Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Opinions, anyone?

Nope. That seems completely out of character of both companies who as Banzai said are greedy (especially Star Bucks. For what their coffee costs I can buy like four orders of Burger King french toast sticks and BK Coffee!).

I don't see too many corporations wanting to get broiled up in this mess. The only power in the world that seems to openly back Israel is the US government and everyone else either wants to avoid the issue.

 

I am going to have to agree with you guys.
I aslo think that they are wayyy to greedy of companys.
Its not like Israel needs any more money anyways...they are one of the strongest countries in the world.
I doubted it from the beginning, but I was just checkin in with you guys.

 

The fiasco was on Israel's side. They invaded with the stated goal of rooting Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon and getting their soldiers back.They didn't achieve these goals, ergo Hezbollah won.

In guerilla warfare, victory usually just means lasting longer than the other guy. If you managed to maintain operational capability and keep fighting, you've won, because you haven't lost. Hezbollah got mad props from that war and a whole new generation of converts. The Lebanese army and government, by contrast, looked ineffectual. If the Israelis are dropping cluster bombs on your neighbourhood and Hezbollah are the only ones shooting back, you're going to take a dim view of the government for taking your taxes and not protecting you from Israel. If the Israelis then leave, and Hezbollah come out and clean up the rubble, they look even better for fighting off the invader.

I was speaking short term, in this immediate conflict. Hamas may want to eventually destroy Israel, or at least force peace on their terms, but in this conflict, that isn't what they want to do. The big point for guerilla armies is to just keep fighting. If they can keep up the rockets until after Israel withdraws they can say "see, despite those Zionists invading and inflicting atrocities on us, we have managed to keep the jihad going. Allahu Akbar!".

Propaganda victories are important in modern warfare, particularly in these asymmetrical conflicts.

In the medium and short term, Israel is secure (more on this in a moment). In the long term, they need to start playing the demographics game better. If Palestinians outbreed Israelis by a high enough ratio, Israel starts to look real shaky in 50 or 100 years.

Israel isn't really trying to remove Hamas at this stage. The fact that the ground invasion is limited to only part of Gaza is a tacit acknowledgement of this. As this article points out, Israel has set itself quite modest goals in this immediate conflict: stopping or greatly decreasing the rocket fire.

On the bold: It might interest you to know that Israel supported Hamas when it first arrived on the scene, thinking it would act as a counterpoint to Fatah. Some analysts agree with you on the risk of Israel becoming a victim of its own success.

I agree, although I'm not so sold on the idea that the Israelis have been negotiating in good faith.

I don't quite see how giving back Palestinians their own land is much of a "concession". I also don't see Israel generally acting in good faith, as you argue. The wall and the settlements are two huge holes in that entire scenario. The wall is a land grab (it annexes large chunks of Palestinian territory), and the settlements are blatant theft, supported by the Israeli military. The fact that the Israelis have been cutting down Palestinian olive groves and denying them access to land that they've owned for generations is supports this. Denying Palestinians building permits while allowing settlements to flourish for decades is hardly a good faith gesture. It's not logically bound up in Israel's security either - it just looks like provocation.

I meant an existential threat (ie, to the existence of the Israeli state), as opposed to a threat to the security of the people living in those immediate areas. I'm not claiming that Israel has no right to respond, I'm merely distinguishing between a massive invasion, a la the Yom Kippur war, and what are essentially a series of minor attacks. It's the difference between the Unabomber and Pearl Harbour, so to speak.

 

That's what I mean. I was merely pointing out Hezbollah didn't exactly kick anyone's butt and win. They won because the UN got involved.

I see you're point. But on a side note, Hezbollah is a Lebonese political party and is part of their government (like Hamas is the majority power holder in the Palestinian Authority). Hezbollah definitely got points from the locals for sure. I'm not exactly all that aware of the politics in Lebonon so I have no idea if the opinion of their government is lower.

Kay I see what you mean.

That's certainly true. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world for the sole fact of demographics. They've been having a population explosion for a long time now (I think it's like 30 or 40 years). And I do remember an article awhile back not necessarily about the Jews but about large ethnic groups that are experiencing heavy declines in population; the Jews were on the list along with a bunch of other ethnic minorities (lots of African and Native American tribes there too).

