Because no boats have tools or kitchen knives. I don't own any guns, but taking a look at my tool shed and kitchen utensils, I guess I'm "armed" to the teeth!
2 things ... I guess you know something that I don't, There were no Israeli soldiers in Gaza prior to these hostilities as far as I know, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as occupied.
Second
Quote:
As for the tunnels and weapons stores and the other things you mentioned, as long as the Palestinians remained occupied, there will always be a struggle and they won't give up until the occupation is over. But Israel has no plans of ever giving the Palestinians a state
If the "occupation" ends, do you really believe Hamas will let Israel live in peace when their official position and goal is the total destruction of Israel? That's the core issue
Mike, Israel allows Gaza to self police their land, but Gaza and the West Bank are occupied as a whole. Not allowed to have their own army, no control over borders or air space, Israel Controls the amount of food, water and electricity they're allowed to use (which is a fraction of what Israelis are allowed) and can cut those necessities off at any moment. They control how many acres of water they're allowed to fish in, theres hundreds of Israeli check points (many unmanned black aids on vital highways that can't discern between an ambulance rushing someone to a hospital or a a hamas fighter), ability to arbitrarily arrest whoever they feel like at any time, settlements built right inside Gaza with heavily armed Israeli 'settlers' again...completely in violation of international law...list goes on and on. If you remember yrs ago when there were negotiations about allowing the Palestinians to have their own state, all of that needed to be resolved but wasn't and talks collapsed. But there's no doubt that Palestinians don't have a state yet in addition to the apartheid circumstance they're currently living under.
Do I think Hamas and Palestinians will stop the struggle vs Israel if they get their own country? 100% yes. None of the other sovereign neighboring Arab states are attacking Israel, not one bullet shot from Jordan or Egypt after signing peace treaties and getting land issues settled. This isn't about hating Jews because they're Jews like some pretend, it's about very real economic, social and human rights issues that must be addressed for the Palestinians.
One last point, let's say for arguments sake, muhajir is biased, and proIsrael bbi's are baised for Israel. Who has no allegiance to either side.. so we can look at their perspective of the conflict (s)? UN?..? Human rights watch groups? International law?? Maybe we can use them as an unbiased reference.
Buford: grow up pls
muhajir, I don't want to quibble with semantics as to whether a place can be occupied with no occupiers or not. Seems evident to me that the West Bank is occupied and Gaza is not. Do they live free of any Israeli involvement? No. From my point of view, Israel is acting in much the same way that most nations would act if their neighbors vowed their destruction. They would do everything in their power to prevent that neighbor from being capable of making good on that threat. Does that entail undesirable things? Almost certainly
As far as would Hamas renounce their avowed goal of destroying Israel if the occupation ended, I don't share your conviction on that. AND IF IN FACT THEY WOULD, WHY DON'T THEY JUST SAY SO? Make it a point of negotiation. No, they'v given no indication of that and every indication of the opposite.
Do I think Hamas and Palestinians will stop the struggle vs Israel if they get their own country? 100% yes. None of the other sovereign neighboring Arab states are attacking Israel, not one bullet shot from Jordan or Egypt after signing peace treaties and getting land issues settled.
But the same cannot be said about Lebanon. I think you have to draw a distinction between Hamas, Hezbolla and other such groups and the governments of Jordan and Egypt. I think the rockets would still fly, only they would be the most sophisticated Iran could supply.
And let's think about Hamas' strategy. Everyone in the world knows that Hamas alone can't sustain a military conflict with Israel. But Hamas also knows they can win the PR battle if there are enough pictures of dead children/civilians in the media. And that is one of the many reasons that US, Britain the EU and Egypt classify Hamas as a terrorist organization - they are literally putting their civilians in harms way to further their hate, and propogate the world's hate for Israel.
And in response to this comment "None of the other sovereign neighboring Arab states are attacking Israel" - you mean like Lebanon?
give blind support to Hamas and the Palestinians who help to continue this fiasco. This needs to be resolved, permanently. And it won't when people fail to admit the truth, that it is Hamas/Iran who provoke all of the violence. When all you get is a cease fire with no resolution, it just happens all over again a few months or years down the road.
'Because no boats have tools or kitchen knives.' Â
Stun grenades, bulletproof vests, night vision goggles...perhaps they were 'slightly armed humanitarians'.
And you're fine with calling humanitarians. IHH is funding jihadists throughout the world, but their flotilla was just well-meaning charity. The fact that their leader, Yildirim, is under investigation in Turkey for funding al-Qaida is probably just a coincidence.
has shown himself to be prone to swallowing propaganda, such as the idea that Palestinians did not cheer the 9/11 attacks. It is easliy dispelled, and yet he embraces it - a lack of desire to stop searching for the truth once you have found something you agree with is not a health quality.
Prior to Hamas' rejection, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat also expressed concerns about occupation.
"I'm very, very worried," Erakat told CNN. "We are witnessing the gradual reoccupation of Gaza."
If Palestine thinks of it as a "reoccupation," then I find it unfair of the critics of Israel to claim they don't have a right to defend themselves, considering the bases of this critique usually sounds something like this:
Quote:
A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat. In doing precisely that, Israel is asserting rights that may be consistent with colonial domination but simply do not exist under international law.
