Print

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

[Desiderya]

How do you achieve peace with an organization that wants to destroy your home nation (and its people).

[scagga]

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

I agree with you. 

The Palestinians did a unity government that fell apart in the recent aftermath of the kidnapping of the 3 Israeli teenagers.  Hamas did not claim responsibility but was held responsible. Guilt has still not been established, and the heavy-handed Israeli approach to investigating their kidnapping and death resulted in the detention of many Hamas officials without charge - which I can't say would help maintain peaceful relations.

In the wider context, there needs to be a suitable environment for a unity government to survive, notwithstanding the context of blockade, withheld tax income, economic destitution and despair amongst large swathes of the population. Continued settlement expansion as we speak weakens support for a negotiated solution, and makes the Israelis look like they are acting in bad faith.  Surely if Israel wanted a viable Palestinian state they would not go out of their way to put more 'facts on the ground' to make this goal harder to achieve? Taking steps to stop and reverse this trend will help create trust that negotiations are not being held to pay lip service to the USA.

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

Again, I agree.  However, such organisations rely on the desperation and oppression of their people to gain recruits.  Remove those factors and people will not be drawn to them.  See the rise of extreme politics after the great depression as an example.

If a viable Palestinian state and better quality of life is about to become a reality, then violence against Israel would be viewed as terrorism rather than resistance.  So long as the oppression is in place, they have nothing to gain from subjugation and nothing to lose from fighting.

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.

Remember how we said we need to address causes, not symptoms?  Hamas is a symptom.  Address the circumstances that caused them to gain such popularity, as described above.

[scagga]

How do you achieve peace with an organization that wants to destroy your home nation (and its people).

Ask the USA to stop supporting them?

[Esna Pitoojee]

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.

I'm just going to address this real fast: The idea that the conflict took off on 14 May 1948 and was spurred solely by an Israeli takeover of Arab land is highly, highly inaccurate. The conflict had been ongoing for some years prior to that; the 1948 war was merely the first time it was between multiple recognized states rather than an internal conflict.

I feel the situation prior to 1948 can be characterized as something of a catch-22 for the British: When they took a harder, hands-on approach it stirred sentiment against "foreign interventionist" policies in the land. When they tried to take a hands-off approach, riots and battles between militias ran out of control.

[Silas Vitalia]

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.

I'm just going to address this real fast: The idea that the conflict took off on 14 May 1948 and was spurred solely by an Israeli takeover of Arab land is highly, highly inaccurate. The conflict had been ongoing for some years prior to that; the 1948 war was merely the first time it was between multiple recognized states rather than an internal conflict.

I feel the situation prior to 1948 can be characterized as something of a catch-22 for the British: When they took a harder, hands-on approach it stirred sentiment against "foreign interventionist" policies in the land. When they tried to take a hands-off approach, riots and battles between militias ran out of control.

What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles? 

The Western powers had a lovely few hundred years of decimating native populations with their colonies, and then leaving in the night for their previously subjugated to fend for themselves with broken economies, weak leadership, and no institutions.  Is it any wonder most of Africa and the middle east are in such shape? 

When you leave a place with no working institutions and no rule of law, the strong prey on the weak, the corrupt rule, and the populace suffers.   When you keep a place under your boot, you breed resentment, poverty, and fanaticism.

[Vizage]

I'm just going to address this real fast: The idea that the conflict took off on 14 May 1948 and was spurred solely by an Israeli takeover of Arab land is highly, highly inaccurate. The conflict had been ongoing for some years prior to that; the 1948 war was merely the first time it was between multiple recognized states rather than an internal conflict.

I feel the situation prior to 1948 can be characterized as something of a catch-22 for the British: When they took a harder, hands-on approach it stirred sentiment against "foreign interventionist" policies in the land. When they tried to take a hands-off approach, riots and battles between militias ran out of control.