I don't really know about negotiating in good faith but I think that if the attacks stopped Israel would back down and the humanitarian crisis would be open for help. Israel has a long streak of caving to outside political pressure for the short term, and historically has been much more cooperative of the two sides in terms of civil rights (not too say they get an A plus in the civil rights class, they probably get a B- or C+). I merely think that given time, if the Palestinian groups backed down, the situation would improve with Israel's excuse for it's massive land siege disappears (Yeah I know, not happening).

It's a concession in that they did give it back. They held it since 67 and gave it back about 40 years later. I call that a concession. Everyone says give them their land back, Israel did, but it didn't help their situation.

Israel held Gaza since 67, and other territory since the 48 war. They acted as any nation that takes land in war does and I hold nothing against them for that. The US came from that and nearly every nation in existence now and before was built through conquest. It's the nature of nations and to act as that's somehow evil is a bit unrealistic. The wall in place now is probably an international crime, but prior to the last few years they were merely cutting off a section of their own territory. I see what you mean though and it goes along with my opinion Israel overreacts (the wall) and doesn't handle the situations it deals with too well (settlements in what are supposedly lands not under Israeli control).

I think it's part of a long line of retaliation that goes back and forth from both sides. Through out the 17-early 20th century the same thing occured to Jews in the region under Ottoman rule, and I think that the current situation is part of this huge back and forth between both sides started when Israel took control of the region and large territories in 48 and did evict a lot of people. There was a sweep of vandalism against jews in response, then more discrimination against palestinians so on and so forth.

I'm not saying Israel is an angel far from it, but I find them the more inclined of the two groups towards peace, and if the other side would back down Israel's various naughty deeds would slowly scale back into nonexistence and the healing could begin (again I doubt it will happen. These guys will be fighting till the second coming of christ, ragnarok, WWIII, climate melt down, <insert other end of days scenario>).

I get you and agree. Like I've said before I think Israel goes way overboard in it's response.

 

Don't you think that this is one of the problems? I don't know if it's in good faith or not. But that's kind of the point. You don't know, so it could go either way. I don't follow this very much, so I don't know a lot of the facts. What I do know is that when I listen to people talking about this, and in wars in the past, there has been a great lack of trust. At my last job, I saw the kind of poisoned environment that was created by the boss not trusting us. It's scary when I watch the news and see what is happening, and how some of it could be prevented if each side would trust that the other wants a solution. All I see is Palestine growing more and more angry. They have a right to be angry and grieve for the people who have died. No one will ever deny that. But it's when people let that anger feed the decisions they make, and let themselves forget that there are innocent victims on all sides and we're all human, that finding a way to stop it becomes impossible.

You might say "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," to justify revenge or counter attacks. I know there are Jews who do that. A year ago, a Rabbi I know said that revenge is perfectly okay. Great, so the whole world will be blind and toothless.

 

Canada did it through asking permission. Well, not exactly, but that's the joke. The point is, it was done peacefully. It can be done peacefully.

 

Maybe then they'll stop killing each other.

 

They'll keep trying. It's just hard to shoot when you're blind.

 

There is one little problem with not making them pay for an attack. If either side were to try to compromise after getting hurt, then the other side will just keep attacking. So it's either get revenge, justice or whatever you believe it to be, or keep getting attacked.

 

I heard the Brits were glad to get rid of Canada because it's just too damn cold there! LOL

 

Not really. Shooting is almost as easy. Aiming is hard...

 

Let us be plain about this: Wars of conquest and genocide are common place events in history, but they are both completely unacceptable under modern international law. Even if, say, the US attacked France in a completely unprovoked fashion, causing massive casualties, and France were able to defeat the US, France would not be allowed to take over American territory afterwards. They could occupy the US while arranging suitable elections, and they could subject the US to severe punishments - war reparations and so on - but annexing another country's territory is completely illegal, except by mutual consent. Furthermore, in the wake of a war, that annexation is illegal, even by mutual consent - this stops victorious countries from putting in puppet governments who agree to hand over territory.

Killing off brown people and stealing their land might have been fine in the days of General Custer, but it's not legal now. Sorry.

