Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nmaro Makari]

Israel: "Ok, just to let you Palestinian folks know, we're gonna be doing a bit of shelling here or there, so yeah... move out?"

Palestinians: "Where the fuck to?"

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Honestly, living in Germany, I don't feel like the allies 'crushed the civilian population' and I had plenty of talks with the war as well as post-war generation in and outside of my family. Also, I don't think that Germany is 'great friends' with the USA - rather it seems to me that we're partners out of necessity and that especially the US looks at Germany increasingly as part of their empire.

In the end, there is no friendship amongst nations, but mutual interests. Between the people of nations can be sympathy and maybe even something friendship alike, but I feel that much of the sympathy for the US in Germany, which was built up slowlyafter WWII,is dwindling away again.

That said, I think it is fair to say that Hamas aims at civilians, while the Israelis do accept that civilian deaths will occur. The truth is also, that civilian deaths are eventually inavoidable in an armed conflict. Neither the Geneva conventions nor human right treaties change that.

And yes, there'd be prolly much greater civilian losses on the Israeli side, if they weren't technologically superior. So, it's kind'a difficult to add up the deaths of civilians caused by the Israelis against the deaths that they prevented on their own side of the border. In the end it's always civilians suffering most, the people who never signed up for any of this. Yet, it's not like that's all the Israelis fault, the Hamas plays a hughe part there as well. It's really not like you can declare peace unilaterally, especially not in assymetric warfare where there is no clear point when enemy combatants and territory are won.

And yah, I can't think of any western nation that really can lay claim to being innocent, either. There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.

In an ideal worldthese conflicts could be solved easily and without loss of innocent lives. We don't live in a perfect, ideal world, though. Western civilisation should know that from the writings of the greek philosophers and the Genesis story (Yah, the Adam and Eve story is really not a scientific article about the creation of the world, surprise!), really.

[scagga]

There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.

1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom

That's enough to bring peace.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.

1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom

That's enough to bring peace.

1 - laws are imperfect
2 - there are not always the means availabe to treat the symptom
3 - the real world out there isn't as easy as the one you imagine
4 - it takes two people to make peace

[Victoria Stecker]

For anyone interested in the historical background, I ran across this a while back. It's a pretty fantastic record of how we got where we are now.

http://www.merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new

Summary at the end regarding why things aren't likely to improve:

International opinion is nearly unanimous that a two-state solution, including a sovereign Palestinian state, is the best if not only way forward in the century-old conflict over historical Palestine. Yet there is no visible movement toward achieving this outcome.

One reason is the seismic rightward shift in Israeli Jewish opinion, which since the outbreak of the second intifada holds that no peace is possible with the Palestinians. Rather than “conflict resolution,” many feel, Israel should pursue a policy of “conflict management.” Partly to cater to such opinion, and partly to please the powerful settler lobby, recent Israeli governments have been unwilling to negotiate in good faith. Settlements grow apace.

A second reason is the split between Abbas and Hamas in the Palestinian body politic. Their dispute over strategy—negotiations versus resistance—divides ordinary Palestinians as well. Meanwhile, Palestinian citizens of Israel and refugees in neighboring Arab countries are adamant that a comprehensive peace must include them. There are increasingly pressing questions about the viability of the two-state vision and even the utility of international law for delivering a minimally just “solution” to the question of Palestine.

Still a third reason is the lack of political will in Washington, where the Obama administration (for the time being, at least) retains stewardship of the “peace process.” In the spring of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry began traveling frequently to the Middle East in an effort to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at a two-state solution. He succeeded in doing so, and at the time of writing maintains a brave face in public about the possibility of success. There is no indication, however, that a peace agreement is on the horizon. In January 2014 President Obama himself told the New Yorker that he estimated the chances of a successful conclusion to negotiations to be “less than 50–50.” In our judgment, the odds are much lower.

[scagga]

There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.

1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom

That's enough to bring peace.

1 - laws are imperfect
2 - there are not always the means availabe to treat the symptom
3 - the real world out there isn't as easy as the one you imagine
4 - it takes two people to make peace

I disagree with your opinion.  Let's work through this in 2 steps.