While it's great to see someone providing citations for their claims for once, I hate to say this Esna, but that Battle to Tel Hai page is in serious need of proper citation. It contradicts itself in its "Significance" subheadings and somewhere along the way I read "Zions mainstream historiography." Words like that almost immediately cause a knee jerk reaction of skepticism for me at least.

[Alizabeth]

What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles? 

That would be the British Navy.  International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with.  The idea of 'human rights' is a farce.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them.  However, they are a recent invention.  Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang.  The concept just does not exist in history.  It's a product of modern circumstances.  If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly.  The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism.  Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower.  I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.

As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational).  Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war.  Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.

[Lyn Farel]

Today they bombed a hospital. I hope they remembered to warn them off 5 minutes before so that all the wounded could vacate the building beforehand.

I would find it a bit scandalous otherwise tbh.

What is the alternative?

Rockets and white phosphorus.

[Vizage]

What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles? 

That would be the British Navy.  International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with.  The idea of 'human rights' is a farce.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them.  However, they are a recent invention.  Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang.  The concept just does not exist in history.  It's a product of modern circumstances.  If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly.  The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism.  Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower.  I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.

As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational).  Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war.  Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.

Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliable right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.

Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.

Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.

People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.

So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.

[Silas Vitalia]

What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles? 

That would be the British Navy.  International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with.  The idea of 'human rights' is a farce.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them.  However, they are a recent invention.  Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang.  The concept just does not exist in history.  It's a product of modern circumstances.  If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly.  The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism.  Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower.  I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.

As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational).  Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war.  Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.

Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliable right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.

Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.

Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.

People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.

So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.

Minor contention although I agree with much of your points - state actors routinely and frequently negotiate and meet with terrorist and other groups.

The us government representatives (the NYPD), and in my city (Chicago) routinely meet with gang leaders to discuss pressing matters and to try and settle tensions.

The USA also frequently meets with non-state actors, the ones controlling areas we are fighting in.

Israel will eventually have to treat with Hamas, however repugnant the thought.

[Alizabeth]

Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliably right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.

Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.

Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.

People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.

So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.

Don't know much about Realism, I am guessing, but I gave you a link!  As far as the UN, how many divisions does it have?  The UN is a useful farce for the big five to more or less do what they want.  The sooner people recognize that, the happier everyone will be.  Now, it's okay if someone wants it to be more, that's fine.  Just understand that it's not and will likely never be.

The problem is that Hamas is the de facto authority in Gaza.  As long as that remains the case, bloodshed is likely to continue.  As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed.  If the people of Gaza want to not get bombed, the people of Gaza need to get rid of Hamas.  See the Sunni Awakening.  (Yes, I know, it ended poorly.  That's more to do with internal Iraqi politics than anything else.)

[Lyn Farel]

The Western powers had a lovely few hundred years of decimating native populations with their colonies, and then leaving in the night for their previously subjugated to fend for themselves with broken economies, weak leadership, and no institutions.  Is it any wonder most of Africa and the middle east are in such shape? 

While I can understand the point you make regarding all the issues in Africa, Middle East, etc, that statement in itself sounds rather simplistic to me, or even half mistaken even.

If these Western Powers "left in the night" it was also because most of those colonies actually thrived for their independence. It may seem that way for a lot of british colonies because the way the british commonwealth was done and worked. The emphasis was always put on the commonwealth and the merchant fleet, as well as trade. What the british did right was that their colonial overseers were not extremely intertwined with their colonies and their natives. Most transitions between british rule and local autonomy went more or less smoothly, if i'm not mistaken, and it was even a government will to actually go that way, which can give the feeling that they "left in the night". Except maybe in India, but that started out of local issues iirc.

If you take french colonial Empire on the other hand, the emphasis was put on very different matters, and most of them were either on triangular trade with slave trade (like everyone did) in the first colonial empire, but in the second colonial empire (which means the modern colonial empire, from which a lot of isles still remain part and fully integrated to the nation) the emphasis has always been on "uplifting" natives and bringing civilization and culture to these lands. Most of these have always been considered a very true and important part of the nation itself, nation that was supposed indivisible and united under a common cultural legacy. This spawned dirty wars like Indochina and Algeria among other conflicts (not real wars) less known, like New Caledonia. Which is also why the state has always kept its tendrils very deep in ex african colonies, and is still doing so.