 

I wouldn't call the 60's the modern era. The Cold War and post WWII were some pretty harsh times and the political state of the world was a completely different story. I see what you mean though. But the fact was Israel did conquer the region and took over and then it was theirs. Maybe it's not pretty but I don't really see what anyone can do about it if they want it (short of counter-invasion).

Besides, International law is a comedy show that just keeps on delivering.

 

The relevant conventions still applied in the 60s. In any case, might does not make right. Syria contests their right to the Golan Heights, and the Palestinians continue to contest their control of Palestinian territory. The play's quite a bit wider than "well, they got away with it, we need to walk away." Furthermore, the US provides Israel with enormous amounts of aid and diplomatic support, effectively assisting them in their military endeavours. Threatening to cut off that aid would be very effective in getting them to change their behaviour, and would fall far short of invading them.

 

That's probably true. I doubt Israel would have made it this far without our help, but I think that they're not quite as dependent on the US as they were say thirty forty years ago. They've got a pretty good economy these days and a trade surplus which usually bodes well. Their military is pretty top notch these days too. They have the capacity in themselves to completely provide their own weapons and armaments with or without our support. They certainly have the technical ability.

I still think that regardless of the legality of it, it was a concession to give the land back (as figurative as that "give it back" might be). Really the whole situation is so screwy both sides could probably make real concessions and the animosity would keep going.

 

This also falls under that very sad lack of trust. You don't believe believe that the other side will be open to compromises, so you blow the hell out of them. That feeds hate and anger, and makes it even more unlikely that the other side will listen.

It's this kind of thinking that keeps wars going. We want the war to end, don't we? How to conflicts end? One side gives up/accepts conquest. That's never going to happen here. You fight so much that one or both sides lose all ability to fight, whether they were willing to give up or not. Very unlikely. Or you come to some kind of agreement, without letting anger and hate feed your thinking. There is nothing wrong with justice, but justice does not always mean revenge or further attacks.

 

Even though Israel gave back a portion of Palestinian land, they are still greatly involved all over the country...or whats left of it.
They've got a numerous amount of road blocks and Checkpoints etc.
You've gotta consider the amount of freedom that the Palestinians have within their own land.
I am not 100 % sure, but I think, if my memory serves right, that Jerusalem is split in half...or split. And that half of it is more Israeli while half of it is more Palestinian. The Palestinian part, is in short, "Ghetto." the Israeli part is indeed quite beautiful-whatever, thats besides the point.
What I am trying to point out here is that there are so many checkpoints on the way to the Palestinian side of Jerusalem-all of them Israeli checkpoints, with Israeli soldiers, who are barely like 24- treating anyone who is not a tourist like (poop).
They give back their land, and shove checkpoints in there, claiming it is to make sure no one brings in anything illegal...I do not get that.
Even if you want to cross the border from Jordan, straight to Palestine, you will need to pass through one Israeli huge checkpoint, that is just hell. They love to give those arabs heck...no lie.

 

I don't have any real answers, and a lot of my points have been discussed, but I want people to see a why this is happening.

The problem is essentially that this began with the creation of the state of Israel and now, in this current time, there is nothing we can do about how Israel became a country. Whether it was right or wrong for the Jews to set up shop on this piece of land is a moot point because it happened. The origins of this issue are, therefore, useless to discuss.

So now, in the present, I would like you all to picture this. You are Israeli, maybe thirty-five or so, obviously born long after the establishment of Israel. Both of your parents are Israeli, grew up in a city near Gaza. You've been there your whole life, and still live there, with your spouse and small child. Your entire family is in that city. Now picture EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE for the past four or five years has been overtaken by the fact that a rocket could fall out of the sky and hit your house, or your child at his daycare or the grocery store when you're shopping. And it does happen---and when the siren goes off you have seconds to make it to your bomb shelter or your face could get blown off. People rarely die, but SOMEONE, in Gaza, is trying to kill you. How exactly do you feel? What exactly do you want your government to do about it, this constant disruption of your life, where any second the siren go off? Yes, you could move, but you really can't afford it and you don't want to be away from your family. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL?

