What is your opinion on the Israeli-Palestenian conflict

[Walsingham]

If you believe that Hamas only fired a few dozen rockets then one of us has been grossly misinformed. Try hundreds if not thousands. In any event, can you imagine Britain firing a dozen rockets at France and there being zero comeback? Seriously?

There would be diplomatic consequences - quite serious, I imagine - if British militants fired rockets into French territory. However, barring some sabre-rattling, there would be no serious voices calling for an actual war. There is a very big difference from "people who live in Palestinian territory," and "the government of Palestine (i.e. Hamas)."

 

Either we are talkinga bout hundreds fired over a period of time, or we are talking about the handful which were fired in violation of a peace initiative. Personally I feel the Israeli response was excessive, but I can't agree it was evil. The rationale was simply to demonstrate that provocation would not be tolerated. I don't happen to think that logic works, but I'm equally not convinced that sitting still and doing sod all works either.

 

 

Question: can you point me to an existing nation which spends more per-capita money on its military than Israel? Can you point me at an existing nation which regularly violates the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors like Israel?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

 

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan all spend more GDP on their militaries. I had to look it up.

 

China routinely violates the territorial integrity of Taiwan, and Japan. India and Pakistan are constantly in a barney over Kashmir. Britain is accused by some of violating the terrotory of Eire. The United States is accused of stealing from the Natives. The Bantu peoples stole South Africa from the bushmen who now number a few hundred and have to live in the kalahari. Spain 'occupies' basque country. Russia 'occupies' Georgia. Need I go on?

 

I'm not saying we should have a massive free for all. I'm just saying that sometimes you just ****ing lose. That's why you have an army in the first place. Fail to defend your turf and it isn't yours any more. And conducting a massive pointless insurgency only delays the inevitable and hurts generation after generation. It sucks, it really does. But you might as well hate gravity.

[lord of flies]

Either we are talkinga bout hundreds fired over a period of time, or we are talking about the handful which were fired in violation of a peace initiative. Personally I feel the Israeli response was excessive, but I can't agree it was evil. The rationale was simply to demonstrate that provocation would not be tolerated. I don't happen to think that logic works, but I'm equally not convinced that sitting still and doing sod all works either.

It demonstrates nothing more than the fact that Israel does not respect the Palestinian people, their government, or their sovereignty. If Israel engaged in honest negotiations with Palestine (pfft), there would be a non-zero chance of things coming together. But when the entirety of Israel's policy seems to be "stop shooting us, even a little, or else," that creates an atmosphere where nothing will ever be solved without depopulation of one area. And we're back to where we started.

Question: can you point me to an existing nation which spends more per-capita money on its military than Israel? Can you point me at an existing nation which regularly violates the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors like Israel?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

 

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan all spend more GDP on their militaries. I had to look it up.

Per capita, not by % of their GDP. You can't give me a nation with a higher per-capita spending than Israel, because there isn't one.

[213374U]

But when the entirety of Israel's policy seems to be "stop shooting us, even a little, or else," that creates an atmosphere where nothing will ever be solved without depopulation of one area. And we're back to where we started.

So it's OK for the Palestinians to attack Israel, as long as it's just "a little"? I was under the impression that the first thing needed for negotiations to take place is a functional ceasefire. Edited November 30, 2009 by 213374U

[lord of flies]

But when the entirety of Israel's policy seems to be "stop shooting us, even a little, or else," that creates an atmosphere where nothing will ever be solved without depopulation of one area. And we're back to where we started.

So it's OK for the Palestinians to attack Israel, as long as it's just "a little"? I was under the impression that the first thing needed for negotiations to take place is a functional ceasefire.

Proportionality. Look it up.

 

Besides which, the Palestinian government was attempting negotiations, but was clearly not capable of holding back all the Palestinian militants properly. Hmm, the government which Israel takes every opportunity to attack and destroy has limited power in the territories it controls? Impossible, surely.

