[quote=xilman;160235]Only? Please explain how the experience of Germany and of Japan in the mid-20th century is consistent with that statement.[/quote]
Both Germany and Japan needed powerful friends who could protect them against a terrible enemy right next to them. Remember that Stalin took about 2/3 of East Germany after WWII, expelling all Germans there from their own land. 1/3 for Russia (East Preussia), the rest for Poland (after also taking a large piece of eastern Poland, so he effectively moved Poland to the west).

When Stalin tried to starve West Berlin, the western powers came to rescue with the Berlin Air Lift. A gigantic operation, where the two million people in West Berlin got all their supplies flown in by air. More than 1000 transport planes each day when the weather allowed it.

I don't know much about Japan after the war, but Japan as well became victims for Stalin's hunger for land. The dispute over South Kuril Islands is not yet solved.

Compare this to Gaza, and it is easy to see who "Stalin" is and who their friends are and are not.

[quote=xilman;160235]Only? Please explain how the experience of Germany and of Japan in the mid-20th century is consistent with that statement.

Another example which would appear to fit your model: Carthage.

Paul[/quote]

Alright, Alright! Not "only". I should know better than to use generalizations. Generally speaking, they are a bad idea.

Germany and Japan are an interesting case study since they set out to achieve their aims by violence but eventually failed. Unless of course their aim was to destroy their own countries and kill lots of people in which case they succeeded admirably. On the other hand, the victorious Allies did achieve their goals through violence though one must say that the violence was thrust upon them. And they did try to negotiate with the aggressors for years before hand without any success.

The new US president Obama has decided to send the new envoy George Mitchell to he region. He will arrive tomorrow. It is tradition that on the day before a new US or important European envoy arrives an attack is launched on innocent civilians. Fatah did that is the past, and Hamas took over. Over the just the past decade these alone attacks took the lives of more than a hundred people. This tradition is very consistent and never forgotten. One more slaughtered today.

Israel on the other hand always presents a number of options the envoy can choose from to improve understanding between all parties. That is why envoys after some time always seem to side with Israel. Because they learn that Israel consistently sticks to it promises or refrains from making them and the other side consistently breaks promises.

[quote=tha;160679]
Israel on the other hand always presents a number of options the envoy can choose from to improve understanding between all parties. That is why envoys after some time always seem to side with Israel. Because they learn that Israel consistently sticks to it promises or refrains from making them and the other side consistently breaks promises.[/quote]

Like they stuck to their Oslo Agreement promise of not building any more settlements?

[QUOTE=garo;160739]Like they stuck to their Oslo Agreement promise of not building any more settlements?[/QUOTE]

1. Oslo was declared dead by the US, the EU, the Arab partners and Israel and all of them blamed Fatah.
2. Still, the number of settlements has gone down since. Building in existing settlements was not ruled out by the Oslo agreements.
3. Leaving all settlements in Gaza was to show that Israel was prepared to make way for a new Arab state. Another four settlements on the Westbank were also uprooted to signal that if Gaza and other territories would be properly governed, that is within the international frameworks, all non strategic settlements would be uprooted as well.

[quote=tha;160749]1. Oslo was declared dead by the US, the EU, the Arab partners and Israel and all of them blamed Fatah.
[/quote]
When was Oslo declared dead and when did the settlement construction start again? Settlements were never stopped and even before the ink was dry on the agreement, settlement construction resumed. Anyway, your point was that Israel always holds to its commitments and the history of settlement construction shows that this is false.

[quote]
2. Still, the number of settlements has gone down since. Building in existing settlements was not ruled out by the Oslo agreements.
[/quote]
The number may have gone down but the number living in the settlements has gone up considerably. You occupy and build all the land between 5 settlements and then you say the number of settlements has gone down.
[/quote]
[quote]
3. Leaving all settlements in Gaza was to show that Israel was prepared to make way for a new Arab state. Another four settlements on the West Bank were also uprooted to signal that if Gaza and other territories would be properly governed, that is within the international frameworks, all non strategic settlements would be uprooted as well.[/quote]
Rubbish! Gza was never meant to be part of the "Greater Israel". Leaving Gaza was a tactical retreat in order to allow fuller control over West Bank. Plus Gaza was never left alone and it turned into a prison.

Just research the figures on the number of settlers in the West Bank and you will know the the truth.

There is an internationally recognized consensus for a just solution but the US and Israel continue to block it.

Your suggestions for George Mitchell
 

tha, garo,

May I have, from each of you, practical, non-cynical ideas on how to stop or [I]greatly[/I] reduce rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel?

(Perhaps it may help to frame this as a request for suggestions to new US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.[I])
[/I]
Israel cites the past attacks as its reason for the recent invasion. (Some) Palestinians claim the attacks are a legitimate resistance-to-occupation tactic.

I ask for something other than what has been shown not to work in the past, and for something more immediate and practical than a total comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole. "Practical" means, among other things, something not so one-sided as to be a "victory" for either side, but something which could lead to a series of step-by-step phased actions to further reduce tensions and build trust.

That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as (a) another invasion of Gaza or (b) withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas without some equally large concession by Palestinians.

The sort of ideas I have in mind might well involve a combination of modest actions/concessions on both sides.

For example, what practical incentive do either of you suggest that Israel can provide Hamas for the latter to take effective action within Gaza to stop the rocket attacks? Or, if you think it is not currently possible for Hamas to do that, what suggestions do you have to make it possible, including how Israel can help?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;161261]May I have, from each of you, practical, non-cynical ideas on how to stop or [I]greatly[/I] reduce rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel?
...
For example, what practical incentive do either of you suggest that Israel can provide Hamas for the latter to take effective action within Gaza to stop the rocket attacks? Or, if you think it is not currently possible for Hamas to do that, what suggestions do you have to make it possible, including how Israel can help?[/QUOTE]Considering the fact that when Israel was in charge of what are now the Palistininan teritories (roughly 1967-1993,) it was not able to stop violence from Palestinians, despite its army, its police, its financial resources ... how can one expect the "Palestininian authority" to take effective action within Gaza to stop the rocket attacks, whithout most of the means Israel has ?[QUOTE=cheesehead;161261]That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as (a) another invasion of Gaza or (b) withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas without some equally large concession by Palestinians.[/QUOTE]Considering the fact that 100 settlements where built illegaly, that of the 120 others 75% also did not comply with regulations, that 30 settlements where build on land still owned by Palestinians[sup]*[/sup], it is preposterous to consider the demand to withdraw from those illegal settlements as extreme ! It would be like settling a dispute between thieves and their victims by letting the thieves keep the stolen goods. And I repeat this is in regard of [b]Israeli law[/b], not international law !

My opinion is that to reduce violence from Palestinians, economic and policing violence against them has to reduce dastically. They must have freedom of movement, freedom of trade, discrimination against non Jews must stop in Israel. (It is one of the few states where there is not only an official state religion, but where those not of the offical religion have less rights than by Law.)

An even better solution would be to have one state where everybody has equal legal rights.

Jacob

* [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7861076.stm]BBC World Service : Israel 'hides settlements data'[/url]

[quote=S485122;161286]Considering < snip > how can one < snip > ?[/quote]So, you think it can't be done.

But that's not what I asked for.

What can you propose so that it [I]can[/I] be done?

[quote]it is preposterous to consider the demand to withdraw from those illegal settlements as extreme ![/quote]It certainly is [I]when you leave out part of what I characterized as extreme[/I]!!! One can make anything seem preposterous by selective exclusions, but that won't impress me!

Note that the relevant part of my [I]whole[/I] statement (underlining the part your response ignores) was, "That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as ... withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas [U]without some equally large concession by Palestinians[/U]".

What I claimed was extreme was proposing withdrawal [I]without[/I] a corresponding concession.

If you disagree with something I say, please refrain from misrepresenting what you claim to disagree with.

[quote]My opinion is that to reduce violence from Palestinians, economic and policing violence against them has to reduce dastically. They must have freedom of movement, freedom of trade, discrimination against non Jews must stop in Israel.[/quote]May that fairly be interpreted as saying that you think that a solution to stopping the rocket attacks against Israel must (or should?) include the following Israeli concessions:

a) drastically reducing economic violence against Palestinians,

b) drastically reducing policing violence against Palestinians,

c) allowing Palestinians freedom of movement,

d) allowing Palestinians freedom of trade, and

e) an end to discrimination against non-Jews in Israel?

If so, what are the relative priorities of items a)-e) on that list?

It seems fair to me that if all items on your list were to be granted, they would have to be balanced by a few more items on the other side, besides merely:

a) cessation of rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.

What other such items do you propose to add to the Palestinian concessions? Since you mentioned "violence from Palestinians" instead of my more limited "rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel", may we fairly presume that you would include:

b) cessation of rocket attacks from West Bank, Lebanon or anywhere else into Israel, and

c) cessation of suicide bombings in Israel

?