The problem is that the Palestinians do have serious legitimate grievances but Hamas and other militants act in such an overtly hostile manner that Israel cannot turn the other cheek lest it gets its head blown off. So the grievances of the Palestinian people go unresolved yet they cannot be denied. I don't condemn those who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, for the most part they are good, well meaning people. Do you think muhajir wishes the destruction of Israel? Israel on the other hand has no choice but to take action required for self preservation. Is that action sometimes heavy handed? No doubt. And yet they take the unprecedented step of warning the people before an attack. I realize that the unreliability of Hamas' rockets would make such warnings on their part meaningless, but does anyone really think that Hamas would offer similar warnings if they had sophisticated missles?
It is easliy dispelled, and yet he embraces it - a lack of desire to stop searching for the truth once you have found something you agree with is not a health quality.
The problem is that the Palestinians do have serious legitimate grievances but Hamas and other militants act in such an overtly hostile manner that Israel cannot turn the other cheek lest it gets its head blown off. So the grievances of the Palestinian people go unresolved yet they cannot be denied. I don't condemn those who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, for the most part they are good, well meaning people. Do you think muhajir wishes the destruction of Israel? Israel on the other hand has no choice but to take action required for self preservation. Is that action sometimes heavy handed? No doubt. And yet they take the unprecedented step of warning the people before an attack. I realize that the unreliability of Hamas' rockets would make such warnings on their part meaningless, but does anyone really think that Hamas would offer similar warnings if they had sophisticated missles?
Damn! This is a poorly worded and constructed post! My apologies to BBI
It is easliy dispelled, and yet he embraces it - a lack of desire to stop searching for the truth once you have found something you agree with is not a health quality.
Something most of us have in common
Please don't engage me. Thank you for your support.
The problem is that the Palestinians do have serious legitimate grievances but Hamas and other militants act in such an overtly hostile manner that Israel cannot turn the other cheek lest it gets its head blown off. So the grievances of the Palestinian people go unresolved yet they cannot be denied. I don't condemn those who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, for the most part they are good, well meaning people. Do you think muhajir wishes the destruction of Israel? Israel on the other hand has no choice but to take action required for self preservation. Is that action sometimes heavy handed? No doubt. And yet they take the unprecedented step of warning the people before an attack. I realize that the unreliability of Hamas' rockets would make such warnings on their part meaningless, but does anyone really think that Hamas would offer similar warnings if they had sophisticated missles?
Damn! This is a poorly worded and constructed post! My apologies to BBI
It is easliy dispelled, and yet he embraces it - a lack of desire to stop searching for the truth once you have found something you agree with is not a health quality.
Something most of us have in common
Please don't engage me. Thank you for your support.
The problem is that the Palestinians do have serious legitimate grievances but Hamas and other militants act in such an overtly hostile manner that Israel cannot turn the other cheek lest it gets its head blown off. So the grievances of the Palestinian people go unresolved yet they cannot be denied. I don't condemn those who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, for the most part they are good, well meaning people. Do you think muhajir wishes the destruction of Israel? Israel on the other hand has no choice but to take action required for self preservation. Is that action sometimes heavy handed? No doubt. And yet they take the unprecedented step of warning the people before an attack. I realize that the unreliability of Hamas' rockets would make such warnings on their part meaningless, but does anyone really think that Hamas would offer similar warnings if they had sophisticated missles?
I don't know if muajir wishes the destruction of Israel. But he refuses to acknowledge than any of this is at Hamas doorstep. In order for something to change, there must be change, in thinking. Israel has conceded several times on points. The Palestinians only dig in further and only wind up hurting themselves. The world needs to say enough and force Palestinians to either get rid of Hamas (which they may not be able to do) or stop supporting Hamas/Iran by proxy when they only criticize Israel. No other country on earth would put up with what Israel does. The Palestinians have to know that they will not get what they want if it is not mutually acceptable.
Many in the Palestinian side, including their government, do not recognize Israel's right to exist, and in their parlance, "occupation" = the existence of Israel.
A supermajority of Israelis recognize the right of the Palestinians to have a state alongside them, and have been willing in the past and will be willing in the future to compromise their security with land concessions (even though Israel has barely any strategic depth) to give that experiment a chance.
The second the first sentence turns into "A supermajority of Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist", then the conflict will end very quickly.
The problem is that the Palestinians do have serious legitimate grievances but Hamas and other militants act in such an overtly hostile manner that Israel cannot turn the other cheek lest it gets its head blown off. So the grievances of the Palestinian people go unresolved yet they cannot be denied. I don't condemn those who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, for the most part they are good, well meaning people. Do you think muhajir wishes the destruction of Israel? Israel on the other hand has no choice but to take action required for self preservation. Is that action sometimes heavy handed? No doubt. And yet they take the unprecedented step of warning the people before an attack. I realize that the unreliability of Hamas' rockets would make such warnings on their part meaningless, but does anyone really think that Hamas would offer similar warnings if they had sophisticated missles?
I don't know if muajir wishes the destruction of Israel. But he refuses to acknowledge than any of this is at Hamas doorstep. In order for something to change, there must be change, in thinking. Israel has conceded several times on points. The Palestinians only dig in further and only wind up hurting themselves. The world needs to say enough and force Palestinians to either get rid of Hamas (which they may not be able to do) or stop supporting Hamas/Iran by proxy when they only criticize Israel. No other country on earth would put up with what Israel does. The Palestinians have to know that they will not get what they want if it is not mutually acceptable.
