[DrCMS]

My stace: Isreal have the right to do WHATEVER is nescessary to put a FINAL stop to Hamas. There is no final and complete solution short of the destruction/dissolution of Isreal or Palestine.  The path of least death in my opinion would be to give Isreal the Gaza strip and West Bank and distribute the terroist troops and their civillian families that they hide behind into the surounding Arab nations.  But I don't think their book allows them to give up.


What's your solution CMS?  The path of least death? 

Why should Israel get the West Bank and the Gaza strip?  So your solution is for Israel to get everything and the Palestinians get thrown out of their own country?  How the hell is that even remotely fair?

What about Israel getting wipped off the map and all the Jews going to Texas?  Thats about as onesided and fair as your suggestion and is stupid in the extreme.

May be some kind of middle ground would be best such that Israel goes back to its 1967 green line borders and the Gaza strip and an enlarged West Bank being given over fully to the Palestinians.  With the UN policing the borders and either sides punished for any infractions.

[P]

Why should Israel get the West Bank and the Gaza strip?  So your solution is for Israel to get everything and the Palestinians get thrown out of their own country?  How the hell is that even remotely fair?

When Isreal 'occupied' these territories a few years back, it was VERY reluctant to hand it back to the Palisinians.  The reason it was so reluctant was that EVERY time it had given up this territory in the past the anti Isreali groups would flood into Gaza and WB and use them as stations to launch missiles. (they thought/knew this would happen  -  because it happened EVERY other time they done it).  Under UN pressure though, they gave up Gaza and the West Bank.  Missile attacks and suicide bomings shortly ensued and continued.  (as I said earlier - it is a cycle they seem to go through). ---- This is why the Isrealis have a case to occuppy these territories again in my opinion - (Just like when the British occupied NI when the IRA scum wanted to ignore the majority public vote and force their own politics on the people that lived there. What was particularly sad was that alot of their funding was collected in bars in the USA from sympathisers to their cause - but that's another story)

May be some kind of middle ground would be best such that Israel goes back to its 1967 green line borders and the Gaza strip and an enlarged West Bank being given over fully to the Palestinians.  With the UN policing the borders and either sides punished for any infractions.

Sounds perfect  -  but we've tried it so many times now and groups like Hamas just set up camps in these territories and start with their random killing with missiles again. And the UN do nothing. So Isreal takes matters into its own hands to push these idiots out of these 'buffer zones' and keep these areas clear of people. (because as soon as civ's set up there then the militants all pile in as well and hide amongst the people).


They aren't interested in a cease fire - neither side are. They both have a book from thousands of years ago telling them the land is theirs. One of them or both of them have been lied to.



PS - :

May be some kind of middle ground would be best such that Israel goes back to its 1967 green line borders and the Gaza strip and an enlarged West Bank being given over fully to the Palestinians.  With the UN policing the borders and either sides punished for any infractions.

using your logic here:
Should we give America back to the native indians who lived there a couple of hundred years ago and have them ruled and policed by the UN?  If not why not? Oh! I forgot  -  you wiped them all out by destroying their food source (the buffalo).  Should the UN get the world to unite to liberate the Native indians from their evil opressors and dictators?  Rubbish - of course not (besides - there are hardly any of them left).

[macman104]

If we go to war, we try to minimise all civillian casaulties, but if there are to be any, then you make sure it is the opposition's - not your own. I'm quite disapointed - I thought CMS would have the intelect to be able to debate this without turning to personal insults.  However - it is a VERY dificault subject to discuss without it becoming heated.

When sombody makes such a crass statement as it not mattering how many people Israel kills then of cousre I will insult that person. It was a disgusting statement and part of the reason for this mess.  Israel has shown time and again that it values 1 Isreali jew more highly than 100 Israeli muslims and that is wrong.