And since adding items tends to grow toward demands for a complete solution, which items a)-e) on your Israeli concession list are you willing to take off to balance item a) (without b) and c)) on the Palestinian concession list, since I was asking only for a step toward a peace solution, not the entire solution?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;161294]...
Note that the relevant part of my [I]whole[/I] statement (underlining the part your response ignores) was, "That rules out, for example, such extreme proposals as ... withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from the occupied areas [U]without some equally large concession by Palestinians[/U]".
...[/QUOTE]Some of the accords between parties (including the Israeli government) had included an [b]Israeli[/b] concession in land to compensate for those settlements that would not be evacuated. Now you ask the concession would go the other way round ? In my opinion asking concessions from a state that has no control over it's borders (controlled by Israel), it's airspace (controlled by Israel), it's foreign trade (controlled by Israel), it's resources in water and land (controlled by Israel)... is indeed preposterous. It is like thieves asking concessions from the people they burglarised before returning the stolen goods.

What I see is Israeli and Palestinian politics being ruled by extreme and fringe parties. In Israel the main problem is the mainstream parties not willing to rule together and thus hostage of their allies. In the Palestinian territories I see corrupt politicians and extremists. All those marginal parties have an institutional interest in escalation : they need violence to remain in power. Do not forget that Israel helped creating Hamas to weaken the PLO, just like the USA helped Al Qaeda to combat the USSR occupants of Afghanistan. But once the devil is out of the box...

Jacob

cheesehead,
What are your suggestions for concession Palestinians should make to get back their own land?

I think the Arab peace plan of 2002 is a good basis for negotiation as are the Geneva accords. But both were rejected by all major Israeli parties but accepted by Fatah.

[quote=S485122;161311]Some of the accords between parties (including the Israeli government) had included an [B]Israeli[/B] concession in land to compensate for those settlements that would not be evacuated. Now you ask the concession would go the other way round?[/quote]No.

I'm not attaching the entire history of the region to my question. I'm not rehashing all the UN resolutions or all the past accords or broken agreements.

I'm just making a straightforward request in post #104. If you want to read more into it than is there, please state what that is nonaccusatorily (like, "... assuming that you meant to include the accord between such and such on such-and-such date providing such-and-such"), or just respond to my request as it stands.

Note that in post #106 above, in response to your "My opinion is that ...", I _asked_ whether a possible interpretation, in words that were slightly closer to what I wrote previously, was correct. I didn't respond by accusing you of malicious intent.

[quote]In my opinion asking concessions from a state that has no control over it's borders (controlled by Israel), it's airspace (controlled by Israel), it's foreign trade (controlled by Israel), it's resources in water and land (controlled by Israel)... is indeed preposterous. It is like thieves asking concessions from the people they burglarised before returning the stolen goods.[/quote]Pretending that there are no alternatives does not impress me. For example, even little-old-bystander-I know that one concession Hamas [U]could[/U] make is to plainly and unambiguously acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist. I'm not saying that (large) concession is necessarily appropriate for inclusion in your response to my request, but it (along with the other three possible concessions I listed above) _is_ a simple demonstration that your contention (that asking the Palestinians for concessions is preposterous) is a false contention. There are many other possible concessions of various magnitude. I've listed four possible concessions with very little effort; I don't believe that _you_ can't think of any (probably better) others.

So how about responding to my request in good faith (or plainly stating that you wish not to), instead of making false assertions about what is or is not preposterous?

And ... is the interpretation I stated in #106 a proper one for your "My opinion is that ..." statement?

[quote=garo;161333]cheesehead,
What are your suggestions for concession Palestinians should make to get back their own land?[/quote]I have no such suggestions. I think both tha and you probably have much better ideas about possible concessions than I do.

Furthermore, "get back their own land" is a very complicated notion in that area. So I was just asking about rocket attacks, for now.

[quote]I think the Arab peace plan of 2002 is a good basis for negotiation as are the Geneva accords.[/quote]May they be read online somewhere?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;161261]tha, garo,

May I have, from each of you, practical, non-cynical ideas on how to stop or [I]greatly[/I] reduce rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel?
[/QUOTE]

I started another thread in this forum with a fully neutral title. That thread was merged with this one for a while, but later split again when garo changed the thread title back to it's original without my consent. It gave me the feeling most US and European negotiators have when dealing with the powers opposing Israel. They make promises, but stab you in the back when you hand them a concession. My thread with the neutral title 'Gaza situation' on the forum has been altered despite the fact that it was fully within the rules of the forum thanks to the help of one of the moderators. Since I can no longer rely on my postings here being kept mine I have chosen not to participate any further. If you want to we can continue this debate elsewhere. Notice that my first posting on this topic called for the constructive thinking in the same way.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle_East_peace_proposals[/url]

Specifically:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Accord[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative[/url]

This paragraph from the Geneva Accord sums up my position:

The [B]Draft Permanent Status Agreement[/B], better known as the [B]Geneva Accord[/B] or [B]Geneva Initiative[/B], is an extra-governmental and therefore unofficial peace proposal meant to solve the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict"]Israeli-Palestinian conflict[/URL]. It would give [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian"]Palestinians[/URL] almost all of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank"]West Bank[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip"]Gaza Strip[/URL] and part of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem"]Jerusalem[/URL], drawing [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel"]Israel[/URL]'s borders close to what existed before the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War"]1967 war[/URL]. In return for removing most of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement"]Israeli settlements[/URL] in those areas, the Palestinians would limit their "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return"]right of return[/URL]" to Israel to a number specified by Israel and will drop all other claims and demands from Israel.

tha: I do not wish to get side-tracked into renewed bickering about the thread title. The threads were merged when cheesehead suggested it and you seemed to agree. I reverted the title when cheesehead expressed his regret and at the same time asked both you and cheesehead to let me know which posts of yours should I separate out. You either did not read that post or chose to ignore it and got rather annoyed. I resent the accusation of back-stabbing and I think you should apologise for it given that I acted in good faith and gave both you and cheesehead a chance to select the posts to revert back to your thread at the time I reverted the title. I had nothing to do with the subsequent change of your thread title and I have not at any point edited any of your posts.

Evidence that Israeli claims of self-defence and Palestinian militants firing should be taken at best with a pinch of salt.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/02/israel-cameraman-gaza-victim[/url]

[QUOTE=garo;161366]tha: I do not wish to get side-tracked into renewed bickering about the thread title. The threads were merged when cheesehead suggested it and you seemed to agree. I reverted the title when cheesehead expressed his regret and at the same time asked both you and cheesehead to let me know which posts of yours should I separate out. You either did not read that post or chose to ignore it and got rather annoyed. I resent the accusation of back-stabbing and I think you should apologise for it given that I acted in good faith and gave both you and cheesehead a chance to select the posts to revert back to your thread at the time I reverted the title. I had nothing to do with the subsequent change of your thread title and I have not at any point edited any of your posts.[/QUOTE]

Preposterous, when cheesehead expressed his regret, (posting #34) that was formulated exactly so that it expresses an apology to me for having thought changing this thread to a more neutral title would make the participants that had posted non constructive accusations more willing to work towards understanding the issues or helping to formulate an answer to it. His posting was after another one rant that called for obstruction of a western country and to help inflict dictatorship over the poor people in Gaza by a terrorist group that lacks enough support from the local people in Gaza but instead thrives on the support from the rulers in Tehran. Post #34 was certainly not a call to revert to the one sided title. But of course, you thought that your biased articles had more impact than the Stratfor analysis. I think you are wrong.

Your 'offer' to separate the threads again was acted upon, that is how the tread became active again.

If you had nothing to do with changing the title of that thread and omitting the word 'Gaza' from it, than you still have the supermod priviliges to undo that or call upon your colleague to undo that.

You can post in forum feedback about changing the title of your thread. I am not going to bicker.

[QUOTE=garo;161372]You can post in forum feedback about changing the title of your thread. I am not going to bicker.[/QUOTE]

You mean, you do want to bicker, but just on the topic of Gaza, you do not want to participate in creating a solution for Gaza. And no, I don't think there is a need for forum feedback section to have fundamentals of forum posting being enforced.

I posted my preferred solution to Gaza a few posts up.

[QUOTE=garo;161364]It would give Palestinians ... part of Jerusalem[/QUOTE]
Jerusalem is a "burdensome stone." Many that attempt to deal with it will be "hurt" thereby. Other territory and settlements aside, Jersusalem will continue to be _the_ ultimate sticking point in future negotiations.

[quote=Uncwilly;161376]Jerusalem is a "burdensome stone." Many that attempt to deal with it will be "hurt" thereby. Other territory and settlements aside, Jersusalem will continue to be _the_ ultimate sticking point in future negotiations.[/quote]

I agree but I don't see any solution in which a part of Jerusalem is not given to Palestinians.

Why does anyone care?

Unless the Israelis & Palestinians actually come up with something that would make anybody vote with his feet and move there, this should be treated as the UFC/Wrestling on a national level.

Hopefully someone throws a nuke soon or I'll start watching re-runs of WWII on the History Channel.

The Israelis aren't planning on giving themselves a constitution. (The "Chosen People" and "Holy Land"? Gimme a break, man!) Tragically their current rules & regulations based on the importance of whether electicity is fire or not and when Sabbath begins when you're in orbit, is better than what the towelhead-intellectuals can come up with for a 'Constitution of Palestine':

[QUOTE]ARTICLE 4
1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.
3. Arabic shall be the official language.
[/QUOTE]

As an apatheist with strong tendencies towards full-blown atheism, I'm concerned that those dunces this will make this take precedence over everything else.

The US constitution doesn't even mention Christianity, but the police will happily send a S.W.A.T team to break into your house and throw you into jail if you're married to a guy and a girl at the same time.

