Israel-Gaza conflict: What has Israel achieved in 26 bloody days?

[Rattlehead 69]

Israel is targeting the terrorists attempting to bring about the destruction of the Jewish state? Shocking...

[Jacque67 7,328]

Oh vey!

The east is east and ....

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Everyone has the right to look at what is happening and speak about it. Is eradicating one people to make room for another right or wrong?

As far as Hamas being "terrorists" they are systematically being targeted in their homes with their families, one after the other. This is not a terrorist act in itself?

Again. article 13 of the Hamas charter says it point blank: There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

If that is your enemies official written constitutional stance, what are the options???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again. article 13 of the Hamas charter says it point blank: There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

If that is your enemies official written constitutional stance, what are the options???

Would it not be fair to say that the Israeli military occupation is what has resulted in the rise to power of extremist groups who cannot be reasoned with?

It's impossible to say who has moral superiority in that situation. Israel has a formal, internationally recognised government. Gaza does not. Yet at the centre of all of it is a disenfranchised civilian population under siege from within and without.

At the end of the day Israel has the land and the military force - the onus is surely on them to find the lasting solution.

[Expat1 971]

Again. article 13 of the Hamas charter says it point blank: There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

If that is your enemies official written constitutional stance, what are the options???

If this is your occupiers official stance, and the international community in spite of NUMEROUS efforts has not been able to dislodge your occupiers from the territories that they have "annexed", then I guess physically throwing them off is your last option isn't it?

Ignoring the international community and continuing to expand certainly invites self-defense from those displaced but killing the people you displaced to maintain expansion into territory owned by them doesn't even approach the radar screen of "self defense".

Not one single square foot of the territories discussed under the Hamas demand is territory that the international community recognizes a right for Israel to hold, build on, settle on, or "defend".

Defending stolen property isn't noble anywhere on the planet. Jewish or not.

Israel dismantled 18 settlements in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982, and all 21 in the Gaza Strip and 4 in the West Bank in 2005, but continues to both expand its settlements and settle new areas in the West Bank, despite being condemned by 158 out of 166 nations in one vote, and 160 nations out of 171 nations in a different vote, in the UN

The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,^[9] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and communities in the Golan Heights, areas which have been annexed by Israel, are also considered settlements by the international community, which does not recognise Israel's annexations of these territories.The International Court of Justice also says these settlements are illegal in a 2004 advisory opinion. In April 2012, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, in response to moves by Israel to legalise Israeli outposts, reiterated that all settlement activity is illegal, and "runs contrary to Israel's obligations under the Road Map and repeated Quartet calls for the parties to refrain from provocations." Similar criticism was advanced by the EU and the US.

Israel disputes the position of the international community and the legal arguments that were used to declare the settlements illegal.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Would it not be fair to say that the Israeli military occupation is what has resulted in the rise to power of extremist groups who cannot be reasoned with?

It's impossible to say who has moral superiority in that situation. Israel has a formal, internationally recognised government. Gaza does not. Yet at the centre of all of it is a disenfranchised civilian population under siege from within and without.

At the end of the day Israel has the land and the military force - the onus is surely on them to find the lasting solution.

Israel is as guilty as anyone for the way things are.. I would look at it more as a series of spirals over an extended period of time that led to the current situation and both sides have squandered opportunities along the way.

Israel has the power but what can they really do? They do not trust the Palestinians and I think have given up ever having peace so they just have done what they can to minimize the damage that can be done to them.. .

I play the mental game in my head of being in charge of each group how would I proceed.. If I was in charge of Israel and decided to remove the wall and allow more integration would it just start the violence again or would be seen as a stepping stone to more trust? If I was in charge of Hamas I could stop the current violence but the compromises needed to create a lasting peace would never be acceptable to most.. I am at a loss as to how this can end with both sides in tact..

[Karee 4,191]

Israel is as guilty as anyone for the way things are.. I would look at it more as a series of spirals over an extended period of time that led to the current situation and both sides have squandered opportunities along the way.

Israel has the power but what can they really do? They do not trust the Palestinians and I think have given up ever having peace so they just have done what they can to minimize the damage that can be done to them.. .