Quote:
he refuses to acknowledge than any of this is at Hamas doorstep.
Perhaps that is because there is no shortage of posters laying it on Hamas and he is trying to present the other side. I haven't noticed you advancing any criticism of Israel either.
Hamas makes it's objectives clear in its charter Â
".....the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree....
...[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement...
...There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility...
The charter goes on to cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to blame the jews for starting both world wars.
If I was a jew I would find it very hard to believe that Hamas will be satisfied by anything less than the death of every jew in palestine and the possession of all lands "conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection"
I heard an interview on NPR where a gentleman was quoting that the Hamas charter goes beyond not recognizing Israel but calls for the killing of all Jews. When you have a group that thinks out and formulates the basic extermination of a group of people as part of their "mission statement" clearly there is no chance of negotiated any long term peace with them. Anyone that defends them are part of the problem and only goes to embolden them which will result in more deaths on both sides.
word occupation will be used by some as long as Israel exists because to them that itself is occupation.
this. thank you. i wanted to read through the whole thread to see if someone said it, so i'm glad you did, Big Al.
the reason the word "occupation" gets thrown around when it comes to Gaza is because "Palestinians" don't believe that Israel has ANY right to be there whatsoever, particularly in Jerusalem (even though their mosque is built on top of our temple, but that's neither here nor there).
that's why they elected Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that's why they've balked at the idea of a "two state solution" every single time it has been proposed.
for them, the only victory here is to either kill all the Jews or have them pick up and leave. for Israel, they are willing to negotiate a two-state solution (with Israel keeping its half of Jerusalem), but if that can't be worked out, they are more than capable of living in a sustained state of war, as they've demonstrated since 1948.
so that raises two questions:
1) why aren't the "Palestinians" willing to agree to a two-state solution?
2) what does sustained wartime look like from the "Palestinian" perspective after getting their butts kicked for 60+ years?
the heart of the issue is this: there have been wars for this land for thousands of years. the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back to the "Palestinians" any more than they're required to allow the "Palestinians" to live in the West Bank. Israel ALLOWS them to do so out of the kindness of its collective heart. that land was fought for - and won - by Israel. international law on this issue is an absolute joke and is a product of anti-Semitism. Israel could not possibly care less what the U.N. has to say about this area of the world.
so, let's draw an analogy that actually works. Europeans establish themselves in North America. little by little they take land from the Native Americans through war or trade or disease or whatever. it's war, it's not pretty, but it happened. ultimately, Europeans control the whole continent and Native Americans live on reservations.
with that in mind, imagine what would happen to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe if they started lobbing rockets at Americans from Foxwoods. and then, if you want a really good laugh, imagine what the American response would be if the U.N. tried to sanction the U.S. for killing some Pequots in response to them firing thousands of rockets at American civilians.
RE: Hamas makes it's objectives clear in its charter Â
Perhaps that is because there is no shortage of posters laying it on Hamas and he is trying to present the other side. I haven't noticed you advancing any criticism of Israel either.
My criticism of Israel is that they should stop giving in and agreeing to ceasefires because it only prolongs this mess.
word occupation will be used by some as long as Israel exists because to them that itself is occupation.
this. thank you. i wanted to read through the whole thread to see if someone said it, so i'm glad you did, Big Al.
the reason the word "occupation" gets thrown around when it comes to Gaza is because "Palestinians" don't believe that Israel has ANY right to be there whatsoever, particularly in Jerusalem (even though their mosque is built on top of our temple, but that's neither here nor there).
that's why they elected Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that's why they've balked at the idea of a "two state solution" every single time it has been proposed.
for them, the only victory here is to either kill all the Jews or have them pick up and leave. for Israel, they are willing to negotiate a two-state solution (with Israel keeping its half of Jerusalem), but if that can't be worked out, they are more than capable of living in a sustained state of war, as they've demonstrated since 1948.
so that raises two questions:
1) why aren't the "Palestinians" willing to agree to a two-state solution?
2) what does sustained wartime look like from the "Palestinian" perspective after getting their butts kicked for 60+ years?
the heart of the issue is this: there have been wars for this land for thousands of years. the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back to the "Palestinians" any more than they're required to allow the "Palestinians" to live in the West Bank. Israel ALLOWS them to do so out of the kindness of its collective heart. that land was fought for - and won - by Israel. international law on this issue is an absolute joke and is a product of anti-Semitism. Israel could not possibly care less what the U.N. has to say about this area of the world.
so, let's draw an analogy that actually works. Europeans establish themselves in North America. little by little they take land from the Native Americans through war or trade or disease or whatever. it's war, it's not pretty, but it happened. ultimately, Europeans control the whole continent and Native Americans live on reservations.
with that in mind, imagine what would happen to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe if they started lobbing rockets at Americans from Foxwoods. and then, if you want a really good laugh, imagine what the American response would be if the U.N. tried to sanction the U.S. for killing some Pequots in response to them firing thousands of rockets at American civilians.
Perhaps that is because there is no shortage of posters laying it on Hamas and he is trying to present the other side. I haven't noticed you advancing any criticism of Israel either.
My criticism of Israel is that they should stop giving in and agreeing to ceasefires because it only prolongs this mess.
Wow buford, couldn't you hold back a little? People might think you're an ant-semite :)
and I'm not likely to add anything to it. For me it boils down to just a couple questions.