Fat chance that the Palestinians will let you live in peace.

[QUOTE]ARTICLE 9
All Palestinians are equal under the law and judiciary without discrimination because of race, sex, color, religion, political views, or disability.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, right. All abortions are illegal - especially for men.

[QUOTE]ARTICLE 21
1. The economic system in Palestine shall be based on the principle of free market economy. The Executive Authority may establish companies which shall be organized in accordance with law.
2. The freedom of economic activity is guaranteed. The law shall organize its supervision rules and limitations.
3. Private property shall be protected and, shall not be expropriated except in the public interest, and for a fair compensation in accordance with the law, or pursuant to a judicial orders.
4. Confiscation shall be in accordance with a judicial order.[/QUOTE]

This I'd be funny if it weren't for real. 21.1, 21.2, 21.3 contain functional contradictions. 21.2 demonstrates that the authors have no idea what they are talking about.

If you look at the way the US is treating it's own constitution, it's really important to be a little more explicit, maybe with examples and graphs. I'm completely amazed that stuff like the PATRIOT act the FCC exist.

Don;t mean to beat a dead horse but a trio of reports substantiate allegations of war crimes I made in this thread. Wonder if cheesehead, tha or the other have any comments apart form the usual ones that denigrate the source.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian[/url]
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090323/wl_nm/us_un_rights_israel_1[/url]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7952603.stm[/url]

[QUOTE=garo;166449]Don;t mean to beat a dead horse but a trio of reports substantiate allegations of war crimes I made in this thread. Wonder if cheesehead, tha or the other have any comments apart form the usual ones that denigrate the source.
[/QUOTE]

After the flurry of reports debunking the myths about Israeli war crimes in the general media, including the UN declaring that their school never got bombed in the first place, a nearby field that did get bombed got bombed after there was fired from that field, the number of victims was only a fraction of previously reported, and they happened to be fighters rather than schoolchildren and refugees, I don't care to draw up a complete list of reports here. Bottom line: In a war the truth is the first casualty and that was especially so in this conflict. War crimes were structurally on the side of Hamas and avoided by the Israeli army at all costs.

Actually, Hamas never concentrated on fighting Israel. The rocket attacks on Israel were there to distract the European and American public. The real war is Iran versus Egypt and Saudi-Arabia. Hamas is first and foremost trying to overthrow the regimes in Cairo and Riyad. The operation 'Cast Lead' was to show the people in Gaza that Hamas can be defeated. The actual defeat now will have to be done by Egypt and Saudi-Arabia. They are setting up new terror groups in Gaza to counter Hamas. Officially they also fight Israel just like Hamas, but the real target is limiting Iran's terror infrastructure. So basically, the Palestinians die because Iran fights a war against Sunni muslim countries and uses them as foot soldiers. Israelis die because the foot soldiers and the public in the west must be lured into believing this is not an inter islamic war.

The Arab people of former British mandate Palestine and the Israeli's have no real conflict, they get along pretty well in daily life. One day when Arabs will have democracy and its institutions peace will break out. And not a day before.

Oh come on. Did you even bother to read the links? The debunking of the myths is in your head. Among the reports are accounts published by an Israeli college of Israeli soldiers talking about the atrocities they committed. I must commend the sections of Israeli society that allowed these reports to come out but it is quite clear that those "debunking myths of Israeli war crimes" have their heads in the sand or up where the sun doesn't shine.

Even a cursory examination of these reports makes clear that your claim "War crimes were structurally on the side of Hamas and avoided by the Israeli army at all costs." is utterly and totally ludicrous and worthy of Orwell's Newspeak.

I have presented evidence to support my claims, you have provided some hand-waving. Show me some credible evidence that the UN refugee centre was not bombed using white phosphorus. Video evidence would be really nice.

[quote=tha;166463]After the flurry of reports debunking the myths about Israeli war crimes in the general media[/quote]
tha, what kind of media do you read? I can't find support for any of your claims anywhere. (Except the usual sites full of fanatic conspiracy theories, which I wouldn't classify as "general media".) This is pure fiction, or probably just trolling.

Btw, I searched for your claim about (one of or all?) the UN schools in Gaza at the UN official web site. I only found [URL="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3822b5e39951876a85256b6e0058a478/895c4b2406ffaedc8525756e00505462%21OpenDocument"]this[/URL] rebuttal of a series of claims by [SIZE=2]Abraham Rabinovich, which was printed i a few papers[/SIZE].

[QUOTE=S00113;166536]
Btw, I searched for your claim about (one of or all?) the UN schools in Gaza at the UN official web site. I only found [URL="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3822b5e39951876a85256b6e0058a478/895c4b2406ffaedc8525756e00505462%21OpenDocument"]this[/URL] rebuttal of a series of claims by [SIZE=2]Abraham Rabinovich, which was printed i a few papers[/SIZE].[/QUOTE]On the website of the OCHA oPt UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory

[i]Clarification: While correctly reported on 6 January that Israeli shells landed outside an UNRWA school in Jabalia, resulting in an initial estimate of 30 fatalities, the Situation Report of 7 January referred to ‘the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalia.’ The Humanitarian Coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. According to UNRWA, the number of fatalities is over 40, many of them among the 1,368 people who had taken refuge in the school.[/i]

[url]http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_02_english.pdf[/url]

South African judge Richard Goldstone presented his report on the Gaza war. The first "independent" report by a internationally respected jurist. Maybe gives some food for thought for all those here who denied that Israel committed any war crimes, called them myths and so on and so forth.

[quote]lists numerous violations by Israel during its January offensive, including the targeting, with white phosphorus shells, of Gaza’s Al Quds and Al Wafa hospitals, and a UN compound sheltering 600 refugees.It lists complaints that Israeli troops used Palestinian civilians, often blindfolded, as “human shields” while searching suspect buildings.

And it says Israeli forces also struck at non-military targets such as water plants and Gaza’s only flour mill, along with a sewage treatment plant, which led to 200,000 cubic metres of raw sewage flooding nearby farmland.
Most bizarre was the destruction of a giant chicken farm which supplied Gaza with 10 per cent of its eggs.

“Armoured bulldozers systematically flattened the chicken coups, killing all 31,000 chickens inside,” it reports. “The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces,” says the report.

Justice Goldstone writes that the evidence, collected over several visits to Gaza, indicates that civilian targets were deliberately hit, a violation of the rules of war.

“There were almost no mistakes made according to the government of Israel,” the report says, describing the attacks as “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”.

The report also condemns attacks from Palestinian territory in the form of unguided missiles that fell on Israeli settlements shortly before Israel launched its campaign. It says that besides the three Israeli civilians and one soldier killed in these attacks, trauma was spread among the entire population as rockets fell among them.

[/quote]A similar report led the security council to create its first war crimes court, for former Yugoslavia, in 1993, with Justice Goldstone appointed as its prosecutor. More courts followed for Rwanda, Sierra Leone, East Timor and Sudan. But somehow I sense that we shouldn't count on one being set in this case.

[url]http://www.afsc.org/story/ending-oppression-end-violence-gaza-escalation-context[/url]

Tough read there, Mike. I have the greatest respect for the AFSC. The descriptions are not a surprise, but horrifying all the same.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/toll-israel-gaza-conflict.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;378245][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/toll-israel-gaza-conflict.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

The Gaza body count is now considerably over 200.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html"]Opinion piece in the Washington Post[/URL]. Relevant to the mentioned body count.

There are very many assertions in Krauthammer's piece. Just in the first paragraph:
[QUOTE]Israel accepts an Egyptian-proposed Gaza cease-fire; [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-accepts-truce-plan-hamas-balks/2014/07/15/04373008-0bf5-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html"]Hamas keeps firing[/URL]. Hamas deliberately aims rockets at civilians; [B]Israel painstakingly tries to avoid them, actually telephoning civilians in the area and dropping warning charges, so-called [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/14/video-this-is-what-an-israeli-roof-knock-looks-like/"]roof knocking[/URL].[/B][/QUOTE]

Leaving aside the deliberate targeting of buildings which contain more people than the alleged target, where are these so-helpfully alerted persons to flee?

On the whole, I am far more persuaded by Judge Goldstone's investigative results than I am by Krauthammer's "everyone knows" claims.

[QUOTE]Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent “cycle of violence.” This is absurd. [B]What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting?[/B] [B]Everyone knows[/B] Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows the proudly self-declared raison d’etre of Hamas: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.[/QUOTE]

The interest of Israel is in taking more and more of the remains of Palestinian land, and in such things as water rights. This is a situation of extremely unsymmetrical warfare. How is it that one Israeli prisoner of war (they called it kidnapping), offsets hundreds or thousands of Palestinians, including children, rounded up and imprisoned? Would you not fight back with whatever was available?

If Israel is being so careful, how is it that they manage to kill so many? Is destruction of sanitation, water, and food-related facilities being careful?

Finally, do you remember how the modern State of Israel came to be? Do you remember the Nakba? Do you remember terrorists like David Ben Gurion and other "heroes," who bombed, slaughtered, and drove out the inhabitants of land they wished to seize? This state exists on stolen land, and is constantly stealing more with settlement construction, wall building, Jewish-only road building, and on and on.

I abhor warfare. I don't want anyone shooting at anyone else. I am ashamed of the United States' history of slaughter and dispossession. I am even more ashamed that my country supplies horrific weapons like white phosphorus shells and cluster bombs to the government of this oppressive rogue state.