I play the mental game in my head of being in charge of each group how would I proceed.. If I was in charge of Israel and decided to remove the wall and allow more integration would it just start the violence again or would be seen as a stepping stone to more trust? If I was in charge of Hamas I could stop the current violence but the compromises needed to create a lasting peace would never be acceptable to most.. I am at a loss as to how this can end with both sides in tact..

As I've stated before, I have no issue with the wall. Just where it's built. It conveniently built miles in to the West Bank. If it was a wall meant for security, then it would be built on Israel's border. It is not. Looking at the map below, it's crystal clear that wall is all about annexing more territory, and has little to do with security.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Dress the Gaza situation up all you like, but the truth hurts

By Robert Fisk

Robert Fisk The Independent July 31, 2

There was a time when our politicians and media had one principal fear when covering Middle East wars: that no one should ever call them anti-Semitic. So corrosive, so vicious was this charge against any honest critic of Israel that merely to bleat the word disproportionate as in any normal wartime exchange rate of Arab-to-Israeli deaths was to provoke charges of Nazism by Israels would-be supporters. Sympathy for Palestinians would earn the sobriquet pro-Palestinian, which, of course, means pro-terrorist.

Or so it was until the latest bloodbath in Gaza, which is being so graphically covered by journalists that our masters and our media are suffering a new experience: not fear of being called anti-Semitic, but fear of their own television viewers and readers ordinary folk so outraged by the war crimes committed against the women and children of Gaza that they are demanding to know why, even now, television moguls and politicians are refusing to treat their own people like moral, decent, intelligent human beings.

Yet still every time another blood-soaked child appears on the screen the news presenters talk about the blame game. BLAME GAME? Do they think this is a bloody football match? Or a bloody tragedy? It goes like this. Civilians are killed. Reporters call it tank fire. (Hamas has no tanks.) Israel says it is a misfired Hamas rocket. Hamas says it is Israels work. So its a blame game. No one can actually BE blamed and thus we can shrug off the responsibility and shake our head at it all.

And we must forget we did the same when US bombs killed civilians in Tripoli in 1986 (a misfired Libyan anti-aircraft missile, I recall, was to blame) or when the Nato attack on the Shuala district of Baghdad killed civilians in 2003 (a misfired Iraqi anti-aircraft missile was to blame, of course). Several Americans have called me to point this out, adding that the US Senate vote of 100-0 in favour of Israel sounds a bit like the 98 per cent that Arab dictators claim for their presidency except that the US vote, which does not represent them, really was the true figure! Now to the get-out clause of all of us. Yes, Hamas is corrupt, cynical, ruthless. Most of its spokesmen are so stupid, so incoherent, so prone to bawling abuse at the top of their voices, that they far outdo the ever-so-gentle Mark Regev in turning the world against Hamas. But the world is turning against Israel, as EU ministers repeatedly (though ever so gently) tell the Israelis. And its turning against our politicians and media masters who go on insulting them.

How many times does The New York Times expect its readers to tolerate editorials like last weeks pusillanimous effort? There had been deadly attacks in Gaza, readers were told. The total dead came to 750, a vast majority being Palestinians. And then the get-out: there were competing charges Israel or Hamas or a Hamas ally over the attack, and thus what really matters now is that some way be found to stop this carnage. So thats OK, then. Blame game equals no blame.

France, theres been derision at the way the government has reacted to Gazas calvary. François Hollande wanted Israel to correct its aim a bit (un peu)! He criticised Hamass aggression and Israels reprisals. But then an angry Benjamin Netanyahu came on the blower to the Elysée. Change of tune. Hollande uttered the usual mantra. Israel has the right to take all measures to protect its people. But then French Assembly members became so sickened by the collective punishment of the Palestinians that Hollande urged an end to the escalation in violence. Phew.

In Ireland, traditionally pro-Palestinian, The Irish Times, alas, has been playing the same tune as its New York namesake. On the day after Israel bombed a UN school, killing 19 civilians, it ran a front-page article which began with Israels declaration of a ceasefire, continued with a paragraph of the truce details, then ran a paragraph that Hamas had no reaction and then told its readers about the 19 dead. A reader castigated the paper for balancing its letters page with correspondence designed to make the Palestinians look as guilty as the Israelis. Such disinterest is really a kind of moral apathy, he said. And said it rather well. The world can at least thank the journos in Gaza even if their bosses are still on the run.

