morch. I tried 4 times to reply with the quote button, but unsuccessfully. There is no way I would deliberately attempt to redact your posts, although I believe forum rules do allow some form of editing to highlight the part of a long post that one is responding to. They are often quite interesting, although I disagree with your pro Israeli position.

The bottom line is if the West Bank colonists complicit in the occupation, fanatical price tag terrorists, and the IDF protecting them all were not there, then they would not be getting stones thrown at them. So both sides should be working towards that separate peaceful co-existence, not worsening and prolonging the conflict

You mention feeding the cycle of violence. Isn't that exactly what the illegal army of occupation is doing by upping the ante using live ammunition from precision weapons against stone throwers.

These needless escalations have occurred in the past in response to an incident as recently as last year with devastating consequences for parents on both sides.

In the light of the newly elected extreme right wing Israeli government, I am very suspicious that this is all intentional to disguise more draconian belligerent moves to come.

Then Israel will turn around and ask..."What did we do? We are the victims."

Isn't it time that Israel tried something conciliatory rather than OTT heavy handedness. 70 years is a long time to wait for peace.

Edited September 28, 2015 by dexterm

[mgjackson69]

The Palestinian rock thrower

sounds like a species designation

...or a sex act

[Pakboong]

This looks to be one of those instances where it has to get much worse before it can get much better.

[Shawn0001]

Try to keep up the Jews never lost Palestine on account of wars they themselves started, besides which international law is a modern phenomena.

Forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over the nausea of some of our esteemed members.

http://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Israeli-motorist-who-died-after-stone-throwing-attack-named-as-Alexander-Levlovitch-416171#article=7154ODc4NDREQjAyRkIxMEY4RUQ5QUZENEMyN0QxQjI5MzQ=

International law is indeed a modern phenomena, and has helped the world with many disputes. You carefully avoid answering however why you can accept UN resolution 181, but disregards other UN resolutions that are not favorable for the State of Israel. You just cherry-picking what is convenient, or you really believe in a story made up 2500 years ago....then who is not keeping up?

And no you are not forgiven when you're celebrating murdering innocent children by a fascist regime. You brought up the 2nd intifada, so for good measure I included the picture that started it (although it was of course child murderer Ariel Sharons' provocation which really started it all).

Your linking to the discredited Mohammad Al Dura blood libel is indicative of just how biased and ignorant some of our esteemed members are. How fitting it is that you point to a hoax as the reason for the second intifada, in a way you are right fabrications, lies, incitement and the complicity of the western liberal press are a toxic miasma from which the Palestinians have never emerged. And to think some people persist in hiding their antisemitism behind faux humanitarian concern for the Palestinians. It is a truly stomach turning spectacle.

It is not discredited, Israel claims that it is not enough evidence to prove that either the boy was killed or that Israel shot them, their claims are discredited by anyone with a brain. Isn't it somewhat irrelevant anyway, when what we do know is that 490 Palestinian and 2 Israeli children were killed in the conflict last year alone? They all had experiences as horrific as these pictures, children have died slow painful deaths to weapons such as Mark 77 (aka naplam) and white phosphorus, they were all innocent.

[Morch]

Sorry, thread full..

Morch wrote,

If rock throwing is to be seen as an acceptable form of resistance (while acknowledging it can be fatal) - why would there be an outrage over harsher measures taken to counter it?

Because it is counter productive

It is disproportionate

It will only escalate the situation rather than calm things down...but maybe that is Israel’s aim.

It doesn’t work

It will create more martyrs

It will produce more bad PR for Israel.

When an IDF colonel fires lethal bullets into the back of a fleeing Palestinian youth all because his windscreen was cracked by a stone it is disproportionate and unnecessary. Rubber bullets and tear gas would have been more efficacious as far as Israel's reputation is concerned, and a young man would still be alive today.

Palestinian teenager 'shot in back by senior Israeli soldier while fleeing'

Claims by multiple witnesses that Mohammed Kasbeh, 17, was shot as he ran away appear consistent with medical examination of his body

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/palestinian-teenager-shot-back-senior-israeli-soldier-mohammed-kasbeh

When the IDF shoot a fleeing Palestinian teenager in the back, then to add to the IDF shame, senior Israeli cabinet members including education minister Naftali Bennett bask in the crime by congratulating the colonel, they shoot themselves in the foot.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/857403-israel-struggles-to-counter-palestinian-rock-throwing-threat/?p=9903632

Counter productive for what, exactly? Do the rock throwing attacks contribute anything to the resolution of the conflict? Would a "productive" approach be to accept the current state of things? If so, how would it promote the chances for peace?

Using live ammunition against a rock thrower is not automatically and categorically "disproportionate", but dependent on the circumstances. Obviously, the means applied today (rubber bullets, tear gas) are not that effective, and can be result in casualties as well, When this happens, there's an outcry that these too are "disproportionate". Are things significantly different in other areas of the world with similar conditions? Is attacking and killing civilians by throwing rocks at vehicles "proportionate"?

It will escalate the situation? - possibly, or maybe even probably. But again, what would be a better operative approach? How is letting the rock throwing attacks go on unchecked lead to things calming down? Could it be that the rock throwing attacks themselves have something to do with the escalating situation? Guess the added "maybe that is Israel's aim" would be one of them knee-jerk reactions - no reasoning as to why this would be the aim at this time, and ignoring the Palestinian leaderships fanning of the flames.

Now...the other items got me curious:

"It doesn't work" - why would that be a reason for the Palestinians (and their supporters) to express outrage about? How does it "not working" outrageous as far as the Palestinians are concerned? Would it be better for them if it did "work"?

Bad PR for Israel - isn't that one of the Palestinian resistance's goals?

More "Martyrs" - again, how is that a bad thing from the Palestinian struggle point of view? (not referring to the personal loss of families).

That the Israeli government might take a futile course of action, and that it might be detrimental to the resolution of the conflict (or even to restoring order) does make the current situation (specifically vs. the rock throwing issue) necessarily sustainable. The fact that there are no good operative solutions does not mean that doing nothing or more of the same old are better.

.

This too was in my post - "if you can't take the heat..."

[up-country_sinclair]

Most of these so called Israel friends are Islamophobic racists with a strong fascist tendency who's main reason for their support to "the Israel plight" is the destruction of the Islam....

Truth!

[dexterm]

Sorry, thread full..