None of this is intended as an assault on a religion. It is observing the acts of a nominally secular, democratic state, which is in fact a theocracy. It is observing a state that is heavily armed with modern weaponry taking revenge on a whole population for the acts of a few.

If there were real Israeli concern for the "success" of a Palestinian state, as Krauthammer claims, the state would not continue to appropriate land from the tiny portion still inhabited by Palestinians.

[url]https://twitter.com/kncukier/status/491653015380586497/photo/1[/url]

No comment

[QUOTE=xilman;378907][url]https://twitter.com/kncukier/status/491653015380586497/photo/1[/url]

No comment[/QUOTE]

Well, here is my comment:

Every Israeli death is a win for Hamas. Every Palestinian death is a win for Hamas. So, if you are not observing what is happening over there it looks like Hamas has scored a total of 525 points vs. 0 for the Israeli Army.

Actually it is a bit cynical that the misunderstanding of the conflict in Europe and to a lesser extent America encourages Hamas to put extra civilians in the fire zone. The people die to get us involved and stop the shooting.

There are two things different this time from previous wars with Hamas. First, Europe has just spent more than two years of Syrian towns being bombed on a massive scale by its own government and doing nothing. Oh, and there was/is Iraq and Libya and there was turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere. By now, many people either got used to it or started to get the point that western Israel may not be the cause of the conflict.

Second, apart from Qatar and a government in Ankara that shows some internal cracks, all Arab countries support Israel this time, and not the Palestinians. So maybe Hamas is doing something wrong.

On the other hand, so far the war is going pretty much as Hamas had planned it. There are still difficult weeks ahead for the Israeli people, and hence for the people of Gaza.

I think you are the one being cynical with a comment like that. And if every Palestinian death is a win for Hamas why does Israel continue to bomb areas where they know there are civilians. Does the Israeli Army want Hamas to win?

[QUOTE=tha;378922]Well, here is my comment:

Every Israeli death is a win for Hamas. Every Palestinian death is a win for Hamas. So, if you are not observing what is happening over there it looks like Hamas has scored a total of 525 points vs. 0 for the Israeli Army.

Actually it is a bit cynical ...[/QUOTE]

I am at a loss to understand the motivations of the two sides.

Right now there is a ceasefire. A twelve-hour version has just expired, but hefty negotiations seem to have "bought" another four hours. If that is possible, why isn't it possible to have an indefinite ceasefire while the negotiations continue.

I know I'm naive. I have poor understanding of the history and injustices that have occurred and I know it's offensively glib to talk like I just have. But can anyone explain in simple terms why an indefinite ceasefire (and further negotiations without fighting) is so difficult at the moment?

Try "A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Bickerton & Klausner.
[URL]http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/display_product_info.jsp?isbn=9780205968138[/URL]

(or earlier versions)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379107]I know I'm naive. I have poor understanding of the history and injustices that have occurred and I know it's offensively glib to talk like I just have. But can anyone explain in simple terms why an indefinite ceasefire (and further negotiations without fighting) is so difficult at the moment?[/QUOTE]

Equally naive. But my guess is it is a combination of ideology (read: "My God is bigger than your God"), and money (read: "I can make more money than you can sending our young (along with some very expensive hardware) to kill and die").

Sorry... That might come across as cynical....

[QUOTE=chalsall;379116]Sorry... That might come across as cynical....[/QUOTE]
I think it's really hard not to be cynical. I certainly am. But cynicism from an ignorant starting point is rarely helpful, and that's something I am guilty of.

[QUOTE=chalsall;379116]But my guess is it is a combination of ideology ... and money [/QUOTE]

I think a more practical explanation is that one side feels that a threat of the ceasefire ending will spur the other side to negotiate in ernest. For example, Israel may feel that the Palestinians are tired of the slaughter but Israel wants either more tunnels emptied or destroyed. By placing a four-hour limit on the ceasefire, Israel keeps pressure on the Palestinian negotiators to give some on the tunnels. Israel can always grant more extensions if progress is being made but a final agreement has not been reached.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379107]I am at a loss to understand the motivations of the two sides.

But can anyone explain in simple terms why an indefinite ceasefire (and further negotiations without fighting) is so difficult at the moment?[/QUOTE]

Simple terms may be asked too much. We (all western countries) are already throwing tremendous resources in at dealing with this conflict and if it was simple it for sure would have been resolved by now. It is known how it needs to be done, but accomplishing it is very hard, even harder than trying to explain the conflict. I remain optimistic in the long term, but many dangerous times lie just ahead of us.

We know a thing or two about math here, so I guess most people here have an understanding of how a computer model of the weather works and how computers can make pretty reliable forecasts. Could we make a model of the world as a whole and predict conflicts which end up in wars and how they might end and could such a 'turned into numbers and formulas' model focus on the Middle East in detail?
The answer is more or less yes, but for an understanding of the conflict it is enough to understand the main mechanisms. The common views held in Europe on the conflict is totally distorted by our own experiences and lack thereof. A computer model based of the grasping of the conflict as put forward by western newspaper articles and other reporting would go wrong at the very first iteration.

Each person or group of people, large or small, attempts to maintain and expand its base of power. Not necessarily the best practice in each and every circumstance but it is what best explains history in general. If you want to have a grasp of the Middle-East make sure you know about 120 influential groups, like goverments, tribes, religions, bussinesses, cultures and so on. Try to figure out what base of power each has, how the mechanisms work to maintain those bases, and make sure you now the geography and history of the Middle-East. Also understand that a desert culture is very different from those in a rain water engulfed Europe. For centuries it has been OK to kill other people or complete tribes to ensure exclusive access to drinkable water. There was not enough for all to survive.

Also understand all powers outside the Middle East, their interests and perceived so, and their misunderstandings of the region, particular when democracies are involved.

Now, for a moment divide the world in two regions. There where the industrial revolution took place before energy resources were found if any, and where no industrial revolution took place or only after massive energy resources (OK, oil) were discovered.
Where are the main international conflicts? Where those two regions border each other. The eastern Ukraine and Israel are two good examples of today.

The industrial revolution shifted power in Europe and elsewhere from fiefdoms that based their power on the amount of arable land they could defend to access to the workforce. Democracy arose because too many people joined the workforce and took up knowledge jobs to keep any strongly hierarchical system workable. We did not choose to live in a democracy, we forced it upon ourselves.

In the case of the war going on in Gaza today, neither the people in Israel nor the Arabs who live in the former British mandate of Palestine are interested in fighting this war and incurring so many losses. Actually, if you go there you will see that they cooperate very well on a day to day basis. Notice for example that during the cease fire of yesterday the markets in Gaza were displaying abundant supply of fresh foods, merchandisers polishing their tomatoes and other fruits, all of it trucked into the Gaza strip through Israeli border crossings.

The main forces keeping this artificial conflict going are the ayatollahs in Iran and the sheiks in Qatar. Even Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and almost every other Arab country in the Middle East is squarely behind Israel this time and they give full support to them. The reason is their conflict with Iran in Syria and Iraq which they very rightfully consider an existential threat to their being.

There is going to be peace between the people in Gaza, the people in the West bank and the people of Israel. But only after the conlicts between Saudi-Arabia and Iran are resolved. Both the people of Israel and their government and the influential Arabs in the West bank have agreed and committed to the final peace agreements long time ago and maintained them. Copies can be found in each capital city in Europe, the US and elsewhere. They include maps, responsibilities, rights, duties and so on, just like as if it was Europe. In essence Israel, Jordan and the Arabs in former British Palestine will form a unity very similar to and based on the BeNeLux treaty of 1944. (where Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg aligned their common interests)

Right now, if implemented, it would create a Palestinian state with Arabs living in prosperty and freedom, and that would no doubt spill over to other countries in the region of which the governments are much too keen to prevent that from happening.

There are many wars raging in the Middle East right now where so many more people die and human rights are being trampled upon to such horrifying extend that the Gaza conflict looks like a civilized discussion in comparison. Let us focus on those conflicts instead of our Pavlov reactions to this conflict. If we divide up Iraq into three entities (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia with sustainable economies, e.g. oil revenues), create some form of independant enclaves in Syria for minorities etc. we probably do more towards resolving the current Gaza conflict than anything else. Cease fires are for outsiders who panic when something happens that they had not cared about when the conflict was brewing, the rockets were falling by the thousands and they did nothing to stop them.

The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense
 

[QUOTE][B]There are many wars raging in the Middle East right now [/B]where so many more people die and human rights are being trampled upon to such horrifying extend that [B]the Gaza conflict looks like a civilized discussion in comparison.[/B][/QUOTE]

While the first part emphasized above is true, it does not rationalize the second part. This whole situation abounds with false equivalents.