First, whose fault is the present human suffering? Who picked the fight and by what means do they wage it? The Israelis aren't saintly, they do wield a great deal of power over the lives of Palestinians even without physical occupation, but considering the fact that this conflict has been a low-level insurgency for anywhere from three decades to almost seven, depending on your starting point, many Americans can't blame them.
Second, if the Palestinians got what they wanted would there be peace? If what "they" want includes the right of Hamas to have an army with the ability to acquire and keep offensive weapons of its choosing, the answer would seem to be an unequivocal no. If it includes a right of return, the answer is again no.
I understand the concerns about the settlements and on that I think the Palestinians have a fair amount of traction, but is that really a central issue or is one that gets trotted out because the rest of them (right of return in particular) are even at first blush more problematic? If every settlement was pulled down tomorrow and the borders reverted basically to 1967 with a few exceptions, does anyone even try to argue that the violence would dry up?
RE: I think the pile-on is more or less complete... Â
If what "they" want includes the right of Hamas to have an army with the ability to acquire and keep offensive weapons of its choosing, the answer would seem to be an unequivocal no.
i wonder the same thing. do people like muhajir legitimately think Israel will (or should) let Hamas form an army and open the borders of Gaza so that "Palestinians" can pass freely? because that is a fucking joke. it will never happen in a million years. it's equally as absurd as the Palestinians wanting the Jews to leave Jerusalem. not an option.
Quote:
I understand the concerns about the settlements and on that I think the Palestinians have a fair amount of traction, but is that really a central issue or is one that gets trotted out because the rest of them (right of return in particular) are even at first blush more problematic? If every settlement was pulled down tomorrow and the borders reverted basically to 1967 with a few exceptions, does anyone even try to argue that the violence would dry up?
it's a central issue in the sense that it controls the argument and is the main focus of the "diplomacy," if you can even call it that. strategically, the settlements mean very little for the IDF. it's more about appeasing the ultra right-wing segment of the Israeli population, some of whom believe that the "Palestinians" have no right to be in the lands that were acquired through war since 1948. if they had their way, Gaza would be an Israeli beach resort and the West Bank would look very much like the Israeli portion of Jerusalem.
it's the moderate and left-wing Israelis that basically allow the "Palestinians" to live at this point, and even they are reluctant given the constant threat.
rather than sending flotillas into a warzone maybe it should be pressuring hamas, to stop firing rockets into israel, which would cause israel to back off.
this entire mess is hamas' fault; there is no grey zone.
word occupation will be used by some as long as Israel exists because to them that itself is occupation.
this. thank you. i wanted to read through the whole thread to see if someone said it, so i'm glad you did, Big Al.
the reason the word "occupation" gets thrown around when it comes to Gaza is because "Palestinians" don't believe that Israel has ANY right to be there whatsoever, particularly in Jerusalem (even though their mosque is built on top of our temple, but that's neither here nor there).
that's why they elected Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that's why they've balked at the idea of a "two state solution" every single time it has been proposed.
for them, the only victory here is to either kill all the Jews or have them pick up and leave. for Israel, they are willing to negotiate a two-state solution (with Israel keeping its half of Jerusalem), but if that can't be worked out, they are more than capable of living in a sustained state of war, as they've demonstrated since 1948.
so that raises two questions:
1) why aren't the "Palestinians" willing to agree to a two-state solution?
2) what does sustained wartime look like from the "Palestinian" perspective after getting their butts kicked for 60+ years?
the heart of the issue is this: there have been wars for this land for thousands of years. the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back to the "Palestinians" any more than they're required to allow the "Palestinians" to live in the West Bank. Israel ALLOWS them to do so out of the kindness of its collective heart. that land was fought for - and won - by Israel. international law on this issue is an absolute joke and is a product of anti-Semitism. Israel could not possibly care less what the U.N. has to say about this area of the world.
so, let's draw an analogy that actually works. Europeans establish themselves in North America. little by little they take land from the Native Americans through war or trade or disease or whatever. it's war, it's not pretty, but it happened. ultimately, Europeans control the whole continent and Native Americans live on reservations.
with that in mind, imagine what would happen to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe if they started lobbing rockets at Americans from Foxwoods. and then, if you want a really good laugh, imagine what the American response would be if the U.N. tried to sanction the U.S. for killing some Pequots in response to them firing thousands of rockets at American civilians.
LOL- so that is what happened- the zionists stormed palestine and took it by force and now get to keep it. Please inform historians of this.
but the redrawing of borders and the movement of populations as a consequence of military victory is as old as recorded history. The contemporary state of affairs, in which victory has no territorial "fruits" - or really any other for that matter - is the historical anomaly. The fruit of Israel's victories at least since 1967 is that it gets to survive at least until the next conflict.
Forget the fact that our history with Native Americans is a national embarrassment on par with (or arguably surpassing) slavery. But, fine, what's done is done and Team White are reigning champions.
If missiles were fired from Foxwoods, the US would unapologetically carpet bomb the place and then emphatically reclaim the land. What it would not do is also deny Mohegan Sun independence and start building on Mohegan's Sun land. And they wouldn't keep MS in a sort of perpetual limbo where it's not part of America but also not its own nation.
Among the continued conflation on this board of Hamas with other Palestinian entities, here are Bibi's own words from yesterday:
Quote:
I think that we have to make a distinction between the Palestinian/Israeli conflict with those who are willing to coexist with Israel. That's the Palestinian authority. There we can have a real solution.