Morch wrote,

If rock throwing is to be seen as an acceptable form of resistance (while acknowledging it can be fatal) - why would there be an outrage over harsher measures taken to counter it?

Because it is counter productive

It is disproportionate

It will only escalate the situation rather than calm things down...but maybe that is Israel’s aim.

It doesn’t work

It will create more martyrs

It will produce more bad PR for Israel.

When an IDF colonel fires lethal bullets into the back of a fleeing Palestinian youth all because his windscreen was cracked by a stone it is disproportionate and unnecessary. Rubber bullets and tear gas would have been more efficacious as far as Israel's reputation is concerned, and a young man would still be alive today.

Palestinian teenager 'shot in back by senior Israeli soldier while fleeing'

Claims by multiple witnesses that Mohammed Kasbeh, 17, was shot as he ran away appear consistent with medical examination of his body

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/palestinian-teenager-shot-back-senior-israeli-soldier-mohammed-kasbeh

When the IDF shoot a fleeing Palestinian teenager in the back, then to add to the IDF shame, senior Israeli cabinet members including education minister Naftali Bennett bask in the crime by congratulating the colonel, they shoot themselves in the foot.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/857403-israel-struggles-to-counter-palestinian-rock-throwing-threat/?p=9903632

Counter productive for what, exactly? Do the rock throwing attacks contribute anything to the resolution of the conflict? Would a "productive" approach be to accept the current state of things? If so, how would it promote the chances for peace?

Using live ammunition against a rock thrower is not automatically and categorically "disproportionate", but dependent on the circumstances. Obviously, the means applied today (rubber bullets, tear gas) are not that effective, and can be result in casualties as well, When this happens, there's an outcry that these too are "disproportionate". Are things significantly different in other areas of the world with similar conditions? Is attacking and killing civilians by throwing rocks at vehicles "proportionate"?

It will escalate the situation? - possibly, or maybe even probably. But again, what would be a better operative approach? How is letting the rock throwing attacks go on unchecked lead to things calming down? Could it be that the rock throwing attacks themselves have something to do with the escalating situation? Guess the added "maybe that is Israel's aim" would be one of them knee-jerk reactions - no reasoning as to why this would be the aim at this time, and ignoring the Palestinian leaderships fanning of the flames.

Now...the other items got me curious:

"It doesn't work" - why would that be a reason for the Palestinians (and their supporters) to express outrage about? How does it "not working" outrageous as far as the Palestinians are concerned? Would it be better for them if it did "work"?

Bad PR for Israel - isn't that one of the Palestinian resistance's goals?

More "Martyrs" - again, how is that a bad thing from the Palestinian struggle point of view? (not referring to the personal loss of families).

That the Israeli government might take a futile course of action, and that it might be detrimental to the resolution of the conflict (or even to restoring order) does make the current situation (specifically vs. the rock throwing issue) necessarily sustainable. The fact that there are no good operative solutions does not mean that doing nothing or more of the same old are better.

.

This too was in my post - "if you can't take the heat..."

It is counter productive in that it is doing Israel more harm than good.

Throwing stones reminds the Israeli invaders that they are the occupiers and that Palestinians are still here and are still resisting them rather than rolling over and accepting the daily humiliations, beatings and murders that the IDF can throw at them. When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

Israel has all the power. It is up to them to accept the peace offers Palestinians have repeatedly made.

Using live ammunition against a rock thrower is not automatically and categorically "disproportionate",

Ridiculous..of course it is. When you are wearing body armor and a combat helmet would you rather have a slingshot or an M16 pointed at you?

The Palestinians are throwing rocks to express their anger. Israelis could fire tear gas and rubber bullets to express their disapproval. No headlines made; situation contained. The fact that Israel decides to up the ante causing more civilian deaths results in our discussing this on the forum and others doing likewise world wide today...bad PR for Israel = counter productive. QED.

As I pointed out above there are much better operative solutions...tear gas, rubber bullets, fewer injuries, lesser escalations, creating a less violent atmosphere where there's a better chance that real peace negotiations may take place. Shooting Palestinian teenagers is not going to help the peace process.

If the stone throwing and OTT Israeli reaction creates bad PR for Israel, why exacerbate the situation creating worse press...so much for Israeli intelligence! That's why I think there is method in the apparent Israeli madness. The present cabinet wants to up the ante even further. The current right wing Israeli government has in mind some extremist draconian legislation already; perhaps they are looking for the backdrop to justify introducing it.

They have limited time before the next election to prove to the Israeli voters that they have all the solutions. If not, then create a situation of national crisis of some sort or other [as in 2014], where Israelis will pull together and again choose the entrenched iron fist rather than the forward thinking peace negotiation option.

[Jingthing]

So we've heard from Abbas with his horrible Jew hating racism clearly openly PROVOKING his people towards violence against Jews. So he's the leader of the so called state of Palestine? Lovely.

Now let's hear from the leader of Israel.

While departing for UN General Assembly, PM says: “Israel wants to be at peace with the Palestinians but to our sorrow they continue to spread crude lies about our policy on the Temple Mount."

“Israel is committed to and preserves the status quo,” said Netanyahu. “It is the Palestinian rioters who bring weapons and pipe bombs to the [mosque area]. They are the ones who are harming the sanctity of the place [the Temple Mount] and disturbing its status quo,” he added.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Netanyahu-Palestinians-using-Temple-Mount-to-incite-against-Israel-419401

Edited September 29, 2015 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

So we've heard from Abbas with his horrible Jew hating racism clearly openly PROVOKING his people towards violence against Jews. So he's the leader of the so called state of Palestine? Lovely.

Now let's hear from the leader of Israel.

While departing for UN General Assembly, PM says: “Israel wants to be at peace with the Palestinians but to our sorrow they continue to spread crude lies about our policy on the Temple Mount."

“Israel is committed to and preserves the status quo,” said Netanyahu. “It is the Palestinian rioters who bring weapons and pipe bombs to the [mosque area]. They are the ones who are harming the sanctity of the place [the Temple Mount] and disturbing its status quo,” he added.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Netanyahu-Palestinians-using-Temple-Mount-to-incite-against-Israel-419401

History has shown that whatever comes out of Netanyahu's mouth, if it vilifies the Palestinians or praises the Israelis, it's a lie or a gross exaggeration.

[geriatrickid]

The thread commentary could be cut and paste from any number of threads related to Israel. It's the same thing repeated over and over.