Here is a more detailed analysis than I can muster, with Chapter and Verse of International Law-
[url]http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_palestinians_right_to_self-defense_20140723[/url]

[QUOTE]If Israel insists, as the Bosnian Serbs did in Sarajevo, on using the weapons of industrial warfare against a helpless civilian population then that population has an inherent right to self-defense under [URL="http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml"]Article 51[/URL] of the United Nations Charter. The international community will have to either act to immediately halt Israeli attacks and lift the blockade of Gaza or acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to use weapons to defend themselves. No nation, including any in the Muslim world, appears willing to intervene to protect the Palestinians. No world body, including the United Nations, appears willing or able to pressure Israel through sanctions to conform to the norms of international law. And the longer we in the world community fail to act, the worse the spiral of violence will become.
Israel does not have the right to drop 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bombs on Gaza. It does not have the right to pound Gaza with heavy artillery and with shells lobbed from gunboats. It does not have the right to send in mechanized ground units or to [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/22/in-the-fight-between-israel-and-hamas-gazas-hospitals-are-in-the-middle/"]target hospitals[/URL], schools and mosques, along with Gaza’s water and electrical systems. It does not have the right to displace over 100,000 people from their homes. The entire occupation, under which Israel has nearly complete control of the sea, the air and the borders of Gaza, is illegal.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;379300]... a more detailed analysis than I can muster, with Chapter and Verse of International Law-
[/QUOTE]

Hmm, if you like International Law so much, can you explain to us why for each and every UN member state, for each and every people, the status of 'refugee' is the same, except for the palestinians? Can you explain to us why International Law should be implemented in such a way that the UN has virtually no budget available for the refugees of Syria, Iraq, or basically each and every region in the world, and the bulk of the resources go to palestinian refugees? And can you tell me if it is in accordance with International Law to have almost each and every UN school for children to be used as a weapon depot?

[QUOTE=tha;379335]...
And can you tell me if it is in accordance with International Law to have almost each and every UN school for children to be used as a weapon depot?[/QUOTE]According to who ?

I am afraid your sources are perhaps a wee bit biased.

Jacob

[QUOTE=tha;379335]Hmm, if you like International Law so much, can you explain to us why for each and every UN member state, for each and every people, the status of 'refugee' is the same, except for the Palestinians?
...[/QUOTE]Because at the time the problem originated (mandate of the UK over Palestine) the Palestinians were stateless and did not fall within the "normal" refugee status.

You could read the Wikipedia article for a more objective depiction of the "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East", criticism and defence are both covered.

Do try to take into account the amount of money spent on spin by lobbies linked to Israel, compare it by the budget of their enemies and do not forget what the public relation companies are capable off (see f.i. the Nayirah testimony organised by the PR company Hill & Knowlton.)

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;379341]Because at the time the problem originated (mandate of the UK over Palestine) the Palestinians were stateless and did not fall within the "normal" refugee status.[/QUOTE]

You can not be serious. When the British rule ended the area of the mandate was divided into an Arab land and Jewish land. The jews declared their state to be named Israel. The Arabs claimed it was mainly part of Jordan and Egypt. It for sure remained like that until 1967. The term Palestine then would have suggested two Jewish states. The whole idea of an Arab state of Palestine did not come up until way after 1967 when the PLO fought a war against Jordan. More Palestinian people got killed in wars with other Arabs than all conflicts and wars with Israel, before and after.

Well, at least we can be lucky that from the time the current Gaza war started all atrocities in Syria and Iraq have magically ended. As it looks from here in Europe.

This five minute [URL="http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Middle-East-Problem.html#.U9j9JKP1ujO"]video[/URL] claims the Middle East Problem may be the hardest conflict to solve, but it's the easiest to explain.

[QUOTE=wblipp;379349]This five minute [URL="http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Middle-East-Problem.html#.U9j9JKP1ujO"]video[/URL] claims the Middle East Problem may be the hardest conflict to solve, but it's the easiest to explain.[/QUOTE]
It would seem that it's also one of the easiest conflicts for practising the art of portraying, in a 5-minute film, one side as completely blameless and the other as having only murderous intentions. It seems to me that (1) a similar film could easily be made supporting the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries which would be equally beguiling, and (2) the one-sided tone of the film may be a good illustration of the completely blinkered view shown by both sides in the conflict and is in itself the reason why the Middle East Problem is so hard to solve now, irrespective of the historical events since 1948.

Remarks removed out of a sense of futility.
[URL="http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/24/hiding-war-crimes-behind-a-question/"][/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379350]It seems to me that (1) a similar film could easily be made supporting the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries which would be equally beguiling, and (2) the one-sided tone of the film may be a good illustration of the completely blinkered view shown by both sides in the conflict[/QUOTE]

To use the terminology of Polarity Management, I think you are saying the film is accurate but incomplete. That's a much more constructive response than denouncing it as lies and propaganda - which is frankly the response I expected to see in the soapbox. Of course admitting that it is incomplete requires abandoning its "easy to explain" claim. But admitting it is accurate puts some hard truths on the table that don't always get aired.

[QUOTE=wblipp;379397]To use the terminology of Polarity Management, I think you are saying the film is accurate but incomplete. That's a much more constructive response than denouncing it as lies and propaganda - which is frankly the response I expected to see in the soapbox. Of course admitting that it is incomplete requires abandoning its "easy to explain" claim. But admitting it is accurate puts some hard truths on the table that don't always get aired.[/QUOTE]
Incomplete, yes. Lies and Propaganda? I did not use either term, but I implied propaganda and do indeed classify it as such. And propaganda has no place in discussion. Accurate? I shook my head in total disbelief when the film reached the point where it compared the two scenarios: Israel stops fighting, or Palestine stops fighting. The former apparently leads to annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel. The latter, according to the film, means immediate peace. Is that a hard fact and an accurate truth? Anyone?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379404]The latter, according to the film, means immediate peace. Is that a hard fact and an accurate truth? Anyone?[/QUOTE]

If you want to understand a people you could take a fingerprint of the nation. Countries that have equal fingerprints have about equal ways of thinking. You take a fingerprint of a country by looking at the fundamentals of a country. Let us compare The Netherlands, Denmark and Israel:

number of square miles: about equal.
amount of citizens: same category when compared to all nations.
hence population density: comparable to each other.
all three countries have a coastline, hence access to the seas.
national income: comparable.
distribution of incomes: about equal.
percentage of money earned in agriculture, industry and services: about equal.
size of parliament: equal.
number of political parties and spread of ideologies: same.
all three use coalition governments.
media landscape (number of independant newspapers, tv-channels etc): same.
average amount of time spent during working, leasure and home chores: comparable.

You can make the list longer, all fundamentals are equal. Israel stands apart from The Netherlands and Denmark in only a few fundamentals:

climate: sub-tropical vs moderate sea-climate.
form of statehood of surrounding countries: dictatorships vs other democracies.

The first has profound effects on the types of vegetation found the second on foreign policies.

Dutch, Danish and Israeli people think excactly alike.

To the credit of the Palestinian people, when asked about the three dreams they have it is:

A. a nice house or an apartment. (Noticed the tv-reports from Gaza? The houses and city dwellings look much better than any other Arab countriy with exception of the oil rich Gulf states and were mostly build before Israel withdrew form Gaza.)
B. a good education for their children, preferably in the US.
C. summer holidays, preferably in Europe.

Unfortunately, no one asks the Palestinians what they want. Decisions for them are taken mostly in Teheran and some in Doha. The ayatollahs are prepared to continue the war, even if they have to fight until the last Palestinian is dead.

Thanks. The political similarities and differences interest me especially.
[QUOTE=tha;379409][...]Let us compare The Netherlands, Denmark and Israel:
[...]
size of parliament: equal.
number of political parties and spread of ideologies: same.
all three use coalition governments.
[...]
Israel stands apart from The Netherlands and Denmark in only a few fundamentals:
[...]
form of statehood of surrounding countries: dictatorships vs other democracies.
[...]
[/QUOTE]
Israel is formally a democracy. But there are democracies and democracies. I grew up in one where the population was badly informed and deliberately misled by its primary media, particularly its popular newspapers. In my twenties I moved to another where the population was much better informed and could vote accordingly. Do you, or anyone else, know what sort of news and information the Israeli population receives on a day-to-day basis? In particular, are the pictures of death and destruction in Gaza brought to their homes? And do all political parties get a fair representation in the media, in particular those media with wide circulation? (These questions would be answered in the negative for many "democratic" countries in Europe. Does Israel do better?)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379427]
... In particular, are the pictures of death and destruction in Gaza brought to their homes? And do all political parties get a fair representation in the media, in particular those media with wide circulation? (These questions would be answered in the negative for many "democratic" countries in Europe. Does Israel do better?)[/QUOTE]

The Israeli people are known to be news junkies. They are intimately familiar with pratically every shot fired by either side and the results. Once again, keeping scores obscures the true nature of the conflict.
There is also a saying amongst them that if you have two jews, you have three opinions. The political parties are so spread and diverse that the Knesset resembles an arena.
The best explanation for the higher degree of diversity amongst the press and political parties when compared to Europe is historical and based on the time many jews lived in the diaspora.

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/30/us-mideast-gaza-usa-munitions-idUSKBN0FZ2EY20140730[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;379531][URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/30/us-mideast-gaza-usa-munitions-idUSKBN0FZ2EY20140730[/URL][/QUOTE]

Yeah, well. We've sent emergency resupplies of cluster bombs during past adventures.

Here's an article about Israeli media bias. This was really what I was trying to get at before.

