2014 Israel/Gaza conflict: electric boogaloo

[Ultimate Paragon]

My operative word was "minimum".  I'm not so dumb as to think there'd be no innocent lives lost.

Let's put it this way: airstrikes do not minimize civilian deaths at all, but a ground invasion ensures maximum carnage.

And yet I don't hear you bitching about Ukraine making ground offensives against the pro-Russian rebels.

[Ironchew]

My operative word was "minimum".  I'm not so dumb as to think there'd be no innocent lives lost.

Let's put it this way: airstrikes do not minimize civilian deaths at all, but a ground invasion ensures maximum carnage.

And yet I don't hear you bitching about Ukraine making ground offensives against the pro-Russian rebels.

Well, yeah, because this is the Israel/Gaza thread. It doesn't mean I don't care about anything else that's happening in the world, but the fact that the Palestinian Occupied Territories is an open-air prison where its people have no control over its borders and refugees are not allowed to cross the border into neighboring nations does make it fairly unique among current conflicts.

[Old Viking]

Here's a nice simplistic, morality-free analysis: if I continually go out of my way to agitate the guy down the street, and every time I do it he beats the snot out of me, I think that at some point I would consider not agitating him.

[Ironchew]

Here's a nice simplistic, morality-free analysis: if I continually go out of my way to agitate the guy down the street, and every time I do it he beats the snot out of me, I think that at some point I would consider not agitating him.

Maybe if the guy that beats the snot out of him was also keeping him locked up in his basement...

[Lt. Fred]

Israel bears responsibility for the predictable use of violence on both sides. It is within Israel's power to end the conflict, and not Palestine's. Israel knows perfectly well that some Palestinians will entirely reasonable try to resist their slow annexation of Palestinian territory. They know perfectly well that some will use violent means to resist. And they know perfectly well how to immediately end any of that violent resistance - stop the occupation. Israel is willing to bear the moral responsibility for their own actions in prosecuting the annexation, the response from Palestinians and their own disproportionate counter-response. They are also willing to bear the cost in human lives. It's quite cheap, from the Israeli perspective. In the long run, it may well not be.

I note that I use the "Israel" to refer to the current government of Israel. Many Israelis are responsible, peace-loving people, unlike their government.

Now, to go to the thing that was left in the last thread.

Are we so sure Israel has changed its spots since 1948? This is a state founded on ethnic cleansing - like in Yugoslavia. Is that not what they are doing now? They try to make Palestine so miserable for Palestinians that eventually they will surrender their homes to Israel without a fight. And much of Palestine has already been given up. How much of Palestine has Israel already (illegally) annexed through settlement construction?

1.  "Founded on ethnic cleansing"?  That's wrong in so many ways I can't even begin to describe it.  And many Israelis oppose the settlements.

This isn't even in doubt any more. I strongly suggest you read literally anything about the 1948 or 1967 wars from the last twenty years, in which the IDF ethnically cleansed large numbers of Palestinians from their homes. Benny Morris is a good source, for instance.

Why did Israel withdraw from Gaza? Because it was too expensive to maintain a few hundred settlers - and they'd given up on direct annexation, as in the West Bank. Instead, blockade was the answer. Lay siege, starve them out.

2.  No.  It was done primarily to try and speed along a peace process.  And if they wanted to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza, why wasn't it a continuous blockade since 2005?  If they're trying to take over Gaza, they're doing a crappy job of it.

That's obviously just nonsense. Israel has not been willing to negotiate in good faith since the breakdown of Taba in 2001.

When did the Israelis loosen the blockade, even for a day? In total violation of various peace agreements and ceasefires that they've signed, they've just maintained the blockade of food and water and so on, no? I'm not saying that Israel wants to take Gaza. They're happy for Gaza to remain Palestinian. Too expensive to try to annex it.

