23
   

Israeli airstrikes in Gaza kill more than 200

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 03:25 pm
@georgeob1,
But since Hamas IS the elected govt of the West Bank, anything they do to Israel can be considered an act of war by one govt against another.
As such, Israel has every right, and the duty, to retaliate with every means at their disposal.

If you want to blame Israel for he "suffering" of the palestinians in the west bank, shouldnt you be blaming the elected govt of the west bank?
After all, it is the govts job to provide the basics of life to their citizens.
It isnt the job of a foreign govt to do so.
georgeob1
 
  4  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 03:34 pm
@mysteryman,
Well that is (and has long been) more or less the Israeli position on the matter. You can see for yourself how much progress, peace and tranquility it has brought to the region in the last few decades.

This impasse can't go on forever, and the willigness of the United States to continue subsidizing the anachronistic dreams of Israeli zealots in their endless war with Islamic zealots is quickly fading.
the third eye
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 07:00 pm
it may be stupid questions from me...

Who can stop the war (between Israel and Palestine)?
What this world can do to stop it?
What UN can do to stop it?
and....
What we can do to STOP it?

roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 08:05 pm
@georgeob1,
Maybe, if a Iran and a few others would stop supplying the Palestinians. . . ?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 09:23 pm
@roger,
I see both sides. I started out pro Israel and have over decades changed my mind and don't get our support system (no, no, don't tell me, I do read). But that's the least of what I don't get re our big feet in the world. I see this all as inflamed stupidity, on both sides.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 10:55 am
Another one who argues that Israel is justified in the current action using military force, assassination, and attempts to kill as many Hamas fighters as possible to change to political landscape in Palestine.
Quote:
Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel, not because they embraced the ideas of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, but because they concluded that the effort to destroy the Jewish state had failed and that refusing to come to terms with it was harmful to their national interests. Ultimately, peace will be possible only if most Palestinians and their leaders become convinced that terrorism and violence are a dead end and that they cannot under any circumstances prevail over Israel through the use of force. If today's conflict leaves a seriously weakened and politically damaged Hamas, that result is more likely to enhance the prospects for peace than to weaken them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/31/AR2008123102773.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

We support Israel in large part it is claimed because they are a beacon of democratic society ideals the the desert of the mid-east.....I am not feeling it.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 11:37 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Also that many Protestants identify with Israel, inasmuch as old line Protestant families also came to the U.S. as a homeland, to avoid religious persecution in Europe. ... ... ...


Luther - truely an "old line Protestestant" - expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews. (A couple of sources for that to be found at the Jewish Library online.)


Yes, I know that Luther took umbrage with Jews not converting to his reformed version of Christianity. I also read in a biography of Bismarck that Bismarck thought that German Jews would make the German people stronger, if only they (Jews) would convert to Lutheranism.

However, I was only talking about the Ango-Saxon old line Protestants that came to the United States and, as history records, told the 15 or so Jewish families in the middle of the 17th century that they could stay in Plymouth Rock, as long as they did not bring a religious hierarchy to the New World. These early Americans did not want to set a precedent that would then have Catholics and Lutherans thinking the New World was inviting them, I thought. Three hundred plus years later, American Judaism is still like the Congregational Church (what the Plymouth Rock folk evolved to), in that each Jewish congregation is autonomous, hiring and firing a Rabbi.

Walter, I believe, you might have misconstrued my "old line Protestant" thought because you might not have focussed on my putting many thoughts into only a U.S. context. Yes, I know that Protestantism goes back to 1520 Germany; however, the Protestants that came to America developed a version that included "manifest destiny" (a nation from coast to coast) and a work ethic (idle hands bring the devil) that is shown in how few holidays U.S. workers enjoy, compared to Europe. U.S. Protestants, in my opinion, are a unique breed, just like Israelis are not like U.S. Jews.

Have a happy and healthy New Year.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 11:54 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:


You are evading the point. The U.S. security guarantee for Israel has deprived reasonable peoiple in Israel of any real incentive for dealing with their own lunatic zealots who would further expand settlements into Paqlestinian territory, further stoking the fires of hatred and sectarian resentment. Worse it has stifled the voices of those in Israel who understand that the real interests of their otherwise modern and advanced state lie in pluralism and tolerance for all.