Here's a suggestion moderator(s), please create a subforum solely for the topic of hating Israel and jew people. Let the small coterie of angry losers post their extremist messages and let them rant and rave with liberty They could post all their fantastic claims about jew conspiracies, and how religious Christians are evil etc.

[Credo]

The thread commentary could be cut and paste from any number of threads related to Israel. It's the same thing repeated over and over.

Here's a suggestion moderator(s), please create a subforum solely for the topic of hating Israel and jew people. Let the small coterie of angry losers post their extremist messages and let them rant and rave with liberty They could post all their fantastic claims about jew conspiracies, and how religious Christians are evil etc.

But you seem to have missed the fact that ALL problems in the region are caused by the US or Israel. Prior to that the region was a bastion of peace and stability. It is the horrible Christians and Jews, with their tendency toward extreme violence that causes the Religion of Peace to act in such a situation.

[Seastallion]

[Seastallion]

The thread commentary could be cut and paste from any number of threads related to Israel. It's the same thing repeated over and over.

Here's a suggestion moderator(s), please create a subforum solely for the topic of hating Israel and jew people. Let the small coterie of angry losers post their extremist messages and let them rant and rave with liberty They could post all their fantastic claims about jew conspiracies, and how religious Christians are evil etc.

What IS repeated over and over is the silly pro-Zion rhetoric that serial ignorers keep posting ad infinitum because they have ignored the refutations against their claims.

It's a really laughable situation; I'll say I am ignoring you, you post something (that I do read but can ignore because I'm officially ignoring you), and so keep on posting my disproven or discredited stuff and nonsense.

Waste of space and so very childish.

[Pakboong]

What has 2000 years ago got to do with anything? Should all Euro Americans go home because the native Americans owned the north American continent 2,000 years ago?

Should the Norman descendents leave Britain and go back to France, etc etc etc?

Occupation of land 2,000 years ago confers nothing on present day peoples.

This argument can be played both ways - if history is deemed irrelevant (or at least, unrealistically reversible), then basically "ownership" claims boil down to conditions (economical, social, political...whatever), and having the capability (or will) to make things happen.

Of course, it has a lot to do with the perceived "statuette of limitations" of such things - 2000 years? 500 years? A hundred? And, of course, who decides? Most times this would be dependent on each side's agenda and narrative, rather than based on some agreed upon principals.

Stating the historical background (and yes, culture and religion are a part of that) is useful for better understanding of the connection between people and land. That said, it does not necessarily have to be a very compelling argument for the opposition and its supporters. Getting bogged down in historical (or more often, pseudo-historical) debate on these issues usually does little to promote conflict resolution, and more often leads to each side digging heels or even moving further away from any common ground. The situation would possibly be better served by a temporary suspension of historical justification, which might allow dealing with more tangible issues pertaining to the conflict. Little hope for that, though, even on TVF.

Most cases, these things are not resolved based on "rights", but in accordance with contemporary conditions. The "rights" are secondary, in the sense that they do not, by themselves, affect the wished for change.

Back on topic:

Throwing rocks at traffic is a life-endangering act. Those wishing to claim otherwise are welcome to try it at home. There were a few cases of this in Thailand - Ayutthaya and Bangkok spring to mind. If I remember correctly, no one in his right mind condoned or justified it at the time. Matter of fact, kinda recall a popular notion was to stone the culprits when caught...

There is not good way for Israel, international public-opinion-wise, to deal with the rock throwing issue on an operative level. The Israeli government recognizes this, but given that the allowing the current state of things to carry on is not acceptable, and with its voter base displeasure augmented by general public sentiment - it might not have a lot of maneuvering space (from their point of view). The bad news, for the Israelis, are that even with enhanced enforcement and stricter rules, this isn't very likely to go away. The newly announced candidate for the Chief of Police post would probably play a significant part in tackling these issues.

As for the Palestinian leadership(s?) - a bit like playing with fire. Abbas cannot. due to political considerations, publicly go against it or even attempt to calm things down. He's already in hot water over a documented action of the Palestinian security forces against Palestinian demonstrators (part of them security cooperation agreements and understandings, which survive each crisis), and his public support is not much even on a good day. Worse, it is not even certain that he can actually do much about it. Many of those partaking do not answer to the Fatah or the PA, and many are not even well organized. Therefore, Abbas attempts to weather the storm, using it as much as possible without sinking the boat. The Hamas position is supportive of rock throwing in general, and this is no exception. While outright mayhem is probably not on their wishlist for this winter, some strife with religious connotations is welcome. Trouble is that their control over these things is tenuous as well, and that the fanning of the flames might have undesired results.

Oh, and without pointing fingers, the page width format for this topic seems to be messed up (or it could be just me). Mods?

Obviously claims of rights because of 2000 year old ancestral ties are ridiculous, especially when the ancestry is questionable and most especially when the "other party" has obvious current ties.

What is germane is contemporary conventions and law. If Thailand was to decide that it wants half of Laos on the grounds that it used to "own" it, and Thailand followed through and invaded, it would be in breach of international law, and would (should) be stopped by the international community.

A group of people with claims of a collective identity and claims of ties to the land now known as Israel, accepted the international community's grant of a right to that land, despite it meaning that some indigenous people would be displaced. They accepted it. But they didn't really, because from the very begining of the state of Israel, some 70 years ago, they, the Israelis, have encroached outside the area designated them that they agreed to and displaced hundreds of thousands of indigenous people. That encroachment continues to this day. Less than 50 years ago they did a major incursion, capturing large amounts of land that was not theirs (as they had agreed in setting up their state) and displaced a million more. By propaganda and sheer bullying insistence, they have somehow got the world, and even the people they are dispossessing, to agree that that 1967 land grab can remain on their books. Despite international law. Yet even that was not enough...the land grabs continue. Why does the international community tolerate it? If it was any other state, it would not be tolerated.

Back to OP. Yes, throwing rocks can be fatal. Do you really think an oppressed and occupied people would worry that their rocks might kill one of the people who represent their oppressors? It truly is a David and Goliath scenario, where an embattled underdog, weak, with only a stone to sling, battles an immensely stronger and brutal opponent trying to take over his homeland. Freedom fighters throwing rocks against people whose security forces use bullets. Brave? Or just blindly angry at the injustices imposed upon them their entire lives? I think the latter, and I can not blame them for their anger.