I did not say that it did not matter, only that the motive of the attacks should also come into consideration.  If you believe Israel has the intention of killing innocent civilians for the sake of killing them, then fine, they are worse.  However, I don't believe that to be the case.  Hamas, on the other hand is intentionally targeting civilian areas even if there are no army establishments nearby!

Think of it like this:  If Hamas fires 1000 rockets (just pulling a random number here), and targets them all at civilian establishments, but only kills 30 people.  Israel responds by attacking Hamas establishments that are clouded in the civilian environment, and civilian casualties skyrocket because of the dense population.  Is Israel really the wrose Like I said, they can't go straight away with infantry, because it would be irresponsible to send their troops like that.  And unfortunately, the air alternative, comes with civilian casualties.

[DrCMS]

I did not say that it did not matter, only that the motive of the attacks should also come into consideration.  If you believe Israel has the intention of killing innocent civilians for the sake of killing them, then fine, they are worse.  However, I don't believe that to be the case.  Hamas, on the other hand is intentionally targeting civilian areas even if there are no army establishments nearby!

Think of it like this:  If Hamas fires 1000 rockets (just pulling a random number here), and targets them all at civilian establishments, but only kills 30 people.  Israel responds by attacking Hamas establishments that are clouded in the civilian environment, and civilian casualties skyrocket because of the dense population.  Is Israel really the wrose Like I said, they can't go straight away with infantry, because it would be irresponsible to send their troops like that.  And unfortunately, the air alternative, comes with civilian casualties.

Why would it be irresponsible to send in their troops like that?  If they only want to get the terrorrists without killing civillians thats exactly what they'd do.  Do you and they think it's irresponsible because that might end up with a dead jew?  So better to use the air strikes or tanks and end up with 100 dead arabs than 1 dead jew?

Back to the Northern Ireland senario before the negotiated peace the UK put its army in danger rather than kill innoccent catholics and thats why the troubles lead to a higher number of sercurity forces deaths than civillians.  Israel chooses not to put the IDF in danger so uses air strikes and tanks that kill hundreds of civillians.  They choose to kill lots of civillians rather than risk their army and that makes them worse.

[macman104]

Why would it be irresponsible to send in their troops like that?  If they only want to get the terrorrists without killing civillians thats exactly what they'd do.  Do you and they think it's irresponsible because that might end up with a dead jew?  So better to use the air strikes or tanks and end up with 100 dead arabs than 1 dead jew?

Your Anti-Jew spew is really showing through when you label the Israeli army as dead jews.  You are aware that not just Jews serve in the IDF aren't you (in fact, Muslims and Christians also serve, moreover, not all Jews in Israel serve)?  And exactly, it is irresponsible of the IDF commanders to send their troops into a scenario where they know they will suffer larger casualties, if there is another alternative.  If Hamas, is truly fighting for their people, why do they use them as shields?  Do you not believe Hamas intentionally chooses dense areas to attack from, for the exact purpose of the provoking the response you are giving. 

Regardless, I responded to this thread to comment on the article (which honestly, was on track, calm and focused about white P, until you barged in with your tirade called a post).  I never really see a purpose in arguing about this war with people, because all it does is rehash our own personal views, with really no likelihood of anything besides heated arguments and frustration coming out of it.  You feel that Israel is wrong for their actions, I do not, and just like the war, neither side is going to give...  I'm not trying to kill the conversation, I'm just giving my perspective on where I think this discussion is going, I'm happy to continue discussing.  However, we'll probably just continue discussing until we get bored of arguing back and forth.

[Borek]

However, we'll probably just continue discussing until we get bored

Or till the thread will get locked.

[macman104]

However, we'll probably just continue discussing until we get bored

Or till the thread will get locked.

I suppose that's a possibility, although I hope it doesn't happen (but I may not be surprised either).