[213374U]

Proportionality. Look it up.

 

Besides which, the Palestinian government was attempting negotiations, but was clearly not capable of holding back all the Palestinian militants properly. Hmm, the government which Israel takes every opportunity to attack and destroy has limited power in the territories it controls? Impossible, surely.

You didn't answer.

 

"Proportionality" is a mathematical concept. The international law definition is, like the rest of legislation "governing" warfare, utterly useless; purely subjective. What do you mean by that, anyway? Do you really believe that Hamas' capability to launch attacks against Israel can be dismantled by adhering to an orthodox interpretation of that doctrine?

 

The point about Hamas not being able to control its militias has some merit, but you'll have to show some evidence that militants attacking Israel are acting independently of Hamas, while on the other hand, ceasefires have been respected in the past. Furthermore, (and I may be mistaken) I don't remember any instances of Hamas admitting that the attacks are the handiwork of elements beyond their control, which would lend a lot of credibility to these claims and the theory that Israel is actually the sole culprit in the spiral of violence.

[lord of flies]

"Proportionality" is a mathematical concept. The international law definition is, like the rest of legislation "governing" warfare, utterly useless; purely subjective. What do you mean by that, anyway?

Perhaps I mean that haphazard attacks which kill no Israelis should not be responded to with the carefully planned and executed murder of over one thousand Palestinians, and hundreds of civilians, even by the IDF's statistics? You know, what I posted before?

Do you really believe that Hamas' capability to launch attacks against Israel can be dismantled by adhering to an orthodox interpretation of that doctrine?

Do you really believe that Hamas' "capability" to "launch attacks" against Israel is in a) any way a serious threat to the continued existence of Israel or b) going to be dismantled by unpredictable and disproportionate attacks?

The point about Hamas not being able to control its militias has some merit, but you'll have to show some evidence that militants attacking Israel are acting independently of Hamas, while on the other hand, ceasefires have been respected in the past.

When these attacks happened while there was no cease-fire because the Israeli government is unwilling to offer even the most basic concessions.

Furthermore, (and I may be mistaken) I don't remember any instances of Hamas admitting that the attacks are the handiwork of elements beyond their control, which would lend a lot of credibility to these claims and the theory that Israel is actually the sole culprit in the spiral of violence.

Gosh, they wouldn't just run along telling everybody they don't control their own territory? Why I never.

[Walsingham]

Either we are talkinga bout hundreds fired over a period of time, or we are talking about the handful which were fired in violation of a peace initiative. Personally I feel the Israeli response was excessive, but I can't agree it was evil. The rationale was simply to demonstrate that provocation would not be tolerated. I don't happen to think that logic works, but I'm equally not convinced that sitting still and doing sod all works either.

It demonstrates nothing more than the fact that Israel does not respect the Palestinian people, their government, or their sovereignty. If Israel engaged in honest negotiations with Palestine (pfft), there would be a non-zero chance of things coming together. But when the entirety of Israel's policy seems to be "stop shooting us, even a little, or else," that creates an atmosphere where nothing will ever be solved without depopulation of one area. And we're back to where we started.

Question: can you point me to an existing nation which spends more per-capita money on its military than Israel? Can you point me at an existing nation which regularly violates the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors like Israel?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

 

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan all spend more GDP on their militaries. I had to look it up.

Per capita, not by % of their GDP. You can't give me a nation with a higher per-capita spending than Israel, because there isn't one.

 

You actually sit there telling me that the failing in negotiations is Israel honesty? Their interlocutors in hezbollah and hamas* have as their stated driving principle the extermination of the state of israel. Of course even if Hezb did negotiate, as Fatah have done, people seem to migrate to other violent parties. I'm not saying the Israeli parliamentary system doesn't militate against non-colation governments with a clear mandate for change, but then I'm not the one trying to blame just one side.

 

In any case I'm curious yet again to hear your alternative. Because as usual you are happy to try and undermine but short on solutions. I'm not _happy_ about how things are, I simply don't see how the solution is all in Israel's court.