Actually at the risk of sounding a bit imperialist, all those decolonizations were probably extremely detrimental to most of the newly formed countries afterwards. Especially in Africa with such arbitrary borders and the total loss of support from the metropolis. It should have been done more smoothly, as hastened as they were. In either way, these countries are left alone, or pillaged by westerners through widespread national corruption.

[Lyn Farel]

As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed. 

Who said there were missiles in that hospital ? Do you have even proofs of what you are claiming ?

[Vizage]

What business was it of the British to be anywhere near? What gave them the right to govern any area outside of the British Isles? 

That would be the British Navy.  International politics 101: a sovereign state is allowed to do whatever it can get away with.  The idea of 'human rights' is a farce.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor for them and will argue forcefully for them.  However, they are a recent invention.  Imagine traveling back in time and explaining human rights to an Athenian, or a Roman, Ramases II, Eric the Red, Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang.  The concept just does not exist in history.  It's a product of modern circumstances.  If those circumstances change and the shit hits the fan, the concept will disappear just as quickly.  The same can be said of international law.
Everyone decries western imperialism.  Without it, though, the absolute standard of living among the homo sapiens of planet earth would be significantly lower.  I will also point out that human rights is a product of western thought.

As a Realist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) ) I tend to look at the Gaza problem not as a international issue, since Hamas is not a state actor (nor are they particularly rational).  Which makes the Gaza 'invasion' more of a domestic police action than an actual war.  Though, really, the issue is muddled as hell.

Firstly, international politics 101 would have taught you that the entirety of international politics is based around the concept of "State Sovereignty." That is the inaliable right of a state to its borders and the freedom to act as it chooses within them. Your claim that it's about "what you can get away with" is absurd.

Secondly; the Only recognized superseding rights and freedoms than State Sovereignty are those listed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms giving member nations freedom to intervene on other signatories after a general assembly.

Finally; Hamas is not Palestine, and Palestine is not Hamas. In the same way an Afghan is not inherently Taliban.

People here on both sides of this argument seem to be confusing Hamas with the legitimate representation of the Palestinian people. The would be the PLO. You can find Hamas' manifesto all over the Internet and nowhere in its tiny little hate filled pages will you see a claim to speak as the authority of the Palestinian people.

So please everyone stop confusing the two. Israel would no sooner go to the table with Hamas than American Diplomats would go to the table with East Street Bloods over gang violence in NY.

Minor contention although I agree with much of your points - state actors routinely and frequently negotiate and meet with terrorist and other groups.

The us government representatives (the NYPD), and in my city (Chicago) routinely meet with gang leaders to discuss pressing matters and to try and settle tensions.

The USA also frequently meets with non-state actors, the ones controlling areas we are fighting in.

Israel will eventually have to treat with Hamas, however repugnant the thought.

This is actually exactly my point. Although admittedly I may have worded it poorly. During many of the peace talks (Oslo I, Oslo II, Camp David, etc) One of Israel demands, one that was actually agree upon was that a function and efficient "policing body" must exist within what would have been Palestine had the been successful. The entire express purpose of this to be the management of Hamas within Palestine.

When I mentioned US diplomats I meant that quite literally. As in essence they represent the federal administration instead of the state body of law, if that helps to clarify my point. I hope.

Cheers

[Alizabeth]

As long as Hamas puts missiles in hospitals, hospitals are going to get bombed. 

Who said there were missiles in that hospital ? Do you have even proofs of what you are claiming ?

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/20/official-rockets-found-in-unrwa-gaza-school-returned-to-hamas/
It is a well known fact that Hamas locates weapons at locations such as schools and hospitals.  The above is a school, but there have been other instances of using hospitals.  That way, when Israel attacks the sites, Hamas claims atrocity.