Is Hamas genocidal? Of course not. This is exactly the hysterical overreaction you decry in others, and rightly so. Firstly, Hamas has no capacity to commit even the sort of mass casualties Israel routinely inflicts on them. Or even to sufficiently bloody Israel's nose to force them to the negotiating table, which they resolutely refuse to do. Why was there a negotiated peace with Egypt, but not Palestine? Because Egypt was an actual threat to people, and Palestine is not; you can kick them around all day long, and they can't even touch you, except just enough to justify kicking them some more.

Nor does Hamas even have the intention of killing Jews. Would Hamas accept a peace overture from Israel, based on the Green Line? Of course. In a heartbeat. It is to achieve this end that Hamas occasionally uses force, and usually uses non-violent tactics. Indeed, Hamas has been hyper-actively cracking down on bottle-rocket usage over the last year, in order to prevent the deaths of Jews. In order to justify a counter-attack, Israel stopped their efforts.

3.  Citation needed.

For what?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Okay, Fred.  There's a term for you: "useful idiot".  I'm against Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.  The problem is that it's not a justification for attacks on innocent people whose only crime is being Israeli.  I have sympathy for the Palestinian people.  I do not have sympathy for terrorists.  Because that's what Hamas is: a terrorist organization.  Its activities present one of the biggest roadblocks to peace.  If they restricted themselves to military targets and property, if they tried to peacefully cooperate with Israel, if they showed an ounce of remorse about the deaths they've caused, I might sympathize with them.  But they don't, so I don't.

And as for your "refutations".

1.  In both cases, that was done in retaliation for unprovoked attacks by the Arabs.  If they hate Israel so much that they feel oppressed by its existence, that's their problem, not Israel's.  Besides, "ethnic cleansing" is a strong term to use.

2.  Israel has loosened the blockade.  Since 2010, they've allowed civilian goods to enter Gaza.  Meanwhile, Egypt has allowed people to enter and leave Gaza.

Oh, and the blockade didn't begin until two years after the withdrawal from Gaza.  Why?  Because the elected government was overthrown by Hamas.

3.  For everything you said.  The only thing stopping Hamas from wiping Israel off the face of the Earth is their lack of means.  Hamas's charter blames Zionism for countless tragedies.  It's anti-Israel, and moreover, it's anti-Semitic.  And if Hamas has "seen the light", as they like to claim, why haven't they changed it?  All this talk of moderation and cooperation is nothing more than a PR stunt.

TL;DR Hamas needs to either change its ways or go.

[niam2023]

1. Ethnic cleansing is a strong word to use because its the right word to use for systematically throwing people out of the area and letting Israelis move in.

2. Hamas is a natural reaction - people were thrown out of their homes by these people who have drones, high powered aircraft and tanks, and who they cannot wage honest warfare with.

3. One could say the same thing about Israel's willingness to "cooperate" - it is a publicity stunt to make the international community stop criticizing them, just like how the United States apparently cannot criticize Israel without the Right Wing throwing a bitch fit.

[Ultimate Paragon]

1. Ethnic cleansing is a strong word to use because its the right word to use for systematically throwing people out of the area and letting Israelis move in.

2. Hamas is a natural reaction - people were thrown out of their homes by these people who have drones, high powered aircraft and tanks, and who they cannot wage honest warfare with.

3. One could say the same thing about Israel's willingness to "cooperate" - it is a publicity stunt to make the international community stop criticizing them, just like how the United States apparently cannot criticize Israel without the Right Wing throwing a bitch fit.

1. "Ethnic cleansing" implies wholescale genocide.  Which hasn't happened.

2.  It may be a natural reaction, but that doesn't justify what they do.  Or need I remind you of the differences between Hamas and the ANC?

3.  Wrong.  Israel has made genuine efforts.  It has done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

[Lt. Fred]

I'm against Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

Good. This is the sole cause of the conflict. When Israel is willing to dismantle them, on that day it will end.

If they restricted themselves to military targets and property,

This is not actually an option available to them. Unlike the IDF, Palestinians do not have access to world arms markets. They make do with crappy second-rate bottlerockets.

