I am sure that most of you have heard about the large conflict in Gaza between the Palestinians and Israelis. Have you guys got any opinions as to who is at fault, and how this occupation/war could come to an end? If you are one of those people who believes absolutely everything on the News Network, then this may not be the thread for you... You've gotta read between the lines, not listen to whatever anyone throws at you. You could maybe start with google. Maybe a few seemingly trustworthy websites could educate us all. Well I am off to read about the history of this conflict and occupation. A good little reading activity that has to do with this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21595.htm ....just if you're interested in this sort of thing.
This colflict has been around for over a thousand years. It's not going to go away any time soon. Nobody is ready to talk. Most people I know who have a personal interest in it are oozing hate for the other side. Someone once said, back when the conflict was new, that there willd not be peace there until people begin to realize that the land they are fighting for belongs to everyone.
FAIR WARNING - please read As with every thread dealing with controversial subjects, this one will be closely watched. As long as everyone remains respectful toward everyone else's beliefs, the thread may continue. FAIR WARNING! In the past, we have simply closed the thread when it gets too heated. This time, whoever takes it to the point that requires it to be closed will also be subject to an infraction. We have had a very poor track record with political threrads in the past, and this is why we will follow a zero-tolerance policy on this one. So please keep the tone respectful at all times.
I don't expect it to change any time soon (if ever). The history of that particular region of the world is one of the most interesting to study because it's been a non-stop fighting zone for about 5000 years (at first because of geography and now because of politics/religion). I doubt it will ever go away because one side keeps provoking the other and the other side seems to have little tolerance for even the slightest provocation. What amazes me are some of the protests against the violence and why everyone blames Israel when both sides are equal in blame from what I see. US citizens protesting Israel's actions in the US capitol saying we should do something about it? What are we suppose to do exactly bat our fingers and scold them? Everyone else is doing it already and I don't see the effect? Sometimes I do wonder if anyone thought ahead when they had the idea of "Let's recreate the nation of Israel. The fact it got destroyed 1800 years ago and numerous other times before that earns them another try" XD. @OP: I find the linked article absurd. Wether the rockets are effective or not is irrelevant and whether the sides are equal or not is irrelevant. Israel is left with little choice but violence when violent action is taken by opposing sides which leaves me little sympathy for those who suffer in a strife torn reason. If they want the strife to end, stop trying to fight a jumpy cougar with a pebble (and no upgrading to a rock won't help). Strife ends when you stop creating it. Israel has done little more in the past 60 years since its creation other than counter the aggressive actions of others with aggressive action of its own. Don't provoke the bee and it won't sting you.
Parenthetical question...Israel has nuke weapons. What do you think would happen if Hammas gets hold of nukes? Will they exercise restraint?
Tough one. I would think the group most likely to use the first nuke would be Hamas (one 'm'). It says in their own charter in plain words "Israel must die" and a nuke is pretty good at that job. I won't be surprised if they destroy each other even without nukes, it's already at the pointless war of attrition level and in a war of attrition the Palestinians will eventually lose but Israel would probably get ravaged if they up their arsenal to some more modern weapons. I think that both groups could live there together if the Palestinians stopped all this quibbling over a country they never had. It belonged to the Ottomans for the first fifth of the 20th century, and after that it was under control of Syria and Jorden, and then the Brits before it became Israel (not seeing any actual nation called Palestine in there). There has been no such independent state in the region prior to Israel since the Roman empire. It's one of the most pointless conflicts I can think of off the top of my head and the Palestinians could probably share political power with the Israeli Jews should they actually stop fighting and try.
does anyone find that the media portrays Palestine to be the sole fault in this situation? I think that if someone is arguing that Palestine should take better initiative to develop the country, like Israel has, try to keep in mind that Palestine has never been financed by any other countries of the world. Some retaliation however, by the Israelis is not completely proportionate to what happened to it. They bombed a Palestinian University... If any country provokes Israel in any way...then they better watch out. As for the nukes I have a Q: because the distance between Israel and Palestine is not very large, would any nuke also affect Israel? Or can they have smaller ones that can be used without any collateral damage? Nukes are a terrible thing. Anyone would exercise the control of using a nuke. My personal opinion, though not fond of Israel at all, is that if the arab world was given this much power, they would most probably not exercise it the way Israel does, not that is complete exercises it's power. But what I mean is that arabs would probably not hesitate in serious retaliation.
