The Present Israel-Palestine Conflict Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Indeed.  Hopefully this is the end of Hamas and peace can have a slim chance again.

Nope.  Even if Hamas is destroyed, another organization will rise to take its place.  Israeli hopes of a making the Palestinians into modern day servile Gibeonites are hopeless.  For there to be any chance of peace, Israel will need to give up its aspirations to keep the Palestinians continually under an Israeli yoke.  Not that doing so has much chance of peace either, but even a slim chance is higher than no chance.  I said higher rather than better because whether it is better depends upon how much risk one thinks Israel would take under either course.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do we really need to say it...

No, Non-Israeli Jews or synagogues are not acceptable targets not even for peaceful demonstration, as they have no direct influence on Israeli policy. Israeli abroad are not legitimate targets either for violent acts and even in Israel/Palestinia, it's not legitimate to go after Israeli civilians as targets either (collatoral damage can be discussed).

Even if we only see it from a purely pragmatic POV and not a moral one, the lesson from the Second Intifada and the Israeli invasions and bombings of Gaza, the killing of civilians have not resulted in breaking either sides will to fight.

FTFY.  Considering the high levels of collateral damage that have been done, it's fairly clear that Israel does not place much consideration upon whether civilian casualties will occur when it goes after its military targets.  Granted, it shows more consideration than Hamas, but that literally isn't saying very much.

Perhaps it would make sense to begin this thread again?

No.  There's no reason to think it would be any better.  Just as there's no reason to think, we won't be having this same discussion three years from now, five years from now, nine years from now, et cetera when Israel and Palestine have future violent flare-ups in their hate-hate relationship.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Iron Dome, which was built with US taxpayer dollars, really encourages Israel to take a hardline and not negotiate.

Not really, since it has been well over a decade since Israel has done any serious negotiations with the Palestinians. But that's because they've realized that even if they do manage to browbeat the Chiefs into signing away Palestinian land and accept a few beads in exchange for living on a reservation, the Braves will go on the warpath anyway and refuse to accept the injustice done them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel removed settlements in the Sinai.  No problems with the state of Egypt since.  Israel removed the settlements from Gaza and it changed nothing.

There's a ton of difference between a mostly barren Sinai and the tightly packed ticking time-bomb of a ghetto that is Gaza.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Back on subject, I suspect both sides will accept this current ceasefire...

Wrong: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28494081

The idea that a US government is capable of strong-arming the Israeli government into doing anything it doesn't want to do doesn't really meet reality.  Sometimes the Israelis let it appear that is what is happening for political reasons in Jerusalem and/or Washington, but clearly Israel thinks another day or two of fighting is preferable to a ceasefire right now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now Kerry is saying that he never proposed a ceasefire agreement to Israel and that Bibi lied to please its domestic audience.

Cite?  Even if it were true, I can't see Kerry wanting to cause even Bibi to lose that much face given the harm it would cause in US-Israeli relations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

but can you not understand why Palestinians might be just a tad bit pissed off by this situation that was imposed on them? Germany and others in Europe orchestrate the holocaust. Then they eff over the Palestinians to make themselves feel better. Yay colonialism!

I get, I suppose, why they went all "push 'em into da sea" in 1947, but 3 generations later and nothing to show for it (and in fact, a lot of lost...ahem...ground), well sir, that's insane.

More like typical human behavior.  Of course, the Zionists benefit as long as the Arabs aren't truly united.  (It was lack of Arab unity along with massive overconfidence that led to heavy corruption that let Israel survive 1948 in the first place.)  A united Arab regime with the patience to wait until Israel no longer has military superiority is what will most likely extinguish the State of Israel.  Won't happen for at least fifty years and more likely longer than that, but Israel will not always have military superiority over its neighbors, yet the Zionists act like they will.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course, the Zionists benefit as long as the Arabs aren't truly united.  (It was lack of Arab unity along with massive overconfidence that led to heavy corruption that let Israel survive 1948 in the first place.)  A united Arab regime with the patience to wait until Israel no longer has military superiority is what will most likely extinguish the State of Israel.  Won't happen for at least fifty years and more likely longer than that, but Israel will not always have military superiority over its neighbors, yet the Zionists act like they will.

and I'm not so sure about this either.  Have you ever read Why Arabs Lose Wars?  Very informative.  The short of it is:
A.their officers suck/are afraid to take initiative
B.they (generally) don't have NCOs, the backbone of any good military
C.they don't care about maintenance or training
D.they don't understand their enemy and don't try to learn
E.they don't trust anybody
F.the Army doesn't talk to the Air Force in battle, hell one Army division won't talk to another Army division in battle, much less communication between states


There would need to be a large cultural change in how they fight if they ever think they could win against any modern military, especially one that knows how they operate.

Agreed, the necessary culture change is why I said it would take a minimum of fifty years.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

but can you not understand why Palestinians might be just a tad bit pissed off by this situation that was imposed on them? Germany and others in Europe orchestrate the holocaust. Then they eff over the Palestinians to make themselves feel better. Yay colonialism!

I get, I suppose, why they went all "push 'em into da sea" in 1947, but 3 generations later and nothing to show for it (and in fact, a lot of lost...ahem...ground), well sir, that's insane.

More like typical human behavior.

Is it though?  A lot of refugees were created around the same time, yet few of them have grandchildren fighting the same fight grandpa did.  India/Pakistan is the only other one I can think of off the top of my head....and I'm pretty sure India wouldn't sit back and let rockets be fired at their civilians either.