 

Case in point, your bonkers insistence on military spending as a measure of warlikeness. Yes, it turns out that Israel is top by capita. ...Followed in direct descending order by Kuwait and NORWAY. And in any event, given Israel's recent history of wars per year of existence it seems rather proportionate. I think Norway's only been in one war since inception and that suggests they are a fascist behemoth. I suggest an alternative hypothesis: Israel can be over-run in a single day of fighting, if that day goes badly. Consequently they have to put all their military faith in a first rate military, and to exercise pre-emptive force, and aggressive action which gains ground and time.

 

 

 

*btw, thanks Gorgon for pointing out my error earlier.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Walsingham

[Gorth]

I think Norway's only been in one war since inception and that suggests they are a fascist behemoth.

They are. Not to mention that they are wallowing in oil reserves... Why did you think they paid off Obama with a Nobel prize?

[213374U]

Perhaps I mean that haphazard attacks which kill no Israelis should not be responded to with the carefully planned and executed murder of over one thousand Palestinians, and hundreds of civilians, even by the IDF's statistics? You know, what I posted before?

This is absurd. If you are attacked by a thug armed with a knife, do you actually wait until he manages to cleanly stab you before you react?

 

The attacks have a clear intent - their actual effectiveness is of little consequence. And you'll excuse me if I doubt that you have an informed opinion on what one should or should not do in a war.

 

 

Do you really believe that Hamas' "capability" to "launch attacks" against Israel is in a) any way a serious threat to the continued existence of Israel or b) going to be dismantled by unpredictable and disproportionate attacks?

No to a), but that still doesn't negate the right of Israel to try and put a stop to them. As for b), probably not. The idea is likely to be to undermine popular support for Hamas by destroying living standards in the area.

 

 

When these attacks happened while there was no cease-fire because the Israeli government is unwilling to offer even the most basic concessions.

This is false, and you know it. Concessions had been made during the ceasefire, but progress was stalled by violations on BOTH sides. It was Hamas who chose not to extend the ceasefire, though. I guess they'd rather have artillery shellings than some trade.

 

 

Gosh, they wouldn't just run along telling everybody they don't control their own territory? Why I never.

More absurdity. If you want to make friends with or at least not anger somebody, especially if that somebody is stronger, the least you can do is tell him you are not the one attacking him, and distance yourself as much as possible from the attacks.

 

Of course, fighting the good fight while their people lack drinking water is much more important. They wouldn't be true revolutionaries if it wasn't, right?

Edited November 30, 2009 by 213374U

[Rostere]

sorry for the delayed answer (can't use the pc in saturday) If there will be an arab mostly parlement in israel, jews wont be allowed to immigrate there, they will be forced to live in other states, and when one maniac (like hitler) will decide to kill them they will have nowhere to run.

the main idea of making this state, was to make a safe heaven for jews after their persecuion by local authorities in russia at the late 19 century, so you get the idea, why we are so pissed with all the world, and why we wer'e trusting no-one, every nation, kingdom, state at the last 2000 years blamed the jews for all their faults (officialy, or by mad mobs) so the jews decided, to stay in a place where no-one could blame them and kill them for being jews, well, that obviously didn't work.

 

"We don't want to be victims of discrimination due to our race and culture, so we create a state where others are victims of this instead".

 

Great thinking.

 

Oh, I do agree that Israel can not immidiately open borders to the Palestine ghetto and become a single state without unneccesary harm. However, that should be their long- term goal.

 

In Sweden, I have known many Jews and the if any of those ever told me they had been treated badly because of their heritage I would be stunned by the sheer absurdity. After and during WW2 we recieved Jews as refugees and I honestly don't know why some Jews choose to live somewhere they must fight every day against people who are prejudiced against Jews, and I understand even less why yet some Jews want to kill other people for their land!