To comply with international law and treat the cause of the problem, Israel either removes the illegal settlements or integrates them within the borders of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-invasion 1967 borders. 

Worthwhile compensation and recognition of the right of return (a UN-recognised human right) for the hundreds of thousands of refugees created over the last century.  If they cannot be settled back where they came from (territory which is now within Israel-proper), then they can be given the right to settle in what is now the west bank.

Selected likely effects:
- Creation of a viable Palestinian state
- Collapse of popular electoral vote for violent Palestinian political parties.  Moderate, re-conciliatory parties become more influential.
- It would give the Palestinians hope for a better life. They currently have none, which means that they have little to lose if they continue fighting
- Addressing the refugee situation will lead to a sharp fall in recruits to violent organisations, and give access to better health & education to work towards a new generation

What is the alternative?

[Alizabeth]

What, you think that there are rules? 

Links for your reference:

Geneva conventions
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/

List of UN treaties regarding human rights, including those applicable to arbitrary detention, war crimes, apartheid, torture, etc.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en

That when some pissant insurgents started shooting at one of our FOBs with a twenty year old RPK and some AK-47s that we were somehow obligated not to retaliate with anything we had in the area? 

A prisoner has his four limbs chained to a rock and is continually beaten, without any prospect of release. One day the chain to his right arm is released by his captor, but the beatings continue.  The captor cannot understand why the prisoner tries to harm him whenever he can, for in his mind he has been 'merciful' and 'done something that the prisoner wanted'. 

The captor sits under an umbrella with an iced G&T while he ponders what he should do.  He is worried that the cut he received on his little finger might leave a scar.  This is one ungrateful prisoner we're holding, he thinks.  He cannot be fixed, and must be punished for his insolence.  I will cut off his right arm so he cannot scratch me again.

For most people in the western world, war is a poorly understood abstract concept.

Based on your last 2 posts, you seem to be the best fit to this statement.

Glad you brought up the Geneva Conventions!  Under the conventions, a terrorist organization has no rights whatsoever.  Israel, under the conventions, is well within its rights to shoot any member of Hamas on the spot.  Just as I could have done to an insurgent in Iraq.  But, Israel, like the US, is the good guys, so they don't.
Israel was attacked on its first day of existence and has been under attack ever since.  I fail to see how that makes them the aggressors.
How many combat deployments do you have?  Maybe you were embedded as a journalist somewhere?

Silas, you could not be more wrong.  I hate war.  Despise it with a passion.  Every time I visit my parents, I drive over a bridge named after a friend of mine that got killed in Fallujah.  It haunts my dreams and my waking thoughts.  War is a last resort. 
Once that choice is made, though, I don't wring my hands and jump up and down that people are dying.  I accept and understand the hell.  I wish that they could get along in peace.  Since they can't though and Hamas has become a nail, that nail should be pounded so hard that it doesn't pop back up again, ever.

[scagga]

Glad you brought up the Geneva Conventions!  Under the conventions, a terrorist organization has no rights whatsoever.  Israel, under the conventions, is well within its rights to shoot any member of Hamas on the spot.  Just as I could have done to an insurgent in Iraq...continues off topic

 

Isis. You seem to be on a tangent, far, far away. Please come back to the topic and leave your personal baggage outside.  My linking was with reference to the treatment of civilians, not combatants.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

There are so many wars fought around the world in the name of the interests of the westen industrialized countries, so many people dying for our relative wealth on a daily basis, that it seems quite self-righteous to me if I hear people moralizing about how the IDF should deal with this.

1- Follow the law
2- Treat the cause, not the symptom

That's enough to bring peace.

1 - laws are imperfect
2 - there are not always the means availabe to treat the symptom
3 - the real world out there isn't as easy as the one you imagine
4 - it takes two people to make peace

I disagree with your opinion.  Let's work through this in 2 steps.