The stakes in this game are getting higher and the acceptance of the American people for the increasingly one-sided support of Israeli extremists is decreasing fast.

Your assertions that only Israelis die in their wars ignores the political connectivity of the region and the collateral effects our support of Israel (and its continuing intransigence) has on other vital interests of this country. We are paying an increasing price, both in political and national security terms for our one-sided support of Israel, and the American public is increasingly aware of it.

Israeli zealots have clung to the notion of a Jewish state that requires the oppression of neighboring peoples and a second class status for non-Jews within its borders. Worse, they have, without acknowledging it, effectively prevented a two state solution by refusing the teerritorial integrity - or even air & water rights - of its neighbor, all while hiding behind the anger and retaliation of the victims of its oppression.

This situation can't last much longer, and Israelis will soon enough have to face and deal with the consequences of it.


If you think I am evading your point it might be because I do not give your point the value that you do. I do not think there are enough "zealots" in Israel to manipulate the government. Remember, Israel has coalition governments. It is hard then for one faction to manipulate those in power.

Was it not under Clinton that 95% of the desired territory was rejected for a two-state solution?

And your assertion that the U.S. is "paying an increasing price, both in political and national security terms for our one-sided support of Israel" is empty rhetoric, in my humble opinion, since you do not specify what that "price" is! Do tell.

The point is: Israel exists. It is not going anywhere. Politics behind the scenes might be more involved than any poster's analysis. Politics may also reflect that everything Israel does is not necessarily for the benefit of the U.S.; it might be for the benefit of themselves, and/or nations we might be only guessing.

But, your opinion is your right in the U.S. Let us now march in formation past the reviewing stand, as the Washington Post March plays in the background.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 12:11 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
The point is: Israel exists. It is not going anywhere.


the palestinians will soon outnumber the Israelis within the borders if Israel, a situation that will get worse because of birth rate trends. Iran will soon have Nukes, Syria aims to keep control of Lebanon, the Arab street is increasingly hard line Islamic, and American strength in the region is in rapid decline.....

I don't think that the continued existence of Israel is secure. The fact that they are acting out against Palestine indicates to me that the Israelis do not think that their continued existence is secure.

I should think that Israel would be have the best chance of having a future is they were to make peace with Palestinians before Iran get the nuclear arms, because we all know that Iran would love to help the Islamic radicals eliminate Israel.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 03:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Israel has tried to make peace.
Read the Hamas Charter, specifically article 13.

In it, they say that they WILL NOT talk to or make peace with Israel, nor will they participate in any other talks regarding Israel.
They also call for and state as their goal the total destruction of Israel.

So tell me, how is Israel supposed to negotiate with or compromise with them?
Is Israel supposed to compromise on how or when they are destroyed?
Is Israel supposed to compromise on the number of Israeli dead?
Lets see, Hamas wants to totally destroy Israel, so Israel will compromise and allow Hamas to destroy only half of Israel.
Does that seem like a fair compromise?
Would that be acceptable?

Exactly HOW is Israel supposed to compromise?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 04:43 pm
@mysteryman,
Israel has made some half assed attempts at peace....
What Israel needs to do is cultivate a generation of Palestinian intelligentsia who are not traumatized, who are educated, and who can see from their life experience that peace with Israel can mean a prosperous Palestine.

Israel does not have any party to negotiate with, has tried and failed to sue for peace anyways, then when the misguided effort failed went back to their warrior ethos. They have not been consistent and have not been willing to do the work needed to get to peace, thus their efforts are half-assed.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 04:50 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
Israel has tried to make peace.


The left in Israel has, the right in Israel has opposed every move toward peace that Israel has ever been faced with.


Quote:
Read the Hamas Charter, specifically article 13.

In it, they say that they WILL NOT talk to or make peace with Israel, nor will they participate in any other talks regarding Israel.
They also call for and state as their goal the total destruction of Israel.


The Israeli party Likud passed a resolution in 2002 saying that there should never be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river (all Palestinian territory is west of the Jordan river, so it shouldn't be too hard to read between the lines there). This is not functionally much different than Palestinian extremists failing to recognize Israel's right to exist and a full view of the mideast conflict must recognize that on Israel's side there is also a disruptive minority that wants all the Palestinian territory just as there are Palestinian extremists who want Israeli territory.