Figured the first comment would be along these lines, TVF is, indeed, reassuringly predictable.

Without getting too sidetracked by the OT meta-issue, it exemplifies the gist of my post - under almost no circumstances is there to be an acceptance, or consideration of the other side's claim as legitimate or morally acceptable. The temporal criteria for arguments is arbitrary, and there would be as many negative descriptions of the opposition as possible.

My point was that this sort of adherence to the litany of woes, vile deeds and sins committed, is not very constructive.

Conflict resolution is difficult, and painting the other side as evil incarnate makes it harder. Who wants to make a deal with the Devil?

So again, this cuts both ways. There are similar stances and styles of delivery on both sides. Most of it unoriginal, dogmatic and netted out as a knee-jerk reaction. Or more like preaching, really, and at least on TVF it's converting the converted. We ought to code the repeated ad nauseam arguments, and make topics much easier to follow ("#31", "Counter with #14" etc...). Thing is that stepping off the pulpit might mean having do face a rather more tangled reality than most imagine, or care to accept. That would also mean less one-liners and emoticons....

As for the rock throwing (and again, disregarding the tone and the emotive imagery) - Palestinian rock throwing at Israeli security forces is probably acceptable within the context of resistance to the Israeli occupation. Specifically picking civilians and civilian vehicles as targets is a different matter (security vehicles are clearly marked). Most instances of the public outcry among the Israelis are in relation to the latter.

Some could raise the question of whether Israeli (illegal) settlers in the West Bank are considered civilians (as far as targeting them goes). Given that their presence, the constant friction and, in many cases, their own actions toward the Palestinians, contribute much to the situation - guess some would find it understandable. I would like to think that placed in a Palestinian rock thrower shoes, I'd make a different choice, but granted, easier said than done.

If rock throwing is to be seen as an acceptable form of resistance (while acknowledging it can be fatal) - why would there be an outrage over harsher measures taken to counter it? Doesn't match that well with Portraying rock throwers with a certain heroic romantic hue. If you can't take the heat etc.

And no, throwing a rock at a civilian vehicle is not bravery. Throwing rocks from a vantage point at unarmed worshipers is not bravery.

Anger, there sure is a lot of that, yes. Brings to mind a certain passage from Proverbs dealing with the relationship between the two.

But regardless of how one sees it - where does it lead?

The rock throwing, by itself, is not an existential threat to Israel. It does not affect a constructive change with Israeli public opinion. It does not earn the Palestinians much international support, except in cases where the perpetrator gets shot or is young and arrested (sadly, sometimes both). It damages the credibility of non-violent resistance claims. Saying it is a way to channel anger, ok, but that's not really a productive solution. It seems that the only thing it "does" is feed the cycle of violence - with the ever present risk of things getting out of hand and going too far for anyone's taste.

If both sides of the argument were anywhere close to equal in destructive capability your post would make a great deal of sense. Irrational belligerence has to be dealt with differently. And, there is no easy out of this one so maybe, Israel simply has given up. The anger that brought us here is not going to be forgotten. The ratio of Israeli dead to Palestinian dead is roughly 9-1. That reflects fireworks against tanks and the Palestinians cannot get their head wrapped around how this is anywhere near equal or righteous.

[Steely Dan]

What has 2000 years ago got to do with anything? Should all Euro Americans go home because the native Americans owned the north American continent 2,000 years ago?
Should the Norman descendents leave Britain and go back to France, etc etc etc?

Occupation of land 2,000 years ago confers nothing on present day peoples.

This argument can be played both ways - if history is deemed irrelevant (or at least, unrealistically reversible), then basically "ownership" claims boil down to conditions (economical, social, political...whatever), and having the capability (or will) to make things happen.

Of course, it has a lot to do with the perceived "statuette of limitations" of such things - 2000 years? 500 years? A hundred? And, of course, who decides? Most times this would be dependent on each side's agenda and narrative, rather than based on some agreed upon principals.

Stating the historical background (and yes, culture and religion are a part of that) is useful for better understanding of the connection between people and land. That said, it does not necessarily have to be a very compelling argument for the opposition and its supporters. Getting bogged down in historical (or more often, pseudo-historical) debate on these issues usually does little to promote conflict resolution, and more often leads to each side digging heels or even moving further away from any common ground. The situation would possibly be better served by a temporary suspension of historical justification, which might allow dealing with more tangible issues pertaining to the conflict. Little hope for that, though, even on TVF.

Most cases, these things are not resolved based on "rights", but in accordance with contemporary conditions. The "rights" are secondary, in the sense that they do not, by themselves, affect the wished for change.

Back on topic:

Throwing rocks at traffic is a life-endangering act. Those wishing to claim otherwise are welcome to try it at home. There were a few cases of this in Thailand - Ayutthaya and Bangkok spring to mind. If I remember correctly, no one in his right mind condoned or justified it at the time. Matter of fact, kinda recall a popular notion was to stone the culprits when caught...

There is not good way for Israel, international public-opinion-wise, to deal with the rock throwing issue on an operative level. The Israeli government recognizes this, but given that the allowing the current state of things to carry on is not acceptable, and with its voter base displeasure augmented by general public sentiment - it might not have a lot of maneuvering space (from their point of view). The bad news, for the Israelis, are that even with enhanced enforcement and stricter rules, this isn't very likely to go away. The newly announced candidate for the Chief of Police post would probably play a significant part in tackling these issues.

As for the Palestinian leadership(s?) - a bit like playing with fire. Abbas cannot. due to political considerations, publicly go against it or even attempt to calm things down. He's already in hot water over a documented action of the Palestinian security forces against Palestinian demonstrators (part of them security cooperation agreements and understandings, which survive each crisis), and his public support is not much even on a good day. Worse, it is not even certain that he can actually do much about it. Many of those partaking do not answer to the Fatah or the PA, and many are not even well organized. Therefore, Abbas attempts to weather the storm, using it as much as possible without sinking the boat. The Hamas position is supportive of rock throwing in general, and this is no exception. While outright mayhem is probably not on their wishlist for this winter, some strife with religious connotations is welcome. Trouble is that their control over these things is tenuous as well, and that the fanning of the flames might have undesired results.

Oh, and without pointing fingers, the page width format for this topic seems to be messed up (or it could be just me). Mods?