If the Israeli Prime Minister can muster, even in a rote manner, recognizing a difference between the Palestinians, I'm sure you can manage it as well.
Look, either give the WB Palestinians a shot or come out and say that Israel should just swallow the territories. It's this sort of half-assed, perma Oslo Accord (meant, of course, to be merely a jumping off point) which is such a cowardly cop-out. Stand for one or the other. RW Likud and their apologists in Congress do not, predictably, because that would mean actually recognizing that either Israel stays a Jewish state or it relinquishes its status as a democracy and embraces Apartheid. More from Israeli PMs:
Quote:
As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.
-Barak
Quote:
If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.
-Olmert
Quote:
Israel better rid itself of the territories and their Arab populations as soon as possible. If it did not Israel would soon become an Apartheid State. Demography, he said, was a greater danger than not having the territorial depth the right wing was always claiming Israel needed to defend itself.
-Ben fucking Gurion
Make a decision. Stand for something. Otherwise it's just boring, anti-progress hot air reminiscent of the modern American politician.
The only solutions to the conflict involve the Palestinians stepping forward and agreeing to the fact that their history and the history of their brethren re: Israel is one that justifies Israel's security concerns regarding their state.
What I would like to see happen in an ideal scenario is:
1. The Palestinians get a state that must be demilitarized for its first 25-50 years of existence, with international security guarantees if it's attacked by neighboring countries (including Israel guaranteeing its security).
2. An interim NATO or other international presence (expressly not UN, but rather something along the lines of the Iraq/Afghanistan alliance) in the Palestinian territories to both oversee demilitarization and confirm dismantling of settlements
3. Dismantling most or all of the Israeli settlements after an agreement is reached and the international presence discussed above is in place. This is where the Palestinians are going to have to agree that getting 97% is a good deal in exchange for getting the state they claim they so desperately want.
4. continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley during the interim 25-50 year phase to guarantee both Israel's and the Palestinians' state security.
5. Turnover of portions of East Jerusalem on a 5-10 year delay after the plan is put into place.
Obviously the above are all concepts and time periods are random toss outs , but I think that's the only framework that will actually work. Israel needs to have its security guaranteed, and the Palestinians should begin having a state and acting like a responsible actor.
LOL- so that is what happened- the zionists stormed palestine and took it by force and now get to keep it. Please inform historians of this.
no one said this.
Really then explain this:
"the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back"
How exactly did the Israelis win the great battle that reformed Israel?
I am not saying that today's situation doesn't bear blame on Hamas but if your grand parents/parents were kicked out of their homes and became refugees that nobody would except I can imagine that your generation would still be pretty bitter.
I suppose the zionist movement produced much more effective terrorists.
that having fled or been kicked out of their homes sat nursing their grievances for four generations in refugee camps, despite being repeatedly beaten in war? Whether they liked the outcome or not pretty much every similarly situated population eventually accepted the outcome of that war and tried to make a better life somewhere else. The right of return will happen only if Israel ceases to exist.
Quote:
2 things ... I guess you know something that I don't, There were no Israeli soldiers in Gaza prior to these hostilities as far as I know, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as occupied.
Second
Quote:
As for the tunnels and weapons stores and the other things you mentioned, as long as the Palestinians remained occupied, there will always be a struggle and they won't give up until the occupation is over. But Israel has no plans of ever giving the Palestinians a state
If the "occupation" ends, do you really believe Hamas will let Israel live in peace when their official position and goal is the total destruction of Israel? That's the core issue
Mike, Israel allows Gaza to self police their land, but Gaza and the West Bank are occupied as a whole. Not allowed to have their own army, no control over borders or air space, Israel Controls the amount of food, water and electricity they're allowed to use (which is a fraction of what Israelis are allowed) and can cut those necessities off at any moment. They control how many acres of water they're allowed to fish in, theres hundreds of Israeli check points (many unmanned black aids on vital highways that can't discern between an ambulance rushing someone to a hospital or a a hamas fighter), ability to arbitrarily arrest whoever they feel like at any time, settlements built right inside Gaza with heavily armed Israeli 'settlers' again...completely in violation of international law...list goes on and on. If you remember yrs ago when there were negotiations about allowing the Palestinians to have their own state, all of that needed to be resolved but wasn't and talks collapsed. But there's no doubt that Palestinians don't have a state yet in addition to the apartheid circumstance they're currently living under.
Do I think Hamas and Palestinians will stop the struggle vs Israel if they get their own country? 100% yes. None of the other sovereign neighboring Arab states are attacking Israel, not one bullet shot from Jordan or Egypt after signing peace treaties and getting land issues settled. This isn't about hating Jews because they're Jews like some pretend, it's about very real economic, social and human rights issues that must be addressed for the Palestinians.
One last point, let's say for arguments sake, muhajir is biased, and proIsrael bbi's are baised for Israel. Who has no allegiance to either side.. so we can look at their perspective of the conflict (s)? UN?..? Human rights watch groups? International law?? Maybe we can use them as an unbiased reference.