1.  In both cases, that was done in retaliation for unprovoked attacks by the Arabs.  If they hate Israel so much that they feel oppressed by its existence, that's their problem, not Israel's.  Besides, "ethnic cleansing" is a strong term to use.

Again, I strongly advise you to read literally anything on the 1948 or 1967 wars. Neither were started or substantially involved Palestinians, who were the primary victims. Indeed, even if they had been belligerents you can't acquire land through force. Nor can you justify mass rape, mass murder, threats, ect by arguing that they started the conflict. Ethnic cleansing is a strong word accurately describing Al Nakba. It was used in much less severe circumstances in Yugoslavia.

Indeed, in 1948, the Arabs didn't even start it (Egypt and Syria started the 1967 war). The Israelis had begun their ethnic cleansing campaign well before the start of the war. Deir Yassin, for instance, was April 9. The war began on May 15.

2.  Israel has loosened the blockade.  Since 2010, they've allowed civilian goods to enter Gaza.  Meanwhile, Egypt has allowed people to enter and leave Gaza.

Well, that's nice of them. Not enough, of course, for the Palestinians to get enough to eat. But it's nice of them to at least make moves towards ending their permanent violations of the agreements they've made with Hamas.

Oh, and the blockade didn't begin until two years after the withdrawal from Gaza.  Why?  Because the elected government was overthrown by Hamas.

Just as the US government was overthrown by the Democratic Party.

3.  For everything you said.  The only thing stopping Hamas from wiping Israel off the face of the Earth is their lack of means.  Hamas's charter blames Zionism for countless tragedies.  It's anti-Israel, and moreover, it's anti-Semitic.  And if Hamas has "seen the light", as they like to claim, why haven't they changed it?  All this talk of moderation and cooperation is nothing more than a PR stunt.

Hamas's charter is as relevant as Likud's, which is equally racist. No doubt Hamas is a deeply flawed institution. I'm not going to deny that. It is somewhat extractive, for instance, more of an organised criminal organisation than a government. Is it the cause of the conflict? No. Israel's attempts to annex Palestine are. If those attempts ended, the conflict would.

[Canadian Mojo]

I would argue that Israelis that move into settlements on occupied land are not 'innocent people' as you put it. They are willful accomplices to state sanctioned and supported theft, idiots, or have been dragged there by family and had no say in the matter.

These are little more than the American Indian wars 21st century style. Actually this is just plain old imperial colonialism as practiced by far too many nations up until far too recently. So the question is; if colonialism is wrong, why is this right?

[Ultimate Paragon]

And yet more oversimplifications and flat-out misinformation.     Then again, you're the same guy who thought Venezuela was doing fine.

Good. This is the sole cause of the conflict. When Israel is willing to dismantle them, on that day it will end.

"Sole cause of the conflict"?  Yeah, I'm sure the post-colonial clusterfuck, the Cold War, Iranian agitation, and the rise of Radical Islamism had nothing to do with it.  And why were the Palestinians attacking Israel before the settlements were built?

This is not actually an option available to them. Unlike the IDF, Palestinians do not have access to world arms markets. They make do with crappy second-rate bottlerockets.

And those rockets do a lot of damage.  Besides, the ANC wasn't exactly well-armed either.

Again, I strongly advise you to read literally anything on the 1948 or 1967 wars. Neither were started or substantially involved Palestinians, who were the primary victims. Indeed, even if they had been belligerents you can't acquire land through force. Nor can you justify mass rape, mass murder, threats, ect by arguing that they started the conflict. Ethnic cleansing is a strong word accurately describing Al Nakba. It was used in much less severe circumstances in Yugoslavia.

Indeed, in 1948, the Arabs didn't even start it (Egypt and Syria started the 1967 war). The Israelis had begun their ethnic cleansing campaign well before the start of the war. Deir Yassin, for instance, was April 9. The war began on May 15.