To comply with international law and treat the cause of the problem, Israel either removes the illegal settlements or integrates them within the borders of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-invasion 1967 borders. 

Israel can't just decide to put up a Palestinian state and even if it does, there's still the question whether the Palestinians will accept that Israel-enforced Palestine.

Worthwhile compensation and recognition of the right of return (a UN-recognised human right) for the hundreds of thousands of refugees created over the last century.  If they cannot be settled back where they came from (territory which is now within Israel-proper), then they can be given the right to settle in what is now the west bank.

Yah, all that depending on the refugees and Hamas accepting whatever compensations as acceptable and worthwhile.

Selected likely effects:
- Creation of a viable Palestinian state
- Collapse of popular electoral vote for violent Palestinian political parties.  Moderate, re-conciliatory parties become more influential.
- It would give the Palestinians hope for a better life. They currently have none, which means that they have little to lose if they continue fighting
- Addressing the refugee situation will lead to a sharp fall in recruits to violent organisations, and give access to better health & education to work towards a new generation

What is the alternative?

How did you measure that those are the likely effects?

Really, I think in your mind this is a simple, one sided thing. While in fact peace is always, by definition and necessity, two-sided at least, as it's two parties agreeing on it.

[Vikarion]

Also, I don't think that Germany is 'great friends' with the USA - rather it seems to me that we're partners out of necessity and that especially the US looks at Germany increasingly as part of their empire.

I can't speak for every American, but all the ones I've interacted with tend to view our interaction with "Europe" as an increasingly unpleasant necessity. The most plausible reason I've been given to continue our presence there is that containing Putin will help prevent a war with costly economic consequences for the U.S.

/end reply to Mithra specifically

As for Gaza, I do think Isis has at least one good point: it's not the responsibility of any national government to care about the citizens of another state more than its own. I think the problem with what Israel is doing, from Israel's perspective, is that continually crushing Gaza probably won't solve the problem of Hamas.

And lastly, be careful of assuming that just because someone isn't in power, they won't be assholes. America may not be the nicest country to live in, but it's generally pretty good, and yet we still have white militias who occasionally act in a terrorist fashion and want to start a race war. It's entirely possible that Israel could give Hamas everything everyone who is pro-Palestinian in this thread proposes and still find rockets coming down on them. At which point I am sure that it would be concluded that Israel, being the more powerful party, is responsible to find a way to create a peace.

No matter how powerful you are, you can't make people not hate you.

[Odelya]

As for Gaza, I do think Isis has at least one good point: it's not the responsibility of any national government to care about the citizens of another state more than its own. I think the problem with what Israel is doing, from Israel's perspective, is that continually crushing Gaza probably won't solve the problem of Hamas.

It’s not another state. It’s occupied territory.

[scagga]

Israel can't just decide to put up a Palestinian state and even if it does, there's still the question whether the Palestinians will accept that Israel-enforced Palestine.

Excellent point.  There have been many refusals of previous offers, historically. The issue in the past offers has been regarding the right of return, the status of the settlements and the status of east Jerusalem.  I am not aware of a previous offer that has managed to make provisions for each of this issues.

One step towards getting the Palestinians to accept an offer is to have one spokesperson, i.e. one government.  It is essential for involved parties to help create a credible, moderate and legitimate Palestinian government that can negotiate for its people, both in Gaza and in the West Bank.  At present they seem to be divided...and when they unify they aren't cooperated with...and there seem to be unfortunate events that seem to coincide and lead to one of the parties being held to blame...spiraling into another Gaza conflict.  Just saying.

Yah, all that depending on the refugees and Hamas accepting whatever compensations as acceptable and worthwhile.

Hamas are violent fanatics.  The way to achieve peace with them is for their support to cease.  This won't be achieved by force, but by addressing the many grievances of their population, which will lead to them ceasing to support violence against Israel.  More force will only worsen things.

How did you measure that those are the likely effects?

Really, I think in your mind this is a simple, one sided thing. While in fact peace is always, by definition and necessity, two-sided at least, as it's two parties agreeing on it.