Buford: grow up pls
muhajir, I don't want to quibble with semantics as to whether a place can be occupied with no occupiers or not. Seems evident to me that the West Bank is occupied and Gaza is not. Do they live free of any Israeli involvement? No. From my point of view, Israel is acting in much the same way that most nations would act if their neighbors vowed their destruction. They would do everything in their power to prevent that neighbor from being capable of making good on that threat. Does that entail undesirable things? Almost certainly
As far as would Hamas renounce their avowed goal of destroying Israel if the occupation ended, I don't share your conviction on that. AND IF IN FACT THEY WOULD, WHY DON'T THEY JUST SAY SO? Make it a point of negotiation. No, they'v given no indication of that and every indication of the opposite.
And yes Buford, grow up
Do I think Hamas and Palestinians will stop the struggle vs Israel if they get their own country? 100% yes. None of the other sovereign neighboring Arab states are attacking Israel, not one bullet shot from Jordan or Egypt after signing peace treaties and getting land issues settled.
But the same cannot be said about Lebanon. I think you have to draw a distinction between Hamas, Hezbolla and other such groups and the governments of Jordan and Egypt. I think the rockets would still fly, only they would be the most sophisticated Iran could supply.
And in response to this comment "None of the other sovereign neighboring Arab states are attacking Israel" - you mean like Lebanon?
And you're fine with calling humanitarians. IHH is funding jihadists throughout the world, but their flotilla was just well-meaning charity. The fact that their leader, Yildirim, is under investigation in Turkey for funding al-Qaida is probably just a coincidence.
"I'm very, very worried," Erakat told CNN. "We are witnessing the gradual reoccupation of Gaza."
If Palestine thinks of it as a "reoccupation," then I find it unfair of the critics of Israel to claim they don't have a right to defend themselves, considering the bases of this critique usually sounds something like this:
Something most of us have in common
Damn! This is a poorly worded and constructed post! My apologies to BBI
Quote:
It is easliy dispelled, and yet he embraces it - a lack of desire to stop searching for the truth once you have found something you agree with is not a health quality.
Something most of us have in common
Please don't engage me. Thank you for your support.
Damn! This is a poorly worded and constructed post! My apologies to BBI
Quote:
Quote:
It is easliy dispelled, and yet he embraces it - a lack of desire to stop searching for the truth once you have found something you agree with is not a health quality.
Something most of us have in common
Please don't engage me. Thank you for your support.
Notice I didn't attribute it to you :)
Yes
Why Didn't Hamas make any attempt to posecute or arrest the killers of the 3 Israeli boys that instigated this fight?
Who audits Hamas ? Imagine the level of corruption that exists in that organization
I don't know if muajir wishes the destruction of Israel. But he refuses to acknowledge than any of this is at Hamas doorstep. In order for something to change, there must be change, in thinking. Israel has conceded several times on points. The Palestinians only dig in further and only wind up hurting themselves. The world needs to say enough and force Palestinians to either get rid of Hamas (which they may not be able to do) or stop supporting Hamas/Iran by proxy when they only criticize Israel. No other country on earth would put up with what Israel does. The Palestinians have to know that they will not get what they want if it is not mutually acceptable.
A supermajority of Israelis recognize the right of the Palestinians to have a state alongside them, and have been willing in the past and will be willing in the future to compromise their security with land concessions (even though Israel has barely any strategic depth) to give that experiment a chance.
The second the first sentence turns into "A supermajority of Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist", then the conflict will end very quickly.
Quote:
The problem is that the Palestinians do have serious legitimate grievances but Hamas and other militants act in such an overtly hostile manner that Israel cannot turn the other cheek lest it gets its head blown off. So the grievances of the Palestinian people go unresolved yet they cannot be denied. I don't condemn those who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, for the most part they are good, well meaning people. Do you think muhajir wishes the destruction of Israel? Israel on the other hand has no choice but to take action required for self preservation. Is that action sometimes heavy handed? No doubt. And yet they take the unprecedented step of warning the people before an attack. I realize that the unreliability of Hamas' rockets would make such warnings on their part meaningless, but does anyone really think that Hamas would offer similar warnings if they had sophisticated missles?
I don't know if muajir wishes the destruction of Israel. But he refuses to acknowledge than any of this is at Hamas doorstep. In order for something to change, there must be change, in thinking. Israel has conceded several times on points. The Palestinians only dig in further and only wind up hurting themselves. The world needs to say enough and force Palestinians to either get rid of Hamas (which they may not be able to do) or stop supporting Hamas/Iran by proxy when they only criticize Israel. No other country on earth would put up with what Israel does. The Palestinians have to know that they will not get what they want if it is not mutually acceptable.
Perhaps that is because there is no shortage of posters laying it on Hamas and he is trying to present the other side. I haven't noticed you advancing any criticism of Israel either.
...[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement...
...There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility...
The charter goes on to cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to blame the jews for starting both world wars.
If I was a jew I would find it very hard to believe that Hamas will be satisfied by anything less than the death of every jew in palestine and the possession of all lands "conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection"
The first conflict occurred in 1948 when Israel was attacked literally within minutes of getting its own state.
So enough with the "latest conflict" bullshit. Israel didn't start this fight 60+ years ago...
HAHAHA. Are you really suggesting the UN is an unbiased organization.