You seem to be ignoring the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.  The Palestinians may or may not have been the aggressors in that conflict, but they definitely drew first blood.  Oh, and the Arabs did start the 1948 conflict.  And what about the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim nations to Israel?  Are we just supposed to ignore those refugees?

Well, that's nice of them. Not enough, of course, for the Palestinians to get enough to eat. But it's nice of them to at least make moves towards ending their permanent violations of the agreements they've made with Hamas.

Hamas violated those agreements first.  I don't remember them cracking down on the rockets being fired into Israel.  Maybe if they'd done so...

Just as the US government was overthrown by the Democratic Party.

Uh, no.  Hamas seized control through military action.

Hamas's charter is as relevant as Likud's, which is equally racist. No doubt Hamas is a deeply flawed institution. I'm not going to deny that. It is somewhat extractive, for instance, more of an organised criminal organisation than a government. Is it the cause of the conflict? No. Israel's attempts to annex Palestine are. If those attempts ended, the conflict would.

And we end with yet more dumbassery.

I would argue that Israelis that move into settlements on occupied land are not 'innocent people' as you put it. They are willful accomplices to state sanctioned and supported theft, idiots, or have been dragged there by family and had no say in the matter.

But do they deserve to die?  And it's not just settlers who get killed

These are little more than the American Indian wars 21st century style. Actually this is just plain old imperial colonialism as practiced by far too many nations up until far too recently. So the question is; if colonialism is wrong, why is this right?

I don't like the settlements either.  But to paint it as a clear-cut scenario of Israel bullying Palestine is just plain intellectually dishonest.  I know it's tempting and natural to try and find good guys and bad guys.  Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple.

[Lt. Fred]

Good. This is the sole cause of the conflict. When Israel is willing to dismantle them, on that day it will end.

"Sole cause of the conflict"?  Yeah, I'm sure the post-colonial clusterfuck, the Cold War, Iranian agitation, and the rise of Radical Islamism had nothing to do with it.  And why were the Palestinians attacking Israel before the settlements were built?

The settlements were constructed beginning around 1967, which eventually led to widespread popular violence (ie, the First Intifada from 1987). A number of Palestinians were quite mad about being forced out of their homes in 1948, even before the Six Day War. It has since become apparent that they are not going to get the initial Mandate borders off the Israeli state - which is all that was ever asked. The PLO formally accepted a two-state solution quite recently, in 1988.

Why did Egypt and Syria fight Israel in 1967 (and a few other times as well)? Well, that's a different question.

There is a way to test your contention that the conflict is caused by more than Israeli aggression - force Israel to the negotiating table as we did South Africa. When they are willing to negotiate in good faith, the Palestinians will certainly accept. At that stage, either the conflict will largely end (barring a few radicals on both sides) or you will not be entirely wrong.

This is not actually an option available to them. Unlike the IDF, Palestinians do not have access to world arms markets. They make do with crappy second-rate bottlerockets.

And those rockets do a lot of damage. [/quote]

They have killed a grand total of one Israeli so far this conflict.

Besides, the ANC wasn't exactly well-armed either.

And they used terrorism all the time. We remember them as this great non-violent social movement because it's convenient to, but they killed loads of people, including a bunch of Africans.

Again, I strongly advise you to read literally anything on the 1948 or 1967 wars. Neither were started or substantially involved Palestinians, who were the primary victims. Indeed, even if they had been belligerents you can't acquire land through force. Nor can you justify mass rape, mass murder, threats, ect by arguing that they started the conflict. Ethnic cleansing is a strong word accurately describing Al Nakba. It was used in much less severe circumstances in Yugoslavia.

Indeed, in 1948, the Arabs didn't even start it (Egypt and Syria started the 1967 war). The Israelis had begun their ethnic cleansing campaign well before the start of the war. Deir Yassin, for instance, was April 9. The war began on May 15.

You seem to be ignoring the Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.  The Palestinians may or may not have been the aggressors in that conflict, but they definitely drew first blood.  Oh, and the Arabs did start the 1948 conflict.