Absolutely right, it would be naive to the extreme to think that all someone has to do is flick a switch and hey presto, peace.  I invite you to suggest a better end point.  The alternative is a 1-state solution, which will mean the end of the zionist dream of a Jewish state by the resultant demographic change. 

If Israel continues to respond to violence with violence, the escalation of this conflict will mean one day they will create a foe with weapons that could actually overwhelm them.

[Silas Vitalia]

Israel was attacked on its first day of existence and has been under attack ever since.

A worthwhile pursuit to question why this was the case?  Why would they be attacked on the first day and since?

The "state" of Israel was created out of thin air.  Poof.  All you people living there? GTFO it's ours now.

Whether they have some historic ties to a place or not, whether somehow valid or not, there were people already living there, and then they were forcibly removed and told the land wasn't theirs anymore.  That tends to start conflict.


The USA did the same thing with the Native Americans, but we were more effective with that genocide and kept their numbers small enough and spread out far enough, and unarmed, that we didn't end up with our own entifada. 

[Odelya]

Israel was attacked on its first day of existence and has been under attack ever since.

A worthwhile pursuit to question why this was the case?  Why would they be attacked on the first day and since?

Indeed. Israel is a colonial project. Partly successful, party not. I care for my relatives and friends living there, I enjoy eating Falafel in Tel Aviv and having lunch at King George. Israel is there to stay. But it cannot not deny its origins.

I know there was Resolution 181, I know that the neighbouring Arabs didn’t accept it, I know the narrative. I has been repeated ad nauseam. But if Israelis and people from the outside just continue celebrating Yom Ha'atzmaut (independence day) while refuting any claims that there is a justification that “the others” commemorate the same day as Yawm al-Nabka (catastrophe day), I see no desirable future.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Israel can't just decide to put up a Palestinian state and even if it does, there's still the question whether the Palestinians will accept that Israel-enforced Palestine.

Excellent point.  There have been many refusals of previous offers, historically. The issue in the past offers has been regarding the right of return, the status of the settlements and the status of east Jerusalem.  I am not aware of a previous offer that has managed to make provisions for each of this issues.

One step towards getting the Palestinians to accept an offer is to have one spokesperson, i.e. one government.  It is essential for involved parties to help create a credible, moderate and legitimate Palestinian government that can negotiate for its people, both in Gaza and in the West Bank.  At present they seem to be divided...and when they unify they aren't cooperated with...and there seem to be unfortunate events that seem to coincide and lead to one of the parties being held to blame...spiraling into another Gaza conflict.  Just saying.

And how should Israel fabricate such a government? Such would be up to the Palestinians, really.

Yah, all that depending on the refugees and Hamas accepting whatever compensations as acceptable and worthwhile.

Hamas are violent fanatics.  The way to achieve peace with them is for their support to cease.  This won't be achieved by force, but by addressing the many grievances of their population, which will lead to them ceasing to support violence against Israel.  More force will only worsen things.

terrorist don't stop operationg, simply because they lack public support.

How did you measure that those are the likely effects?

Really, I think in your mind this is a simple, one sided thing. While in fact peace is always, by definition and necessity, two-sided at least, as it's two parties agreeing on it.

Absolutely right, it would be naive to the extreme to think that all someone has to do is flick a switch and hey presto, peace.  I invite you to suggest a better end point.  The alternative is a 1-state solution, which will mean the end of the zionist dream of a Jewish state by the resultant demographic change. 

If Israel continues to respond to violence with violence, the escalation of this conflict will mean one day they will create a foe with weapons that could actually overwhelm them.

I'm not saying a two state soution would be bad, I just think that the onus here isn't simply with the -admittedly technologically and militarily superior- Israel. I don't see how Israel doing everything right if one has the ideal solution in mind makes that solution come about, how Hamas would stop it's actions even if Palestinian public support for them were zero or how a change in politics would somehow cancel out decades of hatred on both sides.

Sometimes the best solution to a problem isn't rechable in any pragmatic sense and even if it is, it's qite often not as easy to reach as we'd like it to be.