This is the sentiment that has been brewing for awhile now, and this is why Israel has acted with such terrible force. The situation for the people of Gaza is horrific. They have been squeezed out of their livelihoods by a terrible succession of events and misguided leadership. Now, in the present, they have elected a government out of desperation, which is of absolutely no use to them because all it wants is the genocide of the people next door. They have entangled themselves deeper into a web, giving power to men who would send their children to blow themselves up. They are locked in a prison of a tiny piece of land. And the pain that Israelis have/are/will inflict on them is immeasurable, because Israel, in this situation, feels the deep-seated need to defend itself. And I do believe it does.

That being said, things are happening that disturb me deeply. I heard a very passionate and talented speaker about this issue just today and essentially he posed the moral question of whether it's justified to kill the Hamas militant's children if it means killing him. NO. It is NOT. It is NEVER, EVER okay to kill children. Even if it means the life of your own child. Who are you to decide what life is more important? He also posed the question of "Is it justified to kill five Palestinian civilians to save the lives of five Israeli soldiers?" NO. Again, you cannot measure the worth of a neutral party, the civilian, against that of your own soldier. No one is God. In this situation, no one can choose who is more deserving of life when neither has (supposedly) committed any crime. And this probably will happen: five Israeli soldiers will end the lives of five Palestinian civilians to save their own. And this is a horror of this modern age.

There is no doubt that what is occurring is completely and wholly horrific. I am by no means saying the quantity of force and the manner in which they are inflicting it is just. Truthfully, I have no idea. All I know that it has caused a lot of suffering. But I hope more people can understand why and understand there is desperation festering in the people on both sides of that wall.

 

Not their country. Why do people insist that people who've never had their own country are suddenly owners of some fictional country? Not to say it's Israeli land therefore but it certainly wasn't Palestinian land at any point in history so I don't see how they're suddenly entitled to it. If anything Israel should give Gaza back to Egypt (who were the holders of the Strip from 48-67)! Conversely they can give it to the British or the now defunct Ottoman Empire.

The only reason those checkpoints exist is because of Palestinian attacks on Israel. It's a crisis of their own making.

I don't think it's a 50-50 split. Western area is mostly populated by Jews and the Eastern area is mostly populated by Palestinians, and there's a very very small Christian minority (about 2%) spread around the city. I think the Western part is larger than the easter, but I only assume that because the western area has a higher overall population.

I do know that a major civil rights issue in Israel right now is discrimination against Palestinian urban development in favor of Jewish urban development (meaning that there's more places for Jews to live than Palestinians). The cause is considered to be the Israeli government attempting to boost the Jewish population in Jerusalem and decrease the Palestinian population. Naturally with few construction possibilities available to Palestinian citizens the areas of the city they live in naturally fall into disrepair and a 'ghetto' like state.

 

Is it any wonder that the cradle of western civilization should be such a hotbed of differing factions and interests, goals and intentions? It only follows a pattern well established by probability. There will always be a tendency for there to be more diversity at the place of origin of a given phenomenon.

English as a language comes from England. There is more linguistic diversity, per capita and per square mile there than in any other English speaking region.

It is the source.

Africa, the birthplace of anatomically modern sapiens has more genetic diversity than any other population area for AMS.

It is the source.

Western civilization started in and/or around the areas of the Middle East. There is more diversity and subsequent conflict there than in pretty much any other area of modern western civilization.

It is the source.

It is unpretty to think of the human condition as just a set of patterns that are calculable and predictable given models of probability, but we as people are no more or less part of the natural order of things than fractal patterns or Brownian motion.

 

An interesting point Wrey, very interesting. On the last bit I actually find that in groups human beings are incredibly predictable (like math), while the individual is a bit harder to understand. The variables really can be anything but there's only so many ways the final equation can come out.

 

The worry I have about his argument to is that not acting is still making a choice. Considering: If Truman had decided not to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and had instead opted for a ground invasion, he would be choosing to allow many American soldiers to die. Similarly, choosing not to bomb Berlin flat during WW2 would mean allowing Jewish and British children to die. Effectively, you're always making a choice, because not acting is still choosing.

By virtue of self determination, as first implemented in the Atlantic Charter.