Source

[Karee 4,191]

There was a time when our politicians and media had one principal fear when covering Middle East wars: that no one should ever call them anti-Semitic. So corrosive, so vicious was this charge against any honest critic of Israel that merely to bleat the word disproportionate as in any normal wartime exchange rate of Arab-to-Israeli deaths was to provoke charges of Nazism by Israels would-be supporters. Sympathy for Palestinians would earn the sobriquet pro-Palestinian, which, of course, means pro-terrorist.

The above sums it up. The Israeli govt. and it's supporters in the U.S. have done a great job of guilting people so that if they don't fully support Israel, then they're anti-semitic Nazis. On the flip side, if they have any sympathy for the Palestinian people, then they support Islamic terrorists.

Hopefully people in the U.S. are becoming a little more educated on the subject and realize it has little to do with religion, and has more to do with one country's quest to acquire land illegally, while punishing it's inhabitants at the same time.

I say Israel should annex it all. Gaza and the west bank, and give all it's inhabitants Israeli citizenship and the right to vote. That's how we do things in the U.S. One man, one vote.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The above sums it up. The Israeli govt. and it's supporters in the U.S. have done a great job of guilting people so that if they don't fully support Israel, then they're anti-semitic Nazis. On the flip side, if they have any sympathy for the Palestinian people, then they support Islamic terrorists.

Hopefully people in the U.S. are becoming a little more educated on the subject and realize it has little to do with religion, and has more to do with one country's quest to acquire land illegally, while punishing it's inhabitants at the same time.

I say Israel should annex it all. Gaza and the west bank, and give all it's inhabitants Israeli citizenship and the right to vote. That's how we do things in the U.S. One man, one vote.

Don't know about that last line but otherwise agreed.

And what's that one man, one vote nonsense? I've been told time and again that Democrats vote early and often. Are you saying that is not so?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I say Israel should annex it all. Gaza and the west bank, and give all it's inhabitants Israeli citizenship and the right to vote. That's how we do things in the U.S. One man, one vote.

*blam* you are now all-powerful king of Israel and can pass any law or make any changes you would like..

Imagine having your news conference and announcing that "we are all now Israelis and this is all now Israel." - What do you think is going to happen? Play out the scenario...

[Karee 4,191]

*blam* you are now all-powerful king of Israel and can pass any law or make any changes you would like..

Imagine having your news conference and announcing that "we are all now Israelis and this is all now Israel." - What do you think is going to happen? Play out the scenario...

I'd guess Netanyahu/Likud wouldn't be winning any elections, or probably any Jewish person for that matter, which is exactly why they would never do that. It seems things are somewhat stable in the west bank in comparison to Gaza. Israel should dismantle their illegal settlements, build their wall on the 1967 border, and let the Palestinians run the show in the west bank. Let them actually collect taxes and duties like all other countries do (instead of holding them hostage) I'd hope it would be a success. That'll never happen though, because Israel wont remove the illegal settlements.

As it is now, Israel is trying to have it both ways. Maintain control of the Palestinians, while not giving them any rights. And they wonder why folks are unhappy about that.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

As far as Hamas being "terrorists" they are systematically being targeted in their homes with their families, one after the other. This is not a terrorist act in itself?

I reckon you could see it that way. Probably goes back to who attacked whom first. The US military kinda did the same thing to Osama Bin Laden right up until he disappeared, right?

[Boiler 48,108]

The logical solution would be for Egypt to take over Gaza.

But I am pretty sure Egypt is not interested, wonder why.

There was a mention of the population growth rate in Gaza, essentially the casualties represent 4 days lost growth.

[Póg mo 1,749]

The logical solution would be for Egypt to take over Gaza.

But I am pretty sure Egypt is not interested, wonder why.

There was a mention of the population growth rate in Gaza, essentially the casualties represent 4 days lost growth.

Perhaps the Egyptians don't think culturally that Palestinians are the same as them and don't think it makes sense to control the area, or could it be that because of all the military aid Egypt receives from the USA, they might be more inclined to keep out of it and not risk losing out?