Quote:
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm


Quote:
So tell me, how is Israel supposed to negotiate with or compromise with them?


Tell me how to negotiate with Israelis while you are at it. There is a significant portion of them who do not want the conflict to end so that they can pursue their territorial aims.

Quote:
Exactly HOW is Israel supposed to compromise?


Accept the Pan-Arab proposal of 2002[1] for starters. They have long resisted parallelism[2] in this process even though it's the fastest way to their own security.

Their right has preferred sequentialism, and any time there were terror attacks they just postponed negotiations to recognize a Palestinian state. They'd insist on a "period of calm" and any attack on them served to reduce international pressure on them to continue with the process.

Ok, so now we've waited for Arafat to die, we've waited for the intifada to end, and for once Palestinians have a moderate and sensible President in Abbas. Israel has already accepted that a Palestinian state is a fait accompli, an eventuality[3], so has the United States when Bush was the first president to call for the creation of a Palestinian state[4].

The whole world recognizes the basic framework of the agreement, which is a return to 1967 borders with a "fair and equitable" territorial exchange where that is not practical due to Israeli settlements. Six years ago, they were still fighting against any eventual Palestinian state but some of the hardest heads out there have recognized that this is an eventuality now.

The Arab world offered full normalization of relations with Israel for it, and it's foolish of Israel to put this off because of Hamas. In the last decade, the best thing Israel has done for their security was their 2005 disengagement.

Putting the Palestinians on the immediate path for statehood would pull the rug out from under Hamas, and give the Palestinians a chance at unified moderate leadership under Abbas. Arab states have agreed to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for concessions that Israel has largely already agreed to in principle and that would take even more of the wind out of the sails of Palestinian extremists.

Further disengagement and swifter progress toward a two-state is the best thing Israel can do. But there is an election coming up, and the more extreme right of Israeli politics is mounting a tough challenge to the incumbents, forcing more hawkishness out of everyone while they prove their security credentials.

It's a damn shame, because these displays don't increase their security and they are the closest they've ever been to reaching the "painful concessions" [5] they have long known they need to make.

Palestinian statehood is the best thing they can do for their own security and would reduce the Palestinian extremists to the very fringe, denying them recruits and financial support.

Ariel Sharon reached this conclusion himself late in life, and the best thing he ever did for Israel was to decide to simply disengage and the best thing that Israel can do now is to continue to simply disengage and grant Palestinian sovereignty. Granting Palestinian sovereignty doesn't represent a strategic threat to Israel but would remove a significant gripe on the part of the Palestinians.

Unless they commit wholesale ethnic cleansing of the territories, they aren't going to rid themselves of Palestinian extremists through military means. Palestinian statehood wouldn't immediately eliminate them either, but if history is any indication it would be the most effective way to do so. The Palestinians have a legitimate qualm with Israel that even nations like the United States and Israel itself recognizes and Israel should do the right thing in regard to those legitimate territorial qualms regardless of what anyone else is doing, and the good news is that doing the right thing there is the most likely way that Palestinian extremism will be defeated.

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1844214.stm
  2. http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2003/gapal920.html
  3. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3243
  4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html
  5. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031127-israel-fence.htm
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 05:11 pm
@the third eye,
the third eye wrote:
Who can stop the war (between Israel and Palestine)?


Israel alone has the power to stop it. The United States is the only other nation in the world with the ability to even influence this at all.

Quote:
What this world can do to stop it?


Nothing realistically viable. An economic boycott would put pressure on Israel to do so, but at the same time further ingrain the notion that it's them against the world. There are very legitimate reasons that Israelis have a persecution complex, and the persecution complex gets in the way of reason sometimes.

So I don't think the political cost of such actions would be worth any gains. The world can basically just keep doing what they have been, wringing their hands and imploring reason out of zealots and sending financial aid to Palestinians to keep them alive during the conflict (without American aid, for example, there wouldn't be a lot of Palestinians alive these days, we just pledged $85 million more).

The world should also give greater support to moderate Palestinians. More heads of state should be providing diplomatic opportunities for moderates like Abbas. Small things like those photo ops help legitimize a political candidate and if Abbas were in charge of Gaza instead of Hamas there would be much more pressure on Israel to negotiate in good faith right now.