It's a pretty intuitive and solid proposition - the Palestinian people have been living in Palestine for a very long time, ergo it is their land. The fact that the Ottoman Empire or Egypt happened to exercise force of arms over that land does not make it any less Palestinian.

Groups of people do not need a nation state to have a natural right to their land, any more than you need a corporation to own your body. If the US government at all levels - Federal and State - were to be dissolved tomorrow, that wouldn't mean that China would have the right to walk in an annex the 50 states as Chinese provinces. It would be for the American people to determine their form of government.

 

There was no force of arms in the Egypt rule. Egypt was granted the land by the British when the European nations began liquidating their colonial holdings (Britain was granted control by the League of Nations following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, though they had invaded and captured the region during WWI the cause of the Empire's collapse). The Ottomans never invaded either but rather through some political checkers gained control of vast stretched of what had been lands under the Egyptian Caliphates. It's a bit more complicated than that as both Egypt and the ottomans have invaded prior to those events. Palestine as a region has probably traded hands more often than any other part of the world and I'm willing to bet every possible way of land trading hands has probably been used at least once.

Also, Jews have lived in that region longer than the Palestinians have. The Palestinians as a group are descended from a mix of Saudi Arab and Egyptians that can be first recognized as appearing around the 9th/10th century AD. This is cultural, genetics wise they can be said to be descended from various groups that invaded the Palestinian region from the 9th century BC to the 4th century BC such as the Assyrians and Persians. An extremely small percentage can be linked to native groups from the 12th and 11th century. This was very very minor supposedly as censuses are almost unanimous in determining that under the early Roman rule, Jews made up almost 100% of Palestine's population. Likely they grew with an influx during the Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries AD. The Jews have been constant residents of the region since the 13th century BC, and had gone back and forth through the region for several centuries prior. Does that not make it their land as well? Contrary to popular belief they didn't all leave and then suddenly show up in 1948. They've been there for over three millennia. They made up about 100% of the population in the 1st century BC, and then their population in the region fell to under 5 in the 15th century, and then started rising again. When Israel as a nation was a establish they were about a third of the local population and afterwards swelled to what is now about 77%. I mean Israel with the modern demographics, Gaza and West Bank demographics last I looked had Jews as a non-factor, Christians as an extremely tiny minority, and Palestinian Arabs as being easily roundable to a full 100%.

All we have here is another cultural conflict between two groups vying for control of land that they both have a said right too (as you've aptly proven).

Furthermore Palestinians didn't care when the British, French, the Ottomans, or the Egyptians were in control of the region, they only cared when control was given to the Jews. They choose to escalate the situation to violence so I have little sympathy for their plights since it's a situation they've put themselves in.

Another example of why International law is a joke:

Who decides who can decide this matter? It's absurd to assume any kind of law can govern such a complex issue. The only way nations have ever been created was not by any form of law but by outside forces creating them via invasion, treaty, or by internal forces working such as rebellions and successions. I also find it interesting the Atlantic Charter was forged by the same folks who created Israel as a nation.

EDIT: A a side note I knew I recognized the Virture of Self Determination and just remembered it was the concept by which the league of Nations cut up europe following WWI, the now African disaster zone, and very poor former Soviet Republics. When people try to exercise the concept it's almost always proven a disaster because the new nations are incapable of surviving. Versus Territorial Integrity Self-determination is inept. I mean this in terms of determining sovereignty and the rights of the governed over the governing. Territorial Integrity has it's own serious issues that need working out, but in terms of determining sovereignty I find Self-Determination has been a disaster more often than not.

 

When it comes to the is it alright to kill children comment, in this case, yes it is. A governemts most important responsability is to protect it's citizens. In this case, the person using those children as human shields has killed and will kill Israeles, including Israely civilains. If you don't kill him, including those kids, then a lot more people are going to die. And I for one think the death of any children used as shields is the cause of the person who decided to put them in harms why, not the soldier protecting his homeland.

 

Israel has every right to defend itself from the barbarians of Hamas. Those who say that the Israeli response was "disproportionate", including our own Jewish Foreign Secretary David Milliband, show consider whether the invasion of Iraq was proportionate. No WMD have found there in nearly six years.