Obviously claims of rights because of 2000 year old ancestral ties are ridiculous, especially when the ancestry is questionable and most especially when the "other party" has obvious current ties.
What is germane is contemporary conventions and law. If Thailand was to decide that it wants half of Laos on the grounds that it used to "own" it, and Thailand followed through and invaded, it would be in breach of international law, and would (should) be stopped by the international community.
A group of people with claims of a collective identity and claims of ties to the land now known as Israel, accepted the international community's grant of a right to that land, despite it meaning that some indigenous people would be displaced. They accepted it. But they didn't really, because from the very begining of the state of Israel, some 70 years ago, they, the Israelis, have encroached outside the area designated them that they agreed to and displaced hundreds of thousands of indigenous people. That encroachment continues to this day. Less than 50 years ago they did a major incursion, capturing large amounts of land that was not theirs (as they had agreed in setting up their state) and displaced a million more. By propaganda and sheer bullying insistence, they have somehow got the world, and even the people they are dispossessing, to agree that that 1967 land grab can remain on their books. Despite international law. Yet even that was not enough...the land grabs continue. Why does the international community tolerate it? If it was any other state, it would not be tolerated.

Back to OP. Yes, throwing rocks can be fatal. Do you really think an oppressed and occupied people would worry that their rocks might kill one of the people who represent their oppressors? It truly is a David and Goliath scenario, where an embattled underdog, weak, with only a stone to sling, battles an immensely stronger and brutal opponent trying to take over his homeland. Freedom fighters throwing rocks against people whose security forces use bullets. Brave? Or just blindly angry at the injustices imposed upon them their entire lives? I think the latter, and I can not blame them for their anger.

Figured the first comment would be along these lines, TVF is, indeed, reassuringly predictable.

Without getting too sidetracked by the OT meta-issue, it exemplifies the gist of my post - under almost no circumstances is there to be an acceptance, or consideration of the other side's claim as legitimate or morally acceptable. The temporal criteria for arguments is arbitrary, and there would be as many negative descriptions of the opposition as possible.

My point was that this sort of adherence to the litany of woes, vile deeds and sins committed, is not very constructive.
Conflict resolution is difficult, and painting the other side as evil incarnate makes it harder. Who wants to make a deal with the Devil?

So again, this cuts both ways. There are similar stances and styles of delivery on both sides. Most of it unoriginal, dogmatic and netted out as a knee-jerk reaction. Or more like preaching, really, and at least on TVF it's converting the converted. We ought to code the repeated ad nauseam arguments, and make topics much easier to follow ("#31", "Counter with #14" etc...). Thing is that stepping off the pulpit might mean having do face a rather more tangled reality than most imagine, or care to accept. That would also mean less one-liners and emoticons....

As for the rock throwing (and again, disregarding the tone and the emotive imagery) - Palestinian rock throwing at Israeli security forces is probably acceptable within the context of resistance to the Israeli occupation. Specifically picking civilians and civilian vehicles as targets is a different matter (security vehicles are clearly marked). Most instances of the public outcry among the Israelis are in relation to the latter.

Some could raise the question of whether Israeli (illegal) settlers in the West Bank are considered civilians (as far as targeting them goes). Given that their presence, the constant friction and, in many cases, their own actions toward the Palestinians, contribute much to the situation - guess some would find it understandable. I would like to think that placed in a Palestinian rock thrower shoes, I'd make a different choice, but granted, easier said than done.

If rock throwing is to be seen as an acceptable form of resistance (while acknowledging it can be fatal) - why would there be an outrage over harsher measures taken to counter it? Doesn't match that well with Portraying rock throwers with a certain heroic romantic hue. If you can't take the heat etc.

And no, throwing a rock at a civilian vehicle is not bravery. Throwing rocks from a vantage point at unarmed worshipers is not bravery.
Anger, there sure is a lot of that, yes. Brings to mind a certain passage from Proverbs dealing with the relationship between the two.

But regardless of how one sees it - where does it lead?
The rock throwing, by itself, is not an existential threat to Israel. It does not affect a constructive change with Israeli public opinion. It does not earn the Palestinians much international support, except in cases where the perpetrator gets shot or is young and arrested (sadly, sometimes both). It damages the credibility of non-violent resistance claims. Saying it is a way to channel anger, ok, but that's not really a productive solution. It seems that the only thing it "does" is feed the cycle of violence - with the ever present risk of things getting out of hand and going too far for anyone's taste.

If both sides of the argument were anywhere close to equal in destructive capability your post would make a great deal of sense. Irrational belligerence has to be dealt with differently. And, there is no easy out of this one so maybe, Israel simply has given up. The anger that brought us here is not going to be forgotten. The ratio of Israeli dead to Palestinian dead is roughly 9-1. That reflects fireworks against tanks and the Palestinians cannot get their head wrapped around how this is anywhere near equal or righteous.

Stupidity doesn't confer the right to live in a vacuum free of the consequences of said stupidity, if it did the Palestinians would be throwing stones and firing rockets at Jews living behind the 48 partition plan lines. Or would you be happier if the Israelis threw stones back at the Palestinians in order to even up the death toll? Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott

[Pakboong]

There are and have always been reasons just nations do not execute petty thieves no matter how worthless they may otherwise be.

[ABCer]

I think Israelis must upgrade their "Iron Dome" not only to shoot down any rocket launched against its people but to automatically attack the launching grounds

without approval of their sissy politicians or High commanders. Automatically. Without considering where is the lounge pad. The moment the lounge is registered.

If "Palestinians" do not like the ratio of victims on either side - they can stop shooting. Who is responsible for attacks is of no importance. Location of lounge is of no importance.

How many dead or wounded is of no importance. Who will be the dead or wounded is of no importance.

Once such a policy is declared and followed by 'default' the responsibility is on shooters. UN and World public opinion must be ignored.

"Grad" is a Russian rocket designed for covering wide indiscriminate area and damaging people.

Edited September 30, 2015 by ABCer

[Morch]

Morch, you mention that the rock the rock throwing is not organized by the Palestinian leadership, however the incitement to such violent 'resistance' is clearly visible in the Palestinian media, which Abbas does control if he sees fit. Perhaps more shocking is the clear antisemitism and incitement of children to violence in schools run by UNRWA. I could show you scores of examples of this all pointed out the Chris Gunness of UNRWA.