You don't think the Arab invasion was a response to the civil war in Mandate Palestine?

And what about the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim nations to Israel?  Are we just supposed to ignore those refugees?

So, we're going to blame Palestinians not only for the actions of Germans, but also Iraqis (and indeed, David Ben Gurion, who encouraged that exodus). We should be clear - the flight of Jews from Tripoli and Iraq was largely sincere Zionism, was partly encouraged emigration and was not at all ethnic cleansing in any sense. Nobody seriously thinks that was ethnic cleansing.

Well, that's nice of them. Not enough, of course, for the Palestinians to get enough to eat. But it's nice of them to at least make moves towards ending their permanent violations of the agreements they've made with Hamas.

Hamas violated those agreements first.  I don't remember them cracking down on the rockets being fired into Israel.

Hyper-actively. The only reason bottle-rocket attacks have begun again is because Israel wants them to, in order to justify counter-attack. They have greatly increased bottle-rocket attacks from their record lows by suppressing the Hamas police units that in turn suppress them (by and large bottle-rockets are launched by non-Hamas extremist groups).

Just as the US government was overthrown by the Democratic Party.

Uh, no.  Hamas seized control through military action.

Indeed. Military action at the ballot box.

[Ultimate Paragon]

And they used terrorism all the time. We remember them as this great non-violent social movement because it's convenient to, but they killed loads of people, including a bunch of Africans.

Difference is, they didn't deliberately target civilians, nor did they gloat over their deaths.

You don't think the Arab invasion was a response to the civil war in Mandate Palestine?

No, I don't.  If it was, why did it only begin after the state of Israel was created?

So, we're going to blame Palestinians not only for the actions of Germans, but also Iraqis (and indeed, David Ben Gurion, who encouraged that exodus). We should be clear - the flight of Jews from Tripoli and Iraq was largely sincere Zionism, was partly encouraged emigration and was not at all ethnic cleansing in any sense. Nobody seriously thinks that was ethnic cleansing.

Zionism was certainly a factor, yes.  But we can't discount anti-Semitism and other push factors.

Hyper-actively. The only reason bottle-rocket attacks have begun again is because Israel wants them to, in order to justify counter-attack. They have greatly increased bottle-rocket attacks from their record lows by suppressing the Hamas police units that in turn suppress them (by and large bottle-rockets are launched by non-Hamas extremist groups).

I think that tinfoil hat of yours is cutting off the circulation to your brain.

Indeed. Military action at the ballot box.

Initially, yes.  Then it devolved into bloodshed.

[Witchyjoshy]

I think that tinfoil hat of yours is cutting off the circulation to your brain.

This is not a rebuttal.  This is an empty statement.  Please try again.

Incidentally, since I am not an unbiased party in this discussion...

How would you feel if North Korea invaded the USA and bulldozed your house, to build a new house for North Koreans to live in?
How would you feel if there was a group of people fighting so that you could get your house back?  What if they were the only group of people willing to fight for your cause?

Would you call them terrorists?  Would you fight them tooth and nail, while insisting that you should lay down and die in front of a North Korean bulldozer, because "non-violent resistance" is the only answer?

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think that tinfoil hat of yours is cutting off the circulation to your brain.

This is not a rebuttal.  This is an empty statement.  Please try again.

Incidentally, since I am not an unbiased party in this discussion...

How would you feel if North Korea invaded the USA and bulldozed your house, to build a new house for North Koreans to live in?
How would you feel if there was a group of people fighting so that you could get your house back?  What if they were the only group of people willing to fight for your cause?

Would you call them terrorists?  Would you fight them tooth and nail, while insisting that you should lay down and die in front of a North Korean bulldozer, because "non-violent resistance" is the only answer?

1.  Israel is not North Korea.

2.  I'm against the settlements, I just don't want innocent civilians to be murdered.

3.  When did I ask them to renounce violence entirely?  All I said was that they should avoid targeting civilians.  If that's too much to ask, then that's Hamas's problem, not Israel's.