[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/israeli-polls-support-gaza-campaign-media[/URL]

[QUOTE]Isaac Herzog, leader of the Labour party, said Israel was hardly a North Korea-style monolith. "Any issue in Israel is up for argument and debate, and the social networks are extremely active," he said. "But there is a national consensus [on the war]."
That consensus has been shaped in part by the media, which have largely focused on Israeli military casualties and rocket attacks, playing down Palestinian civilian deaths.
"The Israeli media is completely one-sided," said Orly Halpern, an Israeli journalist who writes the News Nosh, a daily review of the media for [URL="https://peacenow.org/issue.php?cat=news-nosh#.U9pMEP3EUfM"]Americans For Peace Now[/URL]. "You find references to Palestinian civilian casualties only deep in reports or on inside pages."
[...]
A notable exception is the left-leaning Haaretz, which carries reports of events in Gaza and commentary critical of the military operation. Its share of the market was less than 7% last year.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379546]Here's an article about Israeli media bias. This was really what I was trying to get at before.[/QUOTE]

Oh, well, you can believe what you want to believe but I have the impression that you only see what you want to see. Like so many other people in Europe you seem to see this conflict as a conflict between two European cultures. All the holes that than fall into this view by the unfolding events are then repaired by attributing absurd behaviour to one or both sides.

So, there is a guy in Israel with a view very far out of the Israeli center who rightly so considers everyone to be far away from his view of point. And since he is right and the rest of society is wrong the society as a whole is one sided. With the exception of the newspaper he likes to read.

I read Ha'aretz too, I just don't agree with everything they write.

The same media group think he mentions can be found here in The Netherlands. All Dutch newspapers blamed Putin and his Russian separatists for the downing of MH-17. All Kremlin views on the event were referred to as propaganda or absurd denials. It doesn't mean they are all wrong.

This Gaza war is fought by conscripts from throughout the country. The soldiers work in shifts. Even if there was a news black-out, there is absolutely not, all people would still know about the details. They know each and every tactic by Hamas to put civilians in harms way. They are the experts in getting round that, like the knock on the roof, which requires excellent cannons and solid experience. You cannot train an entire nation in these counter tactics and than assume the people not to know what is going on.

A Venerable Jewish Voice for Peace -by Amy Goodman
 

[url]http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_venerable_jewish_voice_for_peace_20140730[/url]

[QUOTE]Henry Siegman, a venerable dean of American Jewish thought and president of the U.S./Middle East Project, sat down for an interview with the “Democracy Now!” news hour. An ordained rabbi, Siegman is the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress and former executive head of the Synagogue Council of America, two of the major, mainstream Jewish organizations in the United States. He says the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories must end.
“There is a Talmudic saying in the ‘Ethics of the Fathers,’” Siegman started, “‘Don’t judge your neighbor until you can imagine yourself in his place.’ So, my first question when I deal with any issue related to the Israeli-Palestinian issue: What if we were in their place?”
He elaborated, “No country and no people would live the way Gazans have been made to live ... our media rarely ever points out that these are people who have a right to live a decent, normal life, too. And they, too, must think, ‘What can we do to put an end to this?’”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=tha;379559]Oh, well, you can believe what you want to believe but I have the impression that you only see what you want to see.[/QUOTE]

I think the irony of this sentence is totally lost upon the writer. :smile:

[QUOTE=wblipp;379397]To use the terminology of Polarity Management, I think you are saying the film is accurate but incomplete. That's a much more constructive response than denouncing it as lies and propaganda - which is frankly the response I expected to see in the soapbox. Of course admitting that it is incomplete requires abandoning its "easy to explain" claim. But admitting it is accurate puts some hard truths on the table that don't always get aired.[/QUOTE]

Ok here is a challenge for you. Try and come up with an equally "accurate but incomplete" film telling the other side of the story. Putting yourself in the other person's shoes is often instructive. And if you come up with what I ask for perhaps I can conclude your post was not partisan. Frankly, it is insulting the intelligence of your reader by presenting only one side of the story and pretending that the "accuracy" is more important than the one-sidedness. So you up for it? Shouldn't take more than 15 minutes of googling.

[QUOTE=garo;379606]I think the irony of this sentence is totally lost upon the writer. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Uh...Ya reckon?

First read this: [url]http://eepurl.com/Z49o9[/url]

And then this: [url]http://eepurl.com/0doYb[/url]

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063[/url]

[QUOTE=garo;379607]Ok here is a challenge for you. Try and come up with an equally "accurate but incomplete" film telling the other side of the story. Putting yourself in the other person's shoes is often instructive.[/QUOTE]

Well, let us start with who is the other person? There are so many actors in this battle. I hope you do not see the Arab population of the former British mandate of Palestine as the other person. They suffer, they suffer big time, no one on either side is questioning that. Do you mean the guy who pays all the money to prop up the UN schools and mosques with weapon caches? The same guy who determines how much money goes to Hamas and how much goes to Islamic Jihad? Do you want such a film to be targeted at a public in Farsi, in Arabic or in English? People that speak those languages have quite different backgrounds that needs to be tailored to from a [STRIKE]propaganda[/STRIKE] directors perspective.

If I am asked to speak on the conflict I often ask the public when they think the hostilities began. Answers that come up most often are 1880, 1948 and 1967 plus a multitude of other random years plus some years of biblical origin. The real start of the fighting is virtually not known to most people. Most films that take sides make use of this by setting the origings of the conflict by whatever suits them. The real year, by the way, was 1920. The fundamental cause was the British, having taken over rule from the Turks, imposing European human rights on the Arab tribes, without there being an infrastructure to support those rights. As a result the Arab tribe leaders could no longer keep their societies stable. So they organised revolts against the British and jews alike, because the jews that originated from Eastern and Western Europe had introduced egalitarian communities with high welfare that the muslim population aspired to as well, adding to the instability within the Arab tribes.

The other most common trick that most films etc. use to misportray the conflict is to claim that it is about land or water.

Can I just submit the entire footage available on [URL="http://www.memri.org/"]Memri[/URL]? No, that does certainly not meet your criterium for accurate. Memri points out the how wrong the propaganda is. However, since there is very little if any freedom of the press in those countries, it does meet the criterium for accurate where it is broadcasted.

So, if you want it an accurate, but incomplete view as a film, there is a sway of films and movies that portray daily live in Gaza or the West-Bank. They usually are not incorrect, but they include no background whatsoever on the origins. [B]"Soldier on the Roof"[/B] was a documentary that I could watch and that did not contain any fragments that would indicate it was a inaccurate portrait.

But what sense does it make to pick a film or movie with these criteria if there is no freedom of the press including the airing of TV in any Arab country, including the territories that are under the control of Hamas or Fatah/PA?

[QUOTE=garo;379606]I think the irony of this sentence is totally lost upon the writer. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Well, I needed much more time than the average hour a day to keep up with developments in the past month. I made enough time available to follow the other Middle East developments as well. Did you know that 5 times as many Arabs died in Syria than in Gaza last month due to armed conflict? The numbers from Iraq are not very reliable, but the stream of refugees fleeing Iraw is appalling and no ones notices because TV news stations and newspapers cannot cover more than one conflict at a time and Gaza is at least familiar to us.

I even took the effort to figure out where the neighborhoods are where the TV-pictures come from and what damage, if any, was done. So I think that I want to see what is being done and how it affects both sides.

Just today I was watching Dutch National Television. We have three such TV stations and access to these stations a given to about each and every thinkable group who can muster some support. The muslim broadcasting group had another hour today. Virtually no native Dutch people watch it, and if you by accident did you may not have noticed what was being said.

Apparently the Turkish AK Party managed to get control over the broadcast. First they redefined 'european parliamentary democracy' to mean 'imperialism' and then they redefined 'muslim rule' to mean 'democracy'. Oh, and don't forget to vote for Erdohan in the upcoming presidential election where Erdohan is going to do the Putin trick to circumvent the maximum amount of terms restriction.

I wish more western people would watch Middle Eastern TV programs.

Says it pretty well:

[quote=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063]

If Israel wanted to kill civilians, it is terrible at it. ISIS killed more civilians in two days (700 plus) than Israel has in two weeks. Imagine if ISIS or Hamas had Israel's weapons, army, air force, US support, and nuclear arsenal. Their enemies would've been annihilated long ago. If Israel truly wanted to destroy Gaza, it could do so within a day, right from the air. Why carry out a more painful, expensive ground incursion that risks the lives of its soldiers?

***

[B]4. Does Hamas really use its own civilians as human shields?[/B]

Ask Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas how he feels about Hamas' tactics.

"What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?" he asks. [URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/07/hamas_is_destroying_gaza_the_palestinian_militant_organization_is_sacrificing.html"]"I don't like trading in Palestinian blood."[/URL]

It isn't just speculation anymore that Hamas puts its civilians in the line of fire.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri plainly admitted on Gazan national TV that the [URL="http://youtu.be/eQ6S0-o3uFI"]human shield strategy has proven "very effective."[/URL]

The UN relief organization UNRWA issued a [URL="http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools"]furious condemnation of Hamas[/URL] after discovering hidden rockets in not one, [URL="http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools"]but two[/URL] children's schools in Gaza last week.

Hamas fires thousands of rockets into Israel, rarely killing any civilians or causing any serious damage. It launches them from densely populated areas, including hospitals and schools.

Why launch rockets without causing any real damage to the other side, inviting great damage to your own people, then putting your own [I]civilians[/I] in the line of fire when the response comes? Even when the IDF warns civilians to evacuate their homes before a strike, why does [URL="http://www.smh.com.au/world/thousands-of-gaza-civilians-flee-ignoring-hamas-advice-to-stay-20140714-zt6cs.html"]Hamas tell them to stay put[/URL]?