[DrCMS]

Your Anti-Jew spew is really showing through when you label the Israeli army as dead jews.  You are aware that not just Jews serve in the IDF aren't you (in fact, Muslims and Christians also serve, moreover, not all Jews in Israel serve)?  And exactly, it is irresponsible of the IDF commanders to send their troops into a scenario where they know they will suffer larger casualties, if there is another alternative.  If Hamas, is truly fighting for their people, why do they use them as shields?  Do you not believe Hamas intentionally chooses dense areas to attack from, for the exact purpose of the provoking the response you are giving. 

So that's how long it took then before my criticisms of Israel was labelled antisemitic.  What next I'll be labelled a Nazi and asked if i thought Hilter was right?

Israel is made up of ~80% Jewish ~16% Muslim, ~2% Christian and ~2% Druze.  
Very few Muslims serve in the IDF which is >90% Jewish.  

And exactly, it is irresponsible of the IDF commanders to send their troops into a scenario where they know they will suffer larger casualties, if there is another alternative.  

You still don't get it do you, you still think it is right that the IDF use air strikes and tanks to attempt to kill Hamas terrorists knowing that will kill civilians rather than put IDF soldiers at risk.  So you are valuing an IDF soldiers life greater than the civilians.  The dead civilians currently outnumber the dead IDF soldier 100:1.  The facts are the IDF soldier is most likely Jewish and the civilians most likely Muslim.  So you value a Jewish life greater than 100 Muslim ones.  Soldiers are meant to risk their lives to protect civilians not the other way round.

[Donaldson Tan]

However, we'll probably just continue discussing until we get bored

Or till the thread will get locked.

You guys are already off-topic! LOL...

[Mitch]

I think the two state solution is dead at this point. Israel has three options: incorporate the Palestinians, apartheid, or genocide. I wouldn't recommend the latter 2. In a perfect world, the Palestinians and the Israelis would make one country where a minority vote can derail any major legislation.

But with all tribal/ethnic conflicts that we've seen in Africa and other places those in power are loathe to share it.

[Fleaker]

Woah, we need to all relax in this thread! Best to be calm and think analytically with our heads rather than our hearts.

I wonder, anyone actually from the Middle East, or have ever traveled to Israel?
To really understand the conflict, you can not look from the outside in...

This comes down to pride. There is too much pride on either side. Both peoples act like immature children, children who battle for the last word, the last attack, the last death.

I can not defend all of Israel's actions, many of which are nigh on as bad as the terrorists they fight against. The Palestinians see the Israeli's as bullies, and their protection of their sovereignty as rampant Zionism. As far as I've seen, this is only partially true. The Israelis have a right to defend their homes and their peoples, as do the Palestinians. The problem arises when Israel overreacts and fosters more and more hatred. How then is this obvious conundrum reconciled? Anyone's guess on that.
 
Israel has acted against the international community more and more in recent years (case example being the summer 2006 assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon, a wasted effort). They are militarily the biggest power in the region, armed with superior munitions, superior soldiery, and American support. Israel carries a big stick (an atomic stick at that!). It grieves me to see Israel become the terrorist--terrorism is very much perspective based, recall the ol' saying "One nation's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"? That is very much in effect in the case of Israel and Palestine; both commit atrocities and add fuel to the fire.

As far as Mitch's suggestion goes, I'd say it's impossible at the moment as long as Palestinians hate Israelis as much as Israelis hate the Palestinians. Apartheid is already in existence (ask any Palestinian or even Israeli). Genocide is out of the question...Israel already pushes on the international community. I can only hope that both sides get sick of the fighting and a tenuous peace develops.

Power is a drug, the more on has, the more one is inclined to use it and abuse it.

People are so predictable.

[Donaldson Tan]

This is something I wrote some time ago...

2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict: In Israel's Defence

The Middle East has always been a hot bed for conflicts. The recent eruption of violence in Gaza Strip has earned Israel condemnation from the international community on the disproportionality of its action. Yet it is interesting to note despite the ritual condemnation, no Arab states has actually put forward any important actions to undermine Israel's occupation in Gaza after the Israel-Hamas truce had expired. As usual, international media is quick to highlight bloodshed, the most attention-grabbing result, while downplaying the role of Hamas in the Israel-Gaza Conflict.