Most refugees are able to assimilate into another culture. (Or at least prosper within another culture.)  For various reasons, the Palestinians have been denied that outlet by and large.  The refugees from the partition of India weren't herded into camps.  By and large the major irritant still smoldering from partition is Kashmir where India took over a majority Muslim area because it had been a princely state with a Hindu ruler.  Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan at partition.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By and large the major irritant still smoldering from partition is Kashmir where India took over a majority Muslim area because it had been a princely state with a Hindu ruler.  Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan at partition.

Perhaps.  Do you think India should give it up now? (that is NOT a loaded question re-the Israel/Palestinian situation)

Ideally, Kashmir would be independent, as at a distance that appears to be what the locals want.  However, independence isn't truly an option.  Possibly if India had acted differently in 1947, it could have made Kashmir into a client state a la Bangladesh two decades later, but that isn't an option now.  If only Kashmir were affected, I think India could be persuaded to allow a referendum there, but with smoldering independence and/or autonomous independence movements in various parts of the subcontinent, I can't see anyone agreeing to a referendum, even if they could agree on how to hold one.  Neither Pakistan or India want to encourage minority self-determination right now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Best solution in my eyes:
-recognizing the unity government allowing the PA to return to Gaza and have an election.
- lifting the siege and opening the Egyptian border with international monitoring.
- consolidating all Palestinian militias under the PA
- Recovery programme for Gaza (mainly) and the West Bank
- 10 years "truce" in which permanent negotiations will take place in the "onion" method - a series of agreement to get us to the two state solution but in a gradual way
- building the connecting road between the West Bank and Gaza and easing the move of commodities and individuals
- recognition by the Arab League of Israel, and their support in implementing all future agreements.
- development of the Gaza marine gas fields so they can pump some hard currency into their economy (or actually starting to build one).

You forgot one very important requirement for there to be any potential progress towards a lasting peace.  A complete and total halt to all building of Jewish settlements (including plans to build additional homes within existing settlements) beyond the 1967 borders. (Or at least beyond any area that has been agreed to by both sides will be part of Israel following a final peace.) Otherwise, it looks like something that simply gives Israel more time to build more facts on the ground to dispossess the Palestinians of more of the West Bank and thus has zero chance of being acceptable to the Palestinians.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

deadman, the reason why Israel is getting so much gruff in this instance is that it is seen as the instigator of this year's war.  It engaged in what most charitably can be described as a severe overreaction to the kidnapping of those three hitchhiking settlers, and what most likely was an intentional effort to strike at Hamas and thereby disrupt the attempt at a unity Palestinian government.  The reaction from Hamas at having its hornet's nest poked at was entirely predictable.  If Israel had treated the kidnapping as the crime it was instead of as an excuse to throw its weight around, then even if fighting had erupted the condemnations of Israel would only have come from the usual inevitable quarters rather than being as broad as they were this time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Timeline:
1.On 12Jun14 the 3 teens were kidnapped and murdered.
2.Israeli cops start looking for the asshats/and start rounding up bad guys they let go in the Gilad Shalit "deal".
3.meanwhile, there had been rockets out of Gaza everyday (save 5 days, 80 rockets on 1 July was the high mark) between the kidnapping and the Israeli response which came on....
4.8Jul14 the sh**t hit the fan

As you yourself pointed out, the Israeli government used the kidnapping as an excuse to renege on the Gilad Shalit "deal" by rounding up everyone they wanted to lock away without a key under the pretense of it being police work. And then they were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Hamas retaliated by the only means they had.

Now I agree that the Gilad Shalit "deal" was a bad one, but that doesn't affect the facts concerning the kidnapping.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Timeline:
1.On 12Jun14 the 3 teens were kidnapped and murdered.
2.Israeli cops start looking for the asshats/and start rounding up bad guys they let go in the Gilad Shalit "deal".
3.meanwhile, there had been rockets out of Gaza everyday (save 5 days, 80 rockets on 1 July was the high mark) between the kidnapping and the Israeli response which came on....
4.8Jul14 the sh**t hit the fan

As you yourself pointed out, the Israeli government used the kidnapping as an excuse to renege on the Gilad Shalit "deal" by rounding up everyone they wanted to lock away without a key under the pretense of it being police work. And then they were shocked, shocked I tell you, that Hamas retaliated by the only means they had.

Now I agree that the Gilad Shalit "deal" was a bad one, but that doesn't affect the facts concerning the kidnapping.

What's worse, rounding up a coupe hundred bad guys or killing 3 civilians hiking?  What's worse, rounding up a couple hundred bad guys or launching hundreds of rockets at civilians?

The fact that Hamas is worse doesn't excuse Israel for being bad.  By that standard, Mussolini should have been excused since he wasn't as bad as Hitler.  Rounding up several hundred people without any evidence they had anything to with the crime is bad for any government that claims to be on the side of law and justice.  If Israel wants to be treated as one of the good guys, then it has to act like one.  If it wants to be treated as another third world banana republic (or in Israel's case, orange republic) then it did fine.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In this specific case, rounding up large numbers of people without evidence of involvement in the kidnapping.  Israel likes to claim it is the only Western-style democracy in the area, but that means it'll be judged as one, and when it comes to the area beyond the 1949-1967 borders it consistently fails to act as one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In terms of civilian deaths and level of violation of international law and the laws of war, Israel is objectively far worse than Hamas.

I wouldn't go quite that far.  Unlike Hamas, Israel has made some efforts to mitigate the effects of what they do, just not enough to actually prevent killing more civilians than is justified under the circumstances.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Outcome ultimately matters more than intent.

If Hamas had the same ability as Israel, then their outcome would unfortunately reflect their intent.