 

So why did so many Jews migrate to the Palestinian Mandate after the war? Why did they single out a place with a racism so prevalent? With that logic, they could as well have settled Treblinka.

 

Sometimes, there are things so stupid only religion can explain them...

[Walsingham]

I'm quite surprised to hear you say that, Rostere. Jews have been the subject of discrimination since the diaspora. As for settling in the holyland have the jews any less right to return than the Palestinians? When is the cut off point for it being one group's homeland rather than another's?

 

I strongly suspect that since the theoretical judgement oevr right and wrong seems so tangled and the practical solutions confused and undeliverable that we will continue to see the problem extending. Which is why I think world attention is wasted on the region, and would be better spent helping the sick of Africa or the far more amenable crises in Afghan, Burma, Samoa, New Guinea....

[Rostere]

I'm quite surprised to hear you say that, Rostere. Jews have been the subject of discrimination since the diaspora. As for settling in the holyland have the jews any less right to return than the Palestinians? When is the cut off point for it being one group's homeland rather than another's?

 

I strongly suspect that since the theoretical judgement oevr right and wrong seems so tangled and the practical solutions confused and undeliverable that we will continue to see the problem extending. Which is why I think world attention is wasted on the region, and would be better spent helping the sick of Africa or the far more amenable crises in Afghan, Burma, Samoa, New Guinea....

 

Nobody can ever own land in an absolute sense, perhaps not even have more or less objective rights with regard to a given slice of land. We have to be rational and look at the situation from an utilitarian point of view.

 

The Israel/Palestine conflict also has a much deeper importance than the number of people killed, et.c.. It has arguably served to polemise the entire Muslim world against the US and also in part Europe. Now, I don't think this will have such a harmful impact on the US or Europe (what would that be, anyway?), but you could see it as a game where the US are raising the stakes for the Israelis, who haven't got so much to bet themselves. The US supports guns (about 1/7 to 1/6 of the annual Israeli defence budget, or $2,5 bn a year) with which Israel points at the West Bank and Gaza, swarming with Palestinians living under inhumane living conditions. And things just keep getting worse, and the US just keeps giving more and more, and the Palestinians are just getting more and more desperate. How will it end? I don't think the current state of affairs will be stable much longer. Eventually, one of the sides will fold, and it won't be pretty.

[Walsingham]

I hope you're wrong, Rosti old man. But I see your line of reasoning.

 

I do think it's fair to point out, in my de facto role as zionist ( ) that there was a peaceful resolution on the table in 1948 which was rejected by neighbouring Arab states who 'invaded' in an attempt to impose their own solution which was resisted militarily by the zionists. Since that time I think to a certain extent the Palestinians have been used as a political tool to kick about between various entities, passing from local rulers to the Soviets to the jifascists and iranians. It's no doubt true that the US keps one side going, but there's a bunch of people keeping the other side going as well.

[urielrose]

We all like talking about things we don't fully understand, I dont fully understand the situation, and I live here, serving as a soldier here and learnt a hell lot of history about the current situation here.

But i believe you all should visit this place, if so many people died for it, it must be worth a visit.

It's all about percpective, if I was a Palestenian living in Gaza, I would really hate israel (and Hamas), but if i was an israelian arab (2 million arabs lives inside israel) I would live as a king (they have no texas, and they dont serve in the army if they refuse, besides living in the most beautiful places in israel, which are of limits for jews) I hate Hamas but that's only a perspective of an israely Sderot citizen, maybe a citizen in Tel-Aviv will feel diffrently.

[TheHarlequin]

Out of pure curiosity, what is your opinion on the subject?.

 

Does it matter? No.

 

They are going to let age old grudges and selfish attitudes dictacte policy not rational, logical thinking. I am all for sitting back and letting them go at it. Kill each other until the red sea IS red then perhaps after the attrition on both sides they will get it out of their system and be reasonable. Neither REALLY want peace so its NEVER going to happen. And I am not speaking about joe or sally on the street I am refering to their govt leaders. I think if joe or sally had a real say this would have been over with a while ago (generally speaking as some joes and sallys are just as ignorant, short sighted and bigoted as their leaders are).