Israel-Gaza Conflict

According to the BBC, the Israel-Gaza Conflict started on 27 December 2008 when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead into the Gaza Strip . While media coverage has been biased in only focusing on the disproportionality of Israel’s military action in the Gaza Strip, it is important to note that things were already brewing in the background. Since 2006, Hamas has fired at least 1,700 rockets into Israel despite Israel’s easing of the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Hamas continued to smuggle ammunitions, firearms and rockets despite its assurance to Israel on its commitment to peace. Worse still, Hamas accused Israel of violating the ceasefire first when Israeli agents raided a weapons smuggling tunnel in Gaza, despite that weapons smuggling de-facto breaks the ceasefire agreement. When the 6-month truce between Israel and Hamas expired on 18 December 2008, Hamas refused to extend the truce and renewed rocket attacks against Israel on 19 December 2008.

In March 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed to press on with the deadly military operations against militants who have been launching increasingly powerful rockets into Israel. The Israeli action is merely a response to the renewed terrorism originating from the Gaza Strip. Security for Israeli is the primary priority for the current Israeli government.  Action speaks louder than words and this is demonstrated by Israel’s unilateral ceasefire on 17 January 2009 and partial withdrawal of the Israeli Defence Force. Israel’s fight is targeted against Hamas and not the People of Gaza. Having destroyed Hamas’ military camps and 60% of Hamas’ tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, there is no need to continue military action in Gaza. By 21 January 2009, Israel has fully withdrawn its troops from Gaza. This is not the first time that Israel withdrew its troops unilaterally. In 2005, Israel made a unilateral decision to withdraw its military and settlers from the Gaza Strip.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum criticised Israel for taking a unilateral approach rather than entering into a deal with Egyptian mediators: “It is an attempt to pre-empt the Egyptian efforts and any other efforts that seek to achieve a withdrawal of the occupying forces, an end to the siege and a ceasefire.” Moreover, the international community and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) support the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, which is repeatedly emphasised in UNSC Resolutions S/RES/1860(2009) and S/RES/1850(2009). While a somewhat quiet night presided Gaza on the first night of the unilateral ceasefire, Israelis woke up to yet again another morning of Hamas rocket attacks. Surely rocket attacks is not the way to invite your opponent to participate in peace talks hosted by a less-than-neutral neighbour Egypt, one of the Arab League’s only 2 members that actually recognise Israel. In fact, fighting has now resumed. Recent news indicated that the Israeli Air Force conducted air strikes  in response to a new wave of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.

The way out of the Israel-Gaza Conflict cannot be a one-off temporary solution until the next eruption of fighting. President Obama of the United States said in an Al Arabiya Interview  that continued fighting “is not going to result in prosperity and security” for Israelis and Palestinians, and commended the Arab Peace Initiative for being a courageous act. The Arab Peace Initiative, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, represents a new holistic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. While security implications on their bordering countries cannot be separated from the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there is notable regional desire for political stability. Most importantly, the Arab Peace Initiative (API) marks a stark departure from the 1967 “Three No’s” that was the centre of Israeli-Arab relations: no peace deals, no diplomatic recognitions, no negotiations. However, a 2008 Angus Reid Global Monitor poll found that 67% of Palestinians and 39% of Israelis support the Arab Peace Initiative.

The Rise of Hamas

Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the Palestinian Authority with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine" Its leaders have called suicide attacks the "F-16" of the Palestinian people. Hamas leader Abd al-Aziz Rantisi in April 2004 that "peace talks do us no good and we do not believe we can live with the enemy" In fact, Hamas rejects the Arab Peace Initiative.