I would suggest international pressure on UNRWA or the Palestinian leadership would greatly reduce the amount of stone throwing, which would mean less dead and injured people on both sides, which is what we all want is it not?

Long days at the Immigration office and down the Viscanium Mine....

The rock throwers not being organized or following a well laid out plan by Palestinian leadership is a notion appearing in the OP as well, not just a personal assessment. That the Palestinian media fans the flames and makes the situation worse is true enough, more so when it appears in Arabic (with some things failing to materialize on the English versions of Websites etc).

As for Abbas's supposed tight control of Palestinian media, that is only partially correct. Abbas does not have any control over Hamas or Islamic Jihad media outlets, and little by way of control on Palestinian use of social media. He could do better reigning in the media controlled by the PA or affiliated with the Fatah, up to a point. His control is curbed by some of these outlets being "turfs" of political rivals within the Fatah.

The PA/Fatah media outlets are not usually at the forefront of the incitement, but follow the lead of the more extreme outfits. What gives it more prominence, is that being the official voice, they are not "supposed to", and of course, the exposure it gets abroad. That said, i seriously doubt that a whole lot of Palestinians are actually taking Abbas's words as their cue to pick up a rock. Unflattering portrayals of what is seen as his duplicity vs. Israel are already doing the rounds.

Abbas's low approval rating makes it extremely hard to do anything but join the chorus. This is even more the case, in light of the ongoing leadership succession struggle within the Fatah. Simply put, Abbas, who is already seen by many Palestinians as a weakling, can not politically afford another public opinion plunge (for reference, he recently took a a lot of flak over an exposed incident in which PA security forces detained Palestinian demonstrators marching toward an Israeli post).

Abbas is a survivalist, not a hero. He is also a politician and there is just so far he will risk going against public sentiment. He will be hanging on to the tiger's back for as long as possible, milk whatever brownie points he can, and hope that this too shall pass. Any rioting remotely reminiscent of the "Arab Spring" style movements is very bad news as far as Abbas is concerned.

All of the above is more by way of explanation, not an excuse. Obviously, Abbas is not taking the high ground as far as responsibility and reason goes. But then again, who does?

Laying all the blame at the feet of Abbas and Palestinian media incitements, is tempting - but off mark. The current Israeli government does very little to calm things down - not taking action when a minister defies the law and risks setting fire to an already inflammable situation, not clamping down on illegal settler violence, or curbing the rhetoric of certain media outlets and MPs. Sure thing, Netanyahu got his own political constraints, his own agenda and political survival issues - but how is this morally superior or reasonable? Both leaderships conduct themselves in a disgraceful and irresponsible manner, which is nothing new.

The incitements by themselves are not the main issue, nor are they the sole cause, of clashes. There is an objective reality which serves to create an atmosphere were every little thing could start a violent chain reaction. And there are people on both sides which harness this to further their agendas.

This goes back to my previous posts on this topic - the imperative to place all the blame on the other side is ever present. Much easier than getting a handle on how complicated and messed up things actually are. If posters in far away Thailand cannot manage it, perhaps not surprising that this is how things go out there.

UNRWA is an anomaly, and ultimately contributes more to sustaining the conflict rather than reaching resolution. There is no effective way of applying international pressure on UNRWA, really, and there's no way for UNRWA to actually control these sort of things anyway - so why bother?. The UNSG had a talk with Abbas. albeit a rather mild one, at that (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51936#.VgjnRivvPL0). Usually about as far as it goes. Nothing to support the notion that international pressure would somehow empower the Palestinian leadership with regard to the rock throwers, domestic politics wins over foreign relationship most times.

One last thing to consider while at it - what if Abbas was to clamp down on Palestinian media outlets, and issue a statement calling for calm? How long before he totally losses whatever shred of public support and what would that spell for his successor?

[Morch]

Morch actually wrote a few more relevant things besides, which, conveniently, failed to be quoted.

Almost all "easy" solutions touted with regard to this conflict are either props to launch an agenda diatribe or indicate a lack of understating concerning conditions and realities. Goes without saying that they often exhibit the difficulty of holding discourse on these matters, as detailed in my post (sticking to the side's narrative above all, vilifying the opposition) - and the above is an a good example. Would have imagined those attempting to highlight instances of non-violent resistance by the Palestinians to be somewhat more critical of rock throwing.

As mentioned both in my post and in the OP itself, the rock throwers are not organized by the Palestinian leadership, and that the level of its influence over their actions is limited. Diplomatic agreements are made between leaderships, rather than between people. If the Palestinian leadership is unable to exert control over rock throwers, it is hard to take statements such as in the post above seriously. I am not aware of anyone involved which actually subscribes to the notion that a solution will be easy, simple, or that hostilities will abruptly end. The brand of instant peace touted is not on offer.

Not really sure what passes for "playing the victim card" (although, guess some such is a requisite entry in the above narrative). Most of the comments by Israeli authorities are along the lines of taking stricter measures to counter these attacks. The overall tone of the OP is rather plain, and stating that rock attacks can be fatal is simply keeping things factual and real, not playing a victim card.

And the last bit from my second post:

But regardless of how one sees it - where does it lead?

The rock throwing, by itself, is not an existential threat to Israel. It does not affect a constructive change with Israeli public opinion. It does not earn the Palestinians much international support, except in cases where the perpetrator gets shot or is young and arrested (sadly, sometimes both). It damages the credibility of non-violent resistance claims. Saying it is a way to channel anger, ok, but that's not really a productive solution. It seems that the only thing it "does" is feed the cycle of violence - with the ever present risk of things getting out of hand and going too far for anyone's taste.

Sorry Morch. I tried 4 times to reply with the quote button, but unsuccessfully. There is no way I would deliberately attempt to redact your posts, although I believe forum rules do allow some form of editing to highlight the part of a long post that one is responding to. They are often quite interesting, although I disagree with your pro Israeli position.

The bottom line is if the West Bank colonists complicit in the occupation, fanatical price tag terrorists, and the IDF protecting them all were not there, then they would not be getting stones thrown at them. So both sides should be working towards that separate peaceful co-existence, not worsening and prolonging the conflict

You mention feeding the cycle of violence. Isn't that exactly what the illegal army of occupation is doing by upping the ante using live ammunition from precision weapons against stone throwers.

These needless escalations have occurred in the past in response to an incident as recently as last year with devastating consequences for parents on both sides.