Because Hamas knows its cause is helped when Gazans die. If there is one thing that helps Hamas most -- one thing that gives it any legitimacy -- it is dead civilians. Rockets in schools. Hamas exploits the deaths of its children to gain the world's sympathy. It uses them as a weapon.

You don't have to like what Israel is doing to abhor Hamas. Arguably, Israel and Fatah are morally equivalent. Both have a lot of right on their side. Hamas, on the other hand, doesn't have a shred of it.[/quote]By Geneva Convention:

If Gaza civilians volunteer to be human shields, they thus voluntarily become combatants and legitimate targets.

If Gaza civilians are involuntarily forced to be human shields or are tricked into being human shields unknowingly (such as by Hamas's hiding weapons in schools or hospitals), Hamas commits a war crime and is then responsible for their deaths.

This isn't saying Israel doesn't do any wrong, but it cuts through the Hamas pretense.

@ch4:
[i]
"Hamas fires thousands of rockets into Israel, rarely killing any civilians or causing any serious damage."
[/i]
Clearly, the self-restraint of killing only a 1000-plus "volunteer human shields" in retaliation for the model rocketry club's show of force is laudable.

The preceding several posts in snappy headline form:

"Israel: Even more humane than ISIS!"

"Israel: We deserve praise for liquidating the Gaza ghetto in a careful, measured way: 'Cause if we wanted to, we could solve the problem posed by these [i]Untermenschen[/i] in an afternoon."

[The preceding soundbites brought to you by [url=http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2014/07/the-hasbara-manual/]Hasbara International[/url] -- check out our detailed style guide for writers, now available in PDF!]

Related links:

o [url]http://maxspeak.net/zionist-style-guide/[/url] -- shorter and snappier than the Hasbara style guide. Perfect for the mobile propagandist!

o [url=www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext]An open letter for the people in Gaza[/url] -- Open letter to [i]The Lancet[/i]

o [url=www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-01/genocide-permissible-muses-times-israel-promptly-retracts]"Genocide Is Permissible" Muses Times Of Israel, Promptly Retracts[/url]

o [url=www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/03/235224/kidnapped-israeli-soldier-actually.html]‘Kidnapped’ Israeli soldier actually was killed in action, military says[/url] -- Good thing the Israelis only killed and wounded a couple hundred civilians, erm I mean of course "volunteer human shields", [url=http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/08/gaza-hannibal-directive-kills-50-palestinians-after-israeli-soldier-captured.html]in retaliation[/url]. More laudable humanitarian restraint! I feel much better about U.s. tax dollars continuing to support this stuff now.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;379638]@ch4:[/quote]

Your point is ... ?

[QUOTE=ch4;379640]Your point is ... ?[/QUOTE]Hi Richard, good to see you back.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;379638]
Clearly, the self-restraint of killing only a 1000-plus "volunteer human shields" in retaliation for the model rocketry club's show of force is laudable.
[/QUOTE]

Hezbollah as an army ranks in the top 10 of armies in the world and is directly on Israels border. It is 100% paid for by Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are both nearly 100% paid for by Iran. The commands all come from Teheran. Very few European armies could win a battle with Hamas if attacked and none with their present rules of engagement. Hamas consists not of amateurs.

Israel does not kill civilians. It returns fire to the exact spot from where it is fired upon by rockets. Hamas chooses from where it originates its fire.

[QUOTE=tha;379649]Israel does not kill civilians. It returns fire to the exact spot from where it is fired upon by rockets. Hamas chooses from where it originates its fire.[/QUOTE]Not only false, a non-sequitur.

Israeli military action has killed many civilians over the years.

The Israeli military have also used white phosphorus over civilian areas.

My view is "a plague o' both their houses". What is happening in that area of the world seems, to me, to be a war between the US and Iran conducted by well supplied mercenaries.

[QUOTE=tha;379649]Hezbollah as an army ranks in the top 10 of armies in the world and is directly on Israels border. It is 100% paid for by Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are both nearly 100% paid for by Iran. The commands all come from Teheran. Very few European armies could win a battle with Hamas if attacked and none with their present rules of engagement. Hamas consists not of amateurs.

Israel does not kill civilians. It returns fire to the exact spot from where it is fired upon by rockets. Hamas chooses from where it originates its fire.[/QUOTE]

And Hamas knows that Israel fires back with that policy; and Israel therefore knows that it will be shooting at non-combatants; and Israel is therefore deliberately killing schoolchildren. It has a very easy alternative: hold fire.

[QUOTE=fivemack;379665]And Hamas knows that Israel fires back with that policy; and Israel therefore knows that it will be shooting at non-combatants; and Israel is therefore deliberately killing schoolchildren. It has a very easy alternative: hold fire.[/QUOTE]

Since Israel returns fire at the exact position it will be extremely simple for Hamas to make Israel hold fire.

[QUOTE=fivemack;379665]And Hamas knows that Israel fires back with that policy; and Israel therefore knows that it will be shooting at non-combatants; and Israel is therefore deliberately killing schoolchildren. It has a very easy alternative: hold fire.[/QUOTE]

Especially when the intended target is not even sheltering inside a building, but [url=http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-condemned-after-third-deadly-strike-on-un-school-in-gaza-20140804-1002k8.html]riding on a motorcycle *past* a UN shelter[/url]. (But I'm sure the apologists will have a readymade explanation courtesy of the IDF for that one, as well.)

Look, not to defend Hamas here - but consider: You have a nation founded by a bunch of imperial/colonial chessboard-rearrangers via an act of mass expropriation. Over the ensuing decades the displaced are herded into a pair of ever-shrinking and ever-more-blockaded open-air prison camps (West Bank and Gaza), one of which is in all meaningful respects a concentration camp, complete with periodic "mass killings and collective punishments for sport" a la [i]Schindler`s List[/i].

Meanwhile the expropriators set about methodically stealing the rest of the not-originally-granted lands (Israeli settlement policy) and then wax outraged when the KZ inmates dare fight back against their oppressors via the only means available to them, which is asymmetric urban guerrilla warfare. Now back in WW2 when the inmates of the Nazi ghettos and prison camps dared resist they were ever after lauded as "heroes and martyrs" in the Western collective consciousness. Here, those resisting are branded "terrorists" and retaliation is via ruthless S.S.-worthy collective punishment. The double standard is so glaringly obvious that one must be either a Zionist or drinker of the western MSM pro-Zionist Kool-ade not to see it for what it is.

Now, Hamas has clearly calculated that the only way to gain any traction in the western media is by inciting the Israelis to kill civilians on a truly horrific scale, which the Israelis appear happy to do. Based on the oh-so-belated questioning of Israeli tactics in the western MSM, the Hamas calculus, although murderous, appears to be correct.

[QUOTE=fivemack;379665]And Hamas knows that Israel fires back with that policy; and Israel therefore knows that it will be shooting at non-combatants; and Israel is therefore deliberately killing schoolchildren. It has a very easy alternative: hold fire.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Right. Hold fire. While Hamas murders Israeli teenagers and
deliberately fires rockets at civilians. And openly has a policy calling
for destruction of Israel and death to Jews.

While not perfect, Israel makes *some* effort to avoid civilian
casualties even as Hamas DELIBERATELY puts its citizens in harm's
way for propaganda purposes.

If Israel is targeting civilians, they are doing a piss-poor job.
They could easily have run civilian casualties into the 10's of thousands
if they wanted to. They could easily use incendiaries instead of the
targetted weapons they use.

Your response is fucking hypocrisy. Egypt offered a truce. Hamas turned
it down. It is they and they alone who bear responsibility for the
consequences.

This is a WAR. Collateral damage happens, even when one side or another makes an effort to avoid it. GET OVER IT.

I also argue that in modern times, the distinction between soldier
and civilian is unreal. The government waging the war was put in place
by civilians. Noone forced them to do so. The civilians provide
supplies and munitions. They work in factories to build the weapons.


There is no such thing anymore as a war where armies march out to
an isolated battlefield where noone else is around.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379700]Yeah. Right. Hold fire. While Hamas murders Israeli teenagers and
deliberately fires rockets at civilians. And openly has a policy calling
for destruction of Israel and death to Jews.

While not perfect, Israel makes *some* effort to avoid civilian
casualties even as Hamas DELIBERATELY puts its citizens in harm's
way for propaganda purposes.

If Israel is targeting civilians, they are doing a piss-poor job.
They could easily have run civilian casualties into the 10's of thousands
if they wanted to. They could easily use incendiaries instead of the
targetted weapons they use.

Your response is fucking hypocrisy. Egypt offered a truce. Hamas turned
it down. It is they and they alone who bear responsibility for the
consequences.

This is a WAR. Collateral damage happens, even when one side or another makes an effort to avoid it. GET OVER IT.

I also argue that in modern times, the distinction between soldier
and civilian is unreal. The government waging the war was put in place
by civilians. Noone forced them to do so. The civilians provide
supplies and munitions. They work in factories to build the weapons.


There is no such thing anymore as a war where armies march out to
an isolated battlefield where noone else is around.[/QUOTE]


Furthermore, people are trying to blame Israel for civilian deaths that number
in the 100's, and calling it "sluaughter".