LMAO...
this. thank you. i wanted to read through the whole thread to see if someone said it, so i'm glad you did, Big Al.
the reason the word "occupation" gets thrown around when it comes to Gaza is because "Palestinians" don't believe that Israel has ANY right to be there whatsoever, particularly in Jerusalem (even though their mosque is built on top of our temple, but that's neither here nor there).
that's why they elected Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that's why they've balked at the idea of a "two state solution" every single time it has been proposed.
for them, the only victory here is to either kill all the Jews or have them pick up and leave. for Israel, they are willing to negotiate a two-state solution (with Israel keeping its half of Jerusalem), but if that can't be worked out, they are more than capable of living in a sustained state of war, as they've demonstrated since 1948.
so that raises two questions:
1) why aren't the "Palestinians" willing to agree to a two-state solution?
2) what does sustained wartime look like from the "Palestinian" perspective after getting their butts kicked for 60+ years?
the heart of the issue is this: there have been wars for this land for thousands of years. the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back to the "Palestinians" any more than they're required to allow the "Palestinians" to live in the West Bank. Israel ALLOWS them to do so out of the kindness of its collective heart. that land was fought for - and won - by Israel. international law on this issue is an absolute joke and is a product of anti-Semitism. Israel could not possibly care less what the U.N. has to say about this area of the world.
so, let's draw an analogy that actually works. Europeans establish themselves in North America. little by little they take land from the Native Americans through war or trade or disease or whatever. it's war, it's not pretty, but it happened. ultimately, Europeans control the whole continent and Native Americans live on reservations.
with that in mind, imagine what would happen to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe if they started lobbing rockets at Americans from Foxwoods. and then, if you want a really good laugh, imagine what the American response would be if the U.N. tried to sanction the U.S. for killing some Pequots in response to them firing thousands of rockets at American civilians.
LOL. i've never heard that before, but it doesn't surprise me.
so the Hamas charter references a known forgery? gold.
Perhaps that is because there is no shortage of posters laying it on Hamas and he is trying to present the other side. I haven't noticed you advancing any criticism of Israel either.
My criticism of Israel is that they should stop giving in and agreeing to ceasefires because it only prolongs this mess.
Quote:
word occupation will be used by some as long as Israel exists because to them that itself is occupation.
this. thank you. i wanted to read through the whole thread to see if someone said it, so i'm glad you did, Big Al.
the reason the word "occupation" gets thrown around when it comes to Gaza is because "Palestinians" don't believe that Israel has ANY right to be there whatsoever, particularly in Jerusalem (even though their mosque is built on top of our temple, but that's neither here nor there).
that's why they elected Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that's why they've balked at the idea of a "two state solution" every single time it has been proposed.
for them, the only victory here is to either kill all the Jews or have them pick up and leave. for Israel, they are willing to negotiate a two-state solution (with Israel keeping its half of Jerusalem), but if that can't be worked out, they are more than capable of living in a sustained state of war, as they've demonstrated since 1948.
so that raises two questions:
1) why aren't the "Palestinians" willing to agree to a two-state solution?
2) what does sustained wartime look like from the "Palestinian" perspective after getting their butts kicked for 60+ years?
the heart of the issue is this: there have been wars for this land for thousands of years. the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back to the "Palestinians" any more than they're required to allow the "Palestinians" to live in the West Bank. Israel ALLOWS them to do so out of the kindness of its collective heart. that land was fought for - and won - by Israel. international law on this issue is an absolute joke and is a product of anti-Semitism. Israel could not possibly care less what the U.N. has to say about this area of the world.
so, let's draw an analogy that actually works. Europeans establish themselves in North America. little by little they take land from the Native Americans through war or trade or disease or whatever. it's war, it's not pretty, but it happened. ultimately, Europeans control the whole continent and Native Americans live on reservations.
with that in mind, imagine what would happen to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe if they started lobbing rockets at Americans from Foxwoods. and then, if you want a really good laugh, imagine what the American response would be if the U.N. tried to sanction the U.S. for killing some Pequots in response to them firing thousands of rockets at American civilians.
Good post.
Quote:
Perhaps that is because there is no shortage of posters laying it on Hamas and he is trying to present the other side. I haven't noticed you advancing any criticism of Israel either.
My criticism of Israel is that they should stop giving in and agreeing to ceasefires because it only prolongs this mess.
Wow buford, couldn't you hold back a little? People might think you're an ant-semite :)
First, whose fault is the present human suffering? Who picked the fight and by what means do they wage it? The Israelis aren't saintly, they do wield a great deal of power over the lives of Palestinians even without physical occupation, but considering the fact that this conflict has been a low-level insurgency for anywhere from three decades to almost seven, depending on your starting point, many Americans can't blame them.
Second, if the Palestinians got what they wanted would there be peace? If what "they" want includes the right of Hamas to have an army with the ability to acquire and keep offensive weapons of its choosing, the answer would seem to be an unequivocal no. If it includes a right of return, the answer is again no.
I understand the concerns about the settlements and on that I think the Palestinians have a fair amount of traction, but is that really a central issue or is one that gets trotted out because the rest of them (right of return in particular) are even at first blush more problematic? If every settlement was pulled down tomorrow and the borders reverted basically to 1967 with a few exceptions, does anyone even try to argue that the violence would dry up?
i wonder the same thing. do people like muhajir legitimately think Israel will (or should) let Hamas form an army and open the borders of Gaza so that "Palestinians" can pass freely? because that is a fucking joke. it will never happen in a million years. it's equally as absurd as the Palestinians wanting the Jews to leave Jerusalem. not an option.
it's a central issue in the sense that it controls the argument and is the main focus of the "diplomacy," if you can even call it that. strategically, the settlements mean very little for the IDF. it's more about appeasing the ultra right-wing segment of the Israeli population, some of whom believe that the "Palestinians" have no right to be in the lands that were acquired through war since 1948. if they had their way, Gaza would be an Israeli beach resort and the West Bank would look very much like the Israeli portion of Jerusalem.
it's the moderate and left-wing Israelis that basically allow the "Palestinians" to live at this point, and even they are reluctant given the constant threat.