In the light of the newly elected extreme right wing Israeli government, I am very suspicious that this is all intentional to disguise more draconian belligerent moves to come.

Then Israel will turn around and ask..."What did we do? We are the victims."

Isn't it time that Israel tried something conciliatory rather than OTT heavy handedness. 70 years is a long time to wait for peace.

Any poster not formally denouncing everything to do with Israel and buying wholesale into the the English language version of the Palestinian agenda is considered "pro-Israeli" (and yes, the same style of forward thinking can be found among members holding opposite positions). There's Us and Them, and if you ain't 100% with the program, you must be playing for the other team. When you actually manage to point out an instance where I denied the Palestinian right for self determination, asserted nothing but the illegality of most Israeli settlements in the West Bank and had something positive to say about the current Israeli leadership, then, perhaps, your warped view will achieve some merit.

Being both a realist and a pragmatist, plus having the doubtful benefit of prolonged first-hand experience with the subject matter, leads to having a rather disillusioned point of view on most related topics appearing on this forum. Makes it a whole lot easier to sift through most of the biased interpretations, clueless assessments and and dramatic overtures which are the standard fare. Anyone not firmly entrenched in one extreme, and who've spent enough time "on the ground" in these parts would say that things are usually way more complex than the two dimensional version of "truth" often presented here.

Now that we got this out of the way....

The current situation is that the Israeli presence in the West bank is a fact. The rock throwing does not do much in terms of removing the Israeli presence, but if anything, serves to make Israeli public opinion even more hostile to the Palestinians and less supportive of peace efforts. This is especially true with regards to such attacks being carried out in Jerusalem (regardless of how forum members see it, apart from certain relatively new additions, the Israeli presence in East Jerusalem is more "within the fold" of Israeli public opinion compared to settlements in the West Bank).

The circle of violence is not discriminate about who feeds it. Forces on both sides doing their best to keep it up. One might point out that the rock throwing attacks picked up in recent times. And of course, another might say that the rock throwing attacks increased because of this or the other, and so on and so forth. This is why it is called a circle of violence. Endless arguments about who started, with each new incidents being justified on the basis of the last.

A well planned yet unspecified belligerent move....right. And this would be desired by Netanyahu & Co. (here's another fallacy, btw, regarding the unity within the coalition government) at this specific time, in order to achieve which specific goal? Sharon was a planner, Netanyahu isn't one by a long shot. He is more of a thrill seeker - creating messy pseudo-crisis situations to be averted, dodged and dubiously marked as victories via media spins.The likelihood of Netanyahu or his government able to plot a major move, keep it secret and carry it out are...well, not much.

What else we got here - the one-sided straw man "victim card": As if it weren't something practiced by both sides on an almost regular basis, and as if it isn't save-the-poor-rock-thrower campaign from some posters. The one-sided call for change and peace: The Palestinians waiting with the proverbial olive branch and no one shows up. Yep, that's exactly how it is. Neat and simple.

The Israeli presence is the west bank is not going to cease anytime soon (cue relevant parties to boo or cheer as befits script), and this is a fact. Even if an agreement was to be reached tomorrow, the process of disengagement itself will take a long while to complete. It is almost assured that any agreement reached will not satisfy all of the Palestinian wishes in terms of land ownership, security arrangements and sovereignty. Or in a simplified version, there would still be quite a potential flash points (which will become more prominent and more symbolic) . This is something which the Palestinian leadership usually neglects clarifying to the Palestinian public, sometimes actually spreading the illusion that it would be a total victory. There is bound to be a some rude awakening to the realities of any agreement reached, and I do not think it will be pretty, One but needs to follow how rumor mongering works among Palestinian society now, to get an idea of how bad things could get.

As such, it is not so clear that there is a "bottom line", as far as the Palestinian public goes (not the Palestinian leadership)*underline* go (not the Palestinian leadership). Would a piece of paper signed by Abbas bear more influence than a call to "save Al-Aqsa" (or whatever dreamed up cause of the day)? I daresay, the same old will emerge. The concept of compromise, which some on the Palestinian leadership have no choice but accept, is not something which often makes its way into Palestinian public discourse.

[Morch]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/857403-israel-struggles-to-counter-palestinian-rock-throwing-threat/?p=9903632

Counter productive for what, exactly? Do the rock throwing attacks contribute anything to the resolution of the conflict? Would a "productive" approach be to accept the current state of things? If so, how would it promote the chances for peace?

Using live ammunition against a rock thrower is not automatically and categorically "disproportionate", but dependent on the circumstances. Obviously, the means applied today (rubber bullets, tear gas) are not that effective, and can be result in casualties as well, When this happens, there's an outcry that these too are "disproportionate". Are things significantly different in other areas of the world with similar conditions? Is attacking and killing civilians by throwing rocks at vehicles "proportionate"?

It will escalate the situation? - possibly, or maybe even probably. But again, what would be a better operative approach? How is letting the rock throwing attacks go on unchecked lead to things calming down? Could it be that the rock throwing attacks themselves have something to do with the escalating situation? Guess the added "maybe that is Israel's aim" would be one of them knee-jerk reactions - no reasoning as to why this would be the aim at this time, and ignoring the Palestinian leaderships fanning of the flames.

Now...the other items got me curious:

"It doesn't work" - why would that be a reason for the Palestinians (and their supporters) to express outrage about? How does it "not working" outrageous as far as the Palestinians are concerned? Would it be better for them if it did "work"?

Bad PR for Israel - isn't that one of the Palestinian resistance's goals?

More "Martyrs" - again, how is that a bad thing from the Palestinian struggle point of view? (not referring to the personal loss of families).

That the Israeli government might take a futile course of action, and that it might be detrimental to the resolution of the conflict (or even to restoring order) does make the current situation (specifically vs. the rock throwing issue) necessarily sustainable. The fact that there are no good operative solutions does not mean that doing nothing or more of the same old are better.

.

This too was in my post - "if you can't take the heat..."

It is counter productive in that it is doing Israel more harm than good.

Throwing stones reminds the Israeli invaders that they are the occupiers and that Palestinians are still here and are still resisting them rather than rolling over and accepting the daily humiliations, beatings and murders that the IDF can throw at them. When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

Israel has all the power. It is up to them to accept the peace offers Palestinians have repeatedly made.