[Walsingham]

Out of pure curiosity, what is your opinion on the subject?.

 

Does it matter? No.

 

They are going to let age old grudges and selfish attitudes dictacte policy not rational, logical thinking. I am all for sitting back and letting them go at it. Kill each other until the red sea IS red then perhaps after the attrition on both sides they will get it out of their system and be reasonable. Neither REALLY want peace so its NEVER going to happen. And I am not speaking about joe or sally on the street I am refering to their govt leaders. I think if joe or sally had a real say this would have been over with a while ago (generally speaking as some joes and sallys are just as ignorant, short sighted and bigoted as their leaders are).

 

Yes your opinion matters, because your memes are swimming about in the meme pool.

 

I agree that in general the people on the street probably want peace as they do everywhere. But they want it their own way, which is where the devil gets in.

 

In negotiation terms the central problem is that the 'threatened' future is very credible (terrorism and military action) while the compromise future is not. I have yet to ehar a compromise future which might reasonable satisfy both sides, and even a low grade compromise of angry peace is undeliverable BY BOTH SIDES. Israel's election system - like all benighted proportional representation states - means centre moderate parties have to form coalitions with fringe extremists to attain majority. Meanwhile the 'Palestinians' (that is Palestinians, Jifascists, Syrians, and Iranians) only require a dissenting group of perhaps 100 men to bring the whole process to a halt by mounting a terror campaign. It's as unworkable as chocolate underpants.

[TheHarlequin]

Fair enough. Again I'd just wash my hands of it and let them sink or swim. Odds are they would sink and would turn into a bloody conflict but it seems thats what they want anyways. So let them. I'll grab the popcorn and watch from 1/2 way around the world. Perhaps after the middle east is turned into a mini-fallout universe they will finally come to their senses. They are not being logical or rational or tactful. They are letting for the most part emotions drive their actions not reason. Thus you can NOT address that as a 3rd party. When you are trying to use rational diplomacy and the other parties involved are running on mostly emotion, unfounded fears its a auto fail sooner or later. Most ppl in this thread are mostly being rational thinkers. They are not and prob will never be until they go at it. I frankly see no other end game result. All this current diplomancy is just delaying what they both want as neither side really wants to compromise and find middle ground. *shrugs* IMO only a matter of time before iseal is wiped off the map or they annex a bordering anti-iseral country and the other arabs sue for real peace as they are getting their arsed handed to them. Either one of the other has to and will happen unless massive political change transpires in BOTH sides of the table. My money is on war as neither side are all that concerned with long term thinking or thinking like civilized human beings.

[Walsingham]

Regrettably I don't see any resolution other than the one you suggest, Harlequin. On pure theoretical grounds you can't have a state that is this unstable indefinitely. It has to resolve. And - again in theoretical terms - the only stable state is where both sides are either able to deliver on a peaceful compromise or one side is unable to deliver the fallback position of conflict.

 

*thinks*

 

However, on a brighter note, if you follow through on that logic, then what do we see? An arab world with ethnic cleansing on its conscience, or the Western world with total ethnic cleansing on its conscience. Either way it's not really going to bring peace, but simply store up more violence for the future. If that's true then the only solution is to engineer both parties so they can deliver peace.

 

In my opinion for the Israelis it means forming a strong single party government which can see through at least eight years of peace, which would mean constitutional reform or societal cohesion on an improbable scale.

 

In my opinion for the non-Israeli actors this means resolution of the strategic interests of Iran and Syria, coupled with a big societal change in the Palestinian population, coupled with a paradoxical counter-terrorist capability in whoever negotiates on their behalf.

 

Unfortunately while the forer is at least workable using known techniques, the latter would be completely novel. Not sure if that makes it unworkable.