Quote:
What UN can do to stop it?


Nothing. The US has veto power, the UN resolutions on this tend to be small-minded, and the UN lacks any viable mechanism to compel Israel to comply with a resolution. The UN is a bit player in the Madrid Quartet (as are all but the US).
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 05:17 pm
@roger,
That would be great, but I don't see it in the cards.

Thing is, their support for Hamas has largely political advantages for Hamas now, as their military threat to Israel has been largely neutralized by the Israeli disengagements.

I think that financial aid that circumvents Hamas is the best thing we can do to neutralize Iranian aid to extremists. Hamas isn't politically powerful for their terrorism, they are politically powerful because they are the greatest provider of social services (hospitals, libraries, schools) in Gaza where there is a huge vacuum for such services.

Relatively insignificant financial aid can do wonders to undercut their political power and neutralize the aid they receive from regional meddlers.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 05:26 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Hamas is the only governing institution that has ever worked in Palestine, Arafat allowed a crippling level of corruption to consume both Fatah and the PLO. Hamas have been the only ones who stayed mostly non corrupt and efficient, so they get points.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 07:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I should think that Israel would be have the best chance of having a future is they were to make peace with Palestinians before Iran get the nuclear arms, because we all know that Iran would love to help the Islamic radicals eliminate Israel.


Hamas' charter does not allow them to accept Israel's right to exist. Peace with the Palestineans in Gaza is not an option for that reason. A cease-fire, but not real peace.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 07:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Israel has made some half assed attempts at peace....
What Israel needs to do is cultivate a generation of Palestinian intelligentsia who are not traumatized, who are educated, and who can see from their life experience that peace with Israel can mean a prosperous Palestine.



How does one "cultivate a generation of Palestinian intelligentsia who are not traumatized, who are educated, and who can see from their life experience that peace with Israel can mean a prosperous Palestine"? Are you talking about making Jewish families adopted parents of young Palestineans, so the Jewish parents make sure their adopted children go to college? Sounds silly? But, that might be some part of the differences between the two groups? Less Arab street, more college class rooms, perhaps.

Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 07:47 pm
I still maintain: that bombing and mass murder is wrong: it was what Tim McVeigh was executed for.
I think accusing Israel of restraint is laughable. They are behaving like genocidal bullies. Americans seem blind to this: can anyone explain how bombing a University helps things.
Or the murder of an entire family belonging to a politician with who's views they disagree.
Murdering children cannot be justified. To pretend to do so just shows how far down America has gone morally.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 08:02 pm
@Foofie,
Israel controls what flows into Gaza and the West Bank, thus has the power to support palestinian cultural institutions. They did help build and arm the police, now they kill as many police as possible so that does not count. Funding universities would be good, helping to send Palestinians abroad for schooling would be good, Israel funded hospitals would be great. Israel needs to make an investment into Palestine, into peace, they would thus secure their own future.

there are lots (or were before the global recession/depression hit) of nations willing to sink serious money into palestine, to help build stability there, but they will not do so now in part because the assumption is that whatever is built Israel will eventually destroy. If Israel puts its own money in many would follow.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 08:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Israel controls what flows into Gaza and the West Bank, thus has the power to support palestinian cultural institutions. They did help build and arm the police, now they kill as many police as possible so that does not count. Funding universities would be good, helping to send Palestinians abroad for schooling would be good, Israel funded hospitals would be great. Israel needs to make an investment into Palestine, into peace, they would thus secure their own future.

there are lots (or were before the global recession/depression hit) of nations willing to sink serious money into palestine, to help build stability there, but they will not do so now in part because the assumption is that whatever is built Israel will eventually destroy. If Israel puts its own money in many would follow.


Why would Israel want to assist Palestineans, other than maintaining a future work-force of cheaper labor for some nebulous future of peace? For the mutual self-respect of both groups, I believe, neither should take anything from the other. I do not see where Israel owes Palestineans anything. The other Arab nations, in my opinion, should have helped the Palestineans over the last 60 years, and should help now, since it was their attacking Israel in 1948 that made for the situation.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/23/2014 at 06:56:51