Using live ammunition against a rock thrower is not automatically and categorically "disproportionate",

Ridiculous..of course it is. When you are wearing body armor and a combat helmet would you rather have a slingshot or an M16 pointed at you?

The Palestinians are throwing rocks to express their anger. Israelis could fire tear gas and rubber bullets to express their disapproval. No headlines made; situation contained. The fact that Israel decides to up the ante causing more civilian deaths results in our discussing this on the forum and others doing likewise world wide today...bad PR for Israel = counter productive. QED.

As I pointed out above there are much better operative solutions...tear gas, rubber bullets, fewer injuries, lesser escalations, creating a less violent atmosphere where there's a better chance that real peace negotiations may take place. Shooting Palestinian teenagers is not going to help the peace process.

If the stone throwing and OTT Israeli reaction creates bad PR for Israel, why exacerbate the situation creating worse press...so much for Israeli intelligence! That's why I think there is method in the apparent Israeli madness. The present cabinet wants to up the ante even further. The current right wing Israeli government has in mind some extremist draconian legislation already; perhaps they are looking for the backdrop to justify introducing it.

They have limited time before the next election to prove to the Israeli voters that they have all the solutions. If not, then create a situation of national crisis of some sort or other [as in 2014], where Israelis will pull together and again choose the entrenched iron fist rather than the forward thinking peace negotiation option.

Disregarding the aforementioned drama/propaganda issues, and the obvious nonsense about peace offers repeatedly made by the Palestinians...

The notion that that rock throwing attacks creates a sense of shame, remorse, guilt etc among the Israeli public is a fantasy. The main effect, like almost any violent action taken by an opposing side in this conflict, is to harden positions and demonize "them". It also distances those in Israel who might otherwise be more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight and cause. Rather, your description is pretty much how the rock throwers are perceived by the Palestinian public.

As for counter productive, would this somehow imply that, from Israel's point of view, the current state of affairs (with regard to rock throwing attacks, not the conflict in its entirety) is productive, sustainable or acceptable? Without making this another platform for them worn over-simplified slogans - how is ongoing use of the exact same measures (which fail to curb attacks or deter attackers) bring about a better outcome? (again, from the Israeli side's point of view). The new measures introduced are a response to (withholding comment on their expected effectiveness) to Israelis getting hurt, while Israel was employing the very same measures you prescribe as an operational solution.

The Palestinians are throwing rocks in order to hurt Israelis. No need to do a Chalerm (for those who remember his amusing description of the Iranian bomb squad squad rejects incident a few years back). The Israelis do not "disapprove", they aim not to get hurt by hurting the Palestinians back. This is not a therapy session. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye (or life) - and then there are headlines.

The new measures were just introduced, so it would be a while before you could claim that the ante was upped (and not forgetting that the legislation got much to do with minimum prison sentences and withholding social security benefits, rather than simply ROE changes).

I had both firearms and half blocks aimed my way. Didn't care for neither. Both can maim or kill. The life-endangering aspect (which you earlier conceded) is purely situational. Hence the use of firearms against a rock thrower would not always be "disproportionate". Surely you had a point there somewhere?

What's ridiculous seeing someone advocating non-violent resistance spend so many words justifying violent actions.

The Israeli government thinking probably treats the additional international criticism and bad PR as a given. They either estimate that it would not amount to much and could be managed, or simply decided to bite the bullet, There is very little that the current Israeli government can do (considering its point of view) that will make a significant positive change in Israel's international image. At the same time, there's a lot of domestic criticism and bad PR regarding the security situation (not exclusively from right wing voters, even), which could be addressed.

Much of the negative commentary coming from right wing supporters of the government is that its actual policies do not match up to the tough talk of leaders. There is indeed an undeniable gap between Netanyahu & Co. promises and statements and the how things pan out in reality. The current security situation in Jerusalem is probably too much to handle with one of the usual bold speech and media spin. Also, some coalition members are actually of an ideological and religious bent, so all too happy to push forward these sort of initiatives. Remains to be seen how the new measures introduced will be applied, and how they will survive the almost inevitable legal battles ahead.

Domestic politics usually trumps foreign policy, international relationships, and almost anything else (except personal gains, that is). Not that different from other countries, really.

There are no upcoming elections, and as detailed many times in the past, the electoral benefit of major military moves is rather questionable when it comes to the Israeli public. The notion that Israeli governments are somehow uber-intelligent, employ bright decision making processes or always take the right calls, would get, if not outright laugh, then a look waiting for the punchline, with most Israelis. Yes, Israeli politicians are petty short-sighted idiots, like most other politicians out there. Big surprise. Apologies if this goes against the grain of the conspiracy theory deployed. You will do better trying that angle with regard to corruption (example, the gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea).

Rather interesting that there are no insights offered as how Palestinian domestic politics, future electoral considerations, and the rivalry between various factions interact with the current situation. I believe it was even termed "irrelevant" on a previous topic.

The "curious" remark, by the way, related to seeing as most of your posts revolve around enhancing Israel's bad PR, how would more of the same be counter-productive? Or, rather, why would that be a talking point when denouncing the new measures introduced? Isn't bad PR for Israel something you support?

[Morch]

So we've heard from Abbas with his horrible Jew hating racism clearly openly PROVOKING his people towards violence against Jews. So he's the leader of the so called state of Palestine? Lovely.

Now let's hear from the leader of Israel.

While departing for UN General Assembly, PM says: “Israel wants to be at peace with the Palestinians but to our sorrow they continue to spread crude lies about our policy on the Temple Mount."

“Israel is committed to and preserves the status quo,” said Netanyahu. “It is the Palestinian rioters who bring weapons and pipe bombs to the [mosque area]. They are the ones who are harming the sanctity of the place [the Temple Mount] and disturbing its status quo,” he added.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Netanyahu-Palestinians-using-Temple-Mount-to-incite-against-Israel-419401

History has shown that whatever comes out of Netanyahu's mouth, if it vilifies the Palestinians or praises the Israelis, it's a lie or a gross exaggeration.

Both Abbas and Netanyahu indulge in vilification, making false or only partially true statements. They only play nice when circumstances dictate or when it serves their goals. This is nothing new, and anyone who sees either as a paragon of honesty and integrity is hallucinating,

Netanyahu saying that with a straight face, after one of his ministers is on TV breaking the law is indeed rich.

Abbas whining about violence while pouring oil in the flames is about as palatable.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed as well as a reply.