Hamas started out as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood – the biggest political opposition organisation in Egypt and the Middle East. It was founded in December 1987 and came to prominence during the First Intifada, a popular Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule that took place between 1987 and 1993. While the Muslim Brotherhood has denounced violence since 1988, Hamas became well known for carrying out suicide bomb attacks in Israeli and Palestinian territories. Hamas’ first suicide bomb attack took place in April 1993. Hamas leader even hailed the suicide bombers the “F-16s” of Palestine. The United States, European Union, Japan and Israel recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

Prior to winning the 2006 Palestinian Authority General Legislative Elections, Hamas already devotes much of its estimated US$70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. This is in contrast to the Palestinian Authority, which often fails to provide such services. While some Palestinians perceive Hamas as a honest organisation, there are some Palestinians who disagree with its terrorist policies. In comparison to the corrupt Fatah that represents the Palestinian Authority, Hamas is the lesser evil to the Gaza electorate. Hamas is not a better choice over peace and prosperity for the whole of Palestine.

The 2006 Palestinian Authority General Legislative Elections established Hamas as the municipal government of Gaza Strip while Fatah remains as the unity government of the Palestinian Authority. Many political punters had hoped that Hamas would move away from violence to achieve its political aims, yet its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, continued to operate. Rivalry between Hamas and the ruling party Fatah escalated to a military coup that took place in June 2007 . Hamas seized complete control of the Gaza’s municipal government, ousted Fatah’s representative on Gaza’s municipal parliament and drove out the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, forcing President Mahmond Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to declare a state of emergency. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ali Babacan even urged Hamas to decide “whether it wants to be a political movement or an armed group”. Hamas is only one step short of declaring Gaza Strip independent.

Prospects of Peace

One remarkable thing to note about Israel’s Operation Cast Lead was that no Arab state moved quickly to take aggressive steps on Palestinians’ behalf. Apart from ritual condemnation, weeks into the offensive, no Arab state had done anything significant. Why is it so? The Arab states view the creation of a Palestinian state as not in their interests. They have never acknowledged Palestinian rights beyond the destruction of Israel. In theory, they have backed the Palestinian cause, but in practice they have ranged from indifferent to hostile toward it. Iran is the only major power that is now attempting to act on behalf of the Palestinians. Being a non-Arab state, Iranian involvement is regarded by the Arab regimes as one more reason to distrust the Palestinians. The question of an independent Palestinian state would not be settled even if Israel were destroyed.

All the countries bordering Palestine have serious territorial claims on Palestinian lands, not to mention a profound distrust of Palestinian intentions. For example, Syria view Palestine as an integral part of Syria, much as they saw Lebanon and Jordan. They saw the Sykes-Picot agreement  as a violation of Syrian territorial integrity, and opposed the existence of an independent Jewish state for the same reason they opposed Lebanese or Jordanian independence. Historically, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and Palestine today were part of the same province under Greater Syria. In fact, the Syrians have always been uncomfortable with the concept of Palestinian statehood and actually invaded Lebanon in the 1970s to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Fatah .

The Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan has a far more critical view of Palestinians than the Syrians. After the partition of the British-administered Palestine in 1948, Jordan took control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But there were deep tensions with the Palestinians, and the Hashemite Monarchy saw Israel as a guarantor of Jordanian security against the Palestinians. They never intended an independent Palestinian state. Jordan could have granted Palestine independence between 1948 and 1967. In September 1970, Jordan fought a bloody war against the Palestinians, forcing the PLO out of Jordan and into Lebanon. Half of Jordanians have Palestinian ethnicity. Jordan remain very fearful that the last vestige of the Hashemite Monarchy could collapse under the weight of Palestinians in the kingdom and in the West Bank, paving the way for a Palestinian takeover of Jordan.

Gaza and the West Bank are very different places. The West Bank has a population density of a little over 600 people per square mile, many living in discrete urban areas distributed through rural areas. The West Bank has a much higher degree of self-sufficiency, even in its current situation. Under the best of circumstances, the West Bank will not be entirely dependent on external economic relations. In the worst of circumstances, the West Bank will not be entirely dependent on outside aid.