Meanwhile, very little attention is paid to the hundreds of THOUSANDS
civilian deaths in Syria, caused by Muslim attacks on Muslims.
And similar shenanigans in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., while women are
murdered and raped in Pakistan over "honor", and other women are ritually
mutilated throughout the Muslim world.

The Muzzies treat their own people as less than human; especially women.
How DARE they criticize Israel for trying to survive?

I supposed that is OK, however. Israel has always been subjected to a double standard; surrounded by enemies whose STATED goal is the destruction of Israel.

Israel, OTOH, [i]seemingly[/i] only wants to destroy the Hamas tunnels,
rockets, and rocket launching sites. I do agree that there may be other,
unstated purposes, but this is speculation.

I believe I could make about two arguments against about each of the sentences you wrote but let me limit myself.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;379696] Over the ensuing decades the displaced are herded into a pair of ever-shrinking and ever-more-blockaded open-air prison camps (West Bank and Gaza)[/QUOTE]

ever-shrinking? Not really. A return to the cease fire lines of 1949-1967 would not be in the interest of either the Israeli people nor the Arab people. Too many Arabs would end up in Israel and Israel would not be able to defend itself. So the best solution would be to give the arable and fertile valleys were the main Arab towns are to the Arabs and the barren hill tops which so far throughout history have only be used to by Arabs to shell Israeli towns to the Israelis who have build towns on them. What area is transferred to the Israelis can be compensated by Arab towns in Israel that go to the Arab state they want. Despite popular and cultivated believe, all the announcements of new settlements are really not what they seem. It is all about new neighborhoods in existing Israeli settlements.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza it also withdrew from four settlements in the Westbank with a promise to hand over even more to the new to build state in return for security guarantees from the new state and backed up by the US and Europe. Israel delivered, the rest did not.

Why is it not acceptable to build a Palestinian state without the capacity to destroy Israel? Why do the people who make the decisions for the Palestinian people insist on getting annihilation capacity before building a new state?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;379696]
Now, Hamas has clearly calculated that the only way to gain any traction in the western media is by inciting the Israelis to kill civilians on a truly horrific scale, which the Israelis appear happy to do. Based on the oh-so-belated questioning of Israeli tactics in the western MSM, the Hamas calculus, although murderous, appears to be correct.[/QUOTE]

I can agree to one thing. It is the desinterest of the European people and governments, and to a lesser extend that of the US, in the details of this conflict and region and their overeagerness to go haywire against the other party once there are civilian casualties that stimulates Hamas to ensure there are civilian casualties. The people in Gaza die precisely because of the European and American involvement. If we would stop rewarding Hamas for it, it would stop. But I don't see that happening.

So who is responsible for the civilian casualties in Gaza?

a. First and foremost Europe and the US who shell out the rewards.
b. Second, Hamas for ensuring the casualties are there.
c. A long list of everyone, no one in particular and so on.
d. Israel for dropping the actual bombs.

[QUOTE=tha;379740]


<snip>
So who is responsible for the civilian casualties in Gaza?

a. First and foremost Europe and the US who shell out the rewards.
b. Second, Hamas for ensuring the casualties are there.
c. A long list of everyone, no one in particular and so on.
d. Israel for dropping the actual bombs.[/QUOTE]

The latest Hamas salvo:

[url]http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/08/05/hamas-spokesman-doubles-down-on-jews-eat-christian-blood-libel-when-confronted-by-wolff-blitzer-on-cnn-video/[/url]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379748]The latest Hamas salvo:[/QUOTE]

Being very sincere Silverman, what is going on in "meat space" today is almost the definition of unimaginable. While we play around with our little computers, and our little theories.

Google for Chris Gunness.

Imagine being there then.

[QUOTE=chalsall;379753]Being very sincere Silverman, what is going on in "meat space" today is almost the definition of unimaginable. While we play around with our little computers, and our little theories.

Google for Chris Gunness.

Imagine being there then.[/QUOTE]

It is just more propaganda. Concentrate on a small number killed
by Israel during a war, while ignoring the thousands being killed in
Syria and elsewhere.

Hamas uses its population as human shields. The responsibility for
these deaths lies with them.


From the Gunness article referred to above:

"Gaza's Ministry of Health said at least 17 people were killed and 90 wounded by the school shelling. An Israeli military spokesman told the New York Times that Israeli troops did not target UN facilities, but did respond to Palestinian militant fire from nearby the school in Jabaliya refugee camp."


The Palestinians have no right to fire on Israeli forces FROM A NEARBY SCHOOL, then complain about retaliatory fire.

This is a WAR. Casualties exist. Get over it.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379756]The Palestinians have no right to fire on Israeli forces FROM A NEARBY SCHOOL, then complain about retaliatory fire.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. What the flying fsck are they doing firing rockets so close to a "safe house" (unless, of course, there are different factions and strategies labelled under the same name)? Conversely, might the Israelis understand this strategy, and simply shoot the rockets out of the sky as they claim to be able to, without shooting back?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379756]This is a WAR. Casualties exist. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

My fundamental question is why does war still exit in this day and age? Who is making the money? Who has the strategic advantage?

And, fundamentally, why are so many mistakes being made by the "West"? The "East" take grudges seriously. Perhaps we should consider that in our actions when we ask for reconciliation.

My apologies if that is stupidly naive.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379756]It is just more propaganda.....

This is a WAR. Casualties exist. Get over it.[/QUOTE]

[I]Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.[/I]

[QUOTE=garo;379762][I]Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.[/I][/QUOTE]

Relevance?

I'm having brain damage. Carthage was destroyed.......

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379764]Relevance?[/QUOTE]

You're showing "your skirt".

If you want to know how to maximize the number of civilian casualties the IDF has been so kind to put the manual [URL="http://www.idfblog.com"]on its blog[/URL].

[QUOTE=tha;379767]If you want to know how to maximize the number of civilian casualties the IDF has been so kind to put the manual [URL="http://www.idfblog.com"]on its blog[/URL].[/QUOTE]

OK. Interesting.

One might have thought that a manual might have been brought forward what minimizes civilian casualties.

But, perhaps, the modern times are somewhat similar to the old times...

"Kill them all. And let the gods sort it out."

[QUOTE=tha;379740]So who is responsible for the civilian casualties in Gaza?

a. First and foremost Europe and the US who shell out the rewards.
b. Second, Hamas for ensuring the casualties are there.
c. A long list of everyone, no one in particular and so on.
d. Israel for dropping the actual bombs.[/QUOTE]

This has to rank as the stupidest analysis I've seen in a long time. Not at all surprising it comes in a thread about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Using this fine logic, consider a neighborhood gang kid throwing rocks at a house, three adults are cheering him on, house owner tires of this takes out a bazooka and blow the kid away, the cops are called. You think the priority for the cops should be:

a. Arrest the three adults doing the cheering.
b. Arrest other gang members for encouraging the kid to throw rocks.
c. Arrest the parents of the kid for not teaching him better, arrest the kids grandparents for spreading around bad DNA, arrest local newspaper editor for writing an editorial on the joys of rock throwing, blah, blah, blah.
d. Let the guy with the bazooka go.

[QUOTE=fivemack;379665]...Israel ... knows that it will be shooting at non-combatants; and Israel is therefore deliberately killing schoolchildren. It has a very easy alternative: hold fire.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;379756]Hamas uses its population as human shields. The responsibility for these deaths lies with them.[/QUOTE]

The whole exercise of laying blame is an [b]absolutely pointless[/b] waste of time. Stop it. Each side has *plenty* of incidents they can point to to justify poor behavior.

The more important question for Israel is what is the best policy [b]going forward[/b] that might lead to a peaceful co-existence two or three generations from now?

Hamas should be asking itself the same question, but peace is not even their stated goal. Therefore, Israel needs to embark on a long-term plan that strengthens the Palestinian population's desire to at least tolerate Israel's existence. I think the current campaign does not do this. It bolsters yet another generation's hatred of Israel while not solving the rocket/tunnel issue. Rockets will be bought and tunnels rebuilt within a few years.

What should Israel's response be to ineffective rocket launches and tunnels that lead to occasional deadly attacks inside Israel? I don't have the answer. I'd like to hear bright ideas for our learned forum readers.

I'll kick it off with two flawed options.

1) The dove approach: Recognize that the attacks are not a threat to Israel's existence -- turn the other cheek. This is little comfort to the families of the dozen or so Israeli casualties one can expect each year from such a policy.

2) The hawk approach: Give Hamas an ultimatum. If the rockets and border crossings do not stop, Israel will begin construction of mile-or-so wide buffer. All Palestinians currently in the buffer area will be evicted -- tough shit.

[QUOTE=Prime95;379774]What should Israel's response be to ineffective rocket launches and tunnels that lead to occasional deadly attacks inside Israel? I don't have the answer. I'd like to hear bright ideas for our learned forum readers.[/QUOTE]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but was not Israel created after the second world war? A land taken, and then protected?

[QUOTE=chalsall;379777]Please correct me if I am wrong, but was not Israel created after the second world war? A land taken, and then protected?[/QUOTE]

The point?

IMO, in order to move forward both sides must deal with the facts as they are today.

[QUOTE=Prime95;379780]The point?

IMO, in order to move forward both sides must deal with the facts as they are today.[/QUOTE]

The point is perhaps those who have had things taken away from them might be a little pissed off.

Imagine.