Good post.
Phenomenal post
this entire mess is hamas' fault; there is no grey zone.
Quote:
word occupation will be used by some as long as Israel exists because to them that itself is occupation.
this. thank you. i wanted to read through the whole thread to see if someone said it, so i'm glad you did, Big Al.
the reason the word "occupation" gets thrown around when it comes to Gaza is because "Palestinians" don't believe that Israel has ANY right to be there whatsoever, particularly in Jerusalem (even though their mosque is built on top of our temple, but that's neither here nor there).
that's why they elected Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel, and that's why they've balked at the idea of a "two state solution" every single time it has been proposed.
for them, the only victory here is to either kill all the Jews or have them pick up and leave. for Israel, they are willing to negotiate a two-state solution (with Israel keeping its half of Jerusalem), but if that can't be worked out, they are more than capable of living in a sustained state of war, as they've demonstrated since 1948.
so that raises two questions:
1) why aren't the "Palestinians" willing to agree to a two-state solution?
2) what does sustained wartime look like from the "Palestinian" perspective after getting their butts kicked for 60+ years?
the heart of the issue is this: there have been wars for this land for thousands of years. the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back to the "Palestinians" any more than they're required to allow the "Palestinians" to live in the West Bank. Israel ALLOWS them to do so out of the kindness of its collective heart. that land was fought for - and won - by Israel. international law on this issue is an absolute joke and is a product of anti-Semitism. Israel could not possibly care less what the U.N. has to say about this area of the world.
so, let's draw an analogy that actually works. Europeans establish themselves in North America. little by little they take land from the Native Americans through war or trade or disease or whatever. it's war, it's not pretty, but it happened. ultimately, Europeans control the whole continent and Native Americans live on reservations.
with that in mind, imagine what would happen to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe if they started lobbing rockets at Americans from Foxwoods. and then, if you want a really good laugh, imagine what the American response would be if the U.N. tried to sanction the U.S. for killing some Pequots in response to them firing thousands of rockets at American civilians.
LOL- so that is what happened- the zionists stormed palestine and took it by force and now get to keep it. Please inform historians of this.
LOL- so that is what happened- the zionists stormed palestine and took it by force and now get to keep it. Please inform historians of this.
no one said this.
If missiles were fired from Foxwoods, the US would unapologetically carpet bomb the place and then emphatically reclaim the land. What it would not do is also deny Mohegan Sun independence and start building on Mohegan's Sun land. And they wouldn't keep MS in a sort of perpetual limbo where it's not part of America but also not its own nation.
Among the continued conflation on this board of Hamas with other Palestinian entities, here are Bibi's own words from yesterday:
If the Israeli Prime Minister can muster, even in a rote manner, recognizing a difference between the Palestinians, I'm sure you can manage it as well.
Look, either give the WB Palestinians a shot or come out and say that Israel should just swallow the territories. It's this sort of half-assed, perma Oslo Accord (meant, of course, to be merely a jumping off point) which is such a cowardly cop-out. Stand for one or the other. RW Likud and their apologists in Congress do not, predictably, because that would mean actually recognizing that either Israel stays a Jewish state or it relinquishes its status as a democracy and embraces Apartheid. More from Israeli PMs:
Make a decision. Stand for something. Otherwise it's just boring, anti-progress hot air reminiscent of the modern American politician.
Also, fuck Hamas.
What I would like to see happen in an ideal scenario is:
1. The Palestinians get a state that must be demilitarized for its first 25-50 years of existence, with international security guarantees if it's attacked by neighboring countries (including Israel guaranteeing its security).
2. An interim NATO or other international presence (expressly not UN, but rather something along the lines of the Iraq/Afghanistan alliance) in the Palestinian territories to both oversee demilitarization and confirm dismantling of settlements
3. Dismantling most or all of the Israeli settlements after an agreement is reached and the international presence discussed above is in place. This is where the Palestinians are going to have to agree that getting 97% is a good deal in exchange for getting the state they claim they so desperately want.
4. continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley during the interim 25-50 year phase to guarantee both Israel's and the Palestinians' state security.
5. Turnover of portions of East Jerusalem on a 5-10 year delay after the plan is put into place.
Obviously the above are all concepts and time periods are random toss outs , but I think that's the only framework that will actually work. Israel needs to have its security guaranteed, and the Palestinians should begin having a state and acting like a responsible actor.
Quote:
LOL- so that is what happened- the zionists stormed palestine and took it by force and now get to keep it. Please inform historians of this.
no one said this.
Really then explain this:
"the current "winners" of that ongoing war, if you will, are the Israelis. they were not "required" to hand Gaza back"
How exactly did the Israelis win the great battle that reformed Israel?
I am not saying that today's situation doesn't bear blame on Hamas but if your grand parents/parents were kicked out of their homes and became refugees that nobody would except I can imagine that your generation would still be pretty bitter.
I suppose the zionist movement produced much more effective terrorists.