On the other hand, Gaza is about 25 miles long and no more than 7.5 miles at its greatest width, with a total area of about 146 square miles. Gaza has a population density of about 11,060 per square mile, roughly that of a city. And like a city, Gaza’s primary economic activity should be commerce or manufacturing, but neither is possible given the active hostility of Israel and Egypt. 95% of Gaza’s economy had collapsed due to Israel’s blockade. Gaza is a compact city incapable of supporting itself in its current circumstances and overwhelmingly dependent on outside aid. Under the best of circumstances, Gaza will be entirely dependent on external economic relations. In the worst of circumstances, it will be entirely dependent on outside aid. Were Gaza physically part of the West Bank, it would be the latter’s largest city, making Palestine a more complex nation-state.

If a Palestinian state were created, it is not clear that the dynamics of Gaza, the city-state, and the West Bank, more of a nation-state, would be compatible. Under the best of circumstances, Gaza could not survive at its current size without a rapid economic evolution that would generate revenue from trade, banking and other activities common in successful Mediterranean cities. But these cities have either much smaller populations or much larger areas supported by surrounding territory. It is not clear how Gaza could get from where it is to where it would need to be to attain viability.

Gaza has the military advantage of being dense and urbanised. It can be defended. But it is an economic catastrophe, and given its demographics, the only way out of its condition is to export workers to Israel. To a lesser extent, the same is true for the West Bank. Palestine has been exporting workers for generations. Any peace agreement with Israel would increase the exportation of labour locally, with Palestinian labour moving into the Israeli market. Therefore, the paradox is that while the current situation allows a degree of autonomy amid social, economic and military catastrophe, a settlement would dramatically undermine Palestinian autonomy by creating Palestinian dependence on Israel.
 
One immediate consequence of Palestinian independence would be a massive outflow of Palestinians from Gaza to the West Bank. The economic conditions of the West Bank are better, but the massive domestic migration would buckle the West Bank’s economy. Tensions currently visible between the West Bank under Fatah and Gaza under Hamas would exacerbate. The West Bank could not absorb the population flow from Gaza, but Palestinians in Gaza could not remain in Gaza except in virtually total dependence on foreign aid. The only conceivable solution to the economic issue would be for Palestinians to seek work en masse in more dynamic economies. This would mean either emigration or entering the work force in Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Israel. Egypt has its own serious economic troubles, and Syria and Jordan are both too small to solve this problem. The only economy that could employ surplus Palestinian labour is Israel’s.

Security concerns apart, while the Israeli economy might be able to metabolise this labour, it would turn an independent Palestinian state into an Israeli economic dependency. The ability of the Israelis to control labour flows has always been one means for controlling Palestinian behaviour. To move even more deeply into this relationship would mean an effective annulment of Palestinian independence. The degree to which Palestine would depend on Israeli labour markets would turn Palestine into an extension of the Israeli economy. And the driver of this will not be the West Bank, which might be able to create a viable economy over time, but Gaza, which cannot. Accepting a Palestinian state along lines even approximating the 1948 partition, regardless of the status of Jerusalem, would not result in an independent Palestinian state in anything but name.

Conclusion

The problems of an independent Palestinian state will not be settled with or without the destruction of Israel. Neither would any two-state solution for the Middle East situation rectify complex geopolitical issues in the region.  The two-state solution is merely a political rhetoric among the Arab League and the international community. Palestinians would not be better off too if the Palestine breaks down into 2 independent regions. The Middle East situation is made further more complex as the emergence of Hamas as a key player represents renewed Palestinian nationalism and militancy in the region. Hamas, no doubt, is a threat to political stability and power balance in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=blog/2008-2009-israel-gaza-conflict-in-israel%E2%80%99s-defence

[Borek]

tldr

[Mitch]

I think you forgot a semicolon, tldr;

[DrCMS]

I think you put the semicolon in the wrong place, tl;dr