If Canada or Mexico or Cuba were launching missiles at nearby targets in the United States, the US would retaliate to eliminate the threat. In fact, I can think of no other country that would NOT do whatever was necessary to put a permanent stop to the aggression. Hammas does not represent the Arab world. They are an extreme faction sworn to wipe out Israel. As far as I can tell, they launched the initial attack, and cannot be trusted to honor any cease fire. Most other Arab factions have nothing good to say about them. Israel could turn the other cheek. But I really don't think that would be wise in this situation.
The answer to my question about using nukes provides a good indicator as to who is the "real" aggressor in this conflict. If Israel shared the same degree of opponent-hatred as shown by Hamas, then tactical nuclear weapons would have been used long ago to "remove" whole neighborhoods. Contrary to mammamaia's misguided reference about genocide -- IMHO -- it is Hamas that openly endorses genocide and engages in the practice while Israel attempts some degree of restraint as they attempt to surgically remove the cancer.
I have to agree with NaCl; Israel has actually shown a lot of restraint in dealing with the Palastinians. Israel could wipe out most of the middle east in a hurry if they really wanted to. Israel has made mistakes, but at least they are trying to only attack Hamas rather than just knowingly killing civilians.
What about the shortage in medical assistance in Gaza? Israel will not allow any help to enter through the border! Not even reporters. You cannot tell that they are scared for their lives. Finish the sentence? As for that, I do not believe that there were weapons stored there, and where suicide bombers were being trained. You do not train a suicide bomber...you brainwash him/her-anyways. I find that hard to believe just like I found it hard to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Everything the media expresses is taken in without any hesitation. The following is from what I find as a reliable website with sources: 123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. Chart showing that 3 to 4 times more Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. 1,062 Israelis and at least 4,876 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. 8,341 Israelis and 33,034 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. During Fiscal Year 2007, the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel and $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians. Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none. check the site out for more facts. I was introduced to it from a friend of my sisters. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/index.html <-------------------------------------
Neither side has the right here. It's wrong that Hamas attacks Israel, but it's wrong that Israel kills as many civilians as it does. It's wrong that Israel builds walls straight through Palestinian villages, but it's also wrong that the extremists respond with violence. Few world governments are willing to say that both sides are wrong, and that is why Israel will keep going into Gaza, attack Hamas for a while, leave like they have before, and allow Hamas or some other extremist group to take control....
Isn't it true, though, that the Palestinians/Hamas place civilians in harms way for the purpose of having larger death counts? And regarding Gaza, isn't it true that 3 years ago Israel withdrew the Israeli settlers & soldiers from Gaza, but then the Palestinians ended up using Gaza as a launch site for firing at Israel? There's just no easy way to look at the whole conflict and find a primary villain.
a few of them may be that rabidly fanatic, but that isn't the group's main intent... the intent is to hide among 'normal' civilians and hope that they won't be attacked by those who don't want to harm civilians... which of course doesn't include the israelis, despite their claims to the contrary... only part of the truth... the part people don't like to know or want to ignore is that even though the israelis withdrew their troops and settlers at that time, since then, they've opened more settlements, breaking the pact... and in addition, had sealed off the entire gaza strip by land, sea, and air, so those living there have been in effect, imprisoned... they control who goes where and what supplies are allowed in, keeping the latter to such bare minimums that the people have been living in the most abject poverty for decades, and without the means to live any kind of decent life... which is why some are driven to drastic and violent means to try to end israel's unofficial 'occupation'... which doesn't make their shelling of israel right, but it certainly makes it understandable to any who are open to logical thinking and not blinded by religion or other kinds of brainwashing...
I don't think Israel uses 'that' mush restraint. I think they're kind of going with a little overkill. Hamas is definitely a viable threat to the population but I think a full invasion might be a little cost ineffective. I prefer a black ops team XD. An invasion is sort of like trying to swat a fly surrounded by lady bugs with a really big swatter. Still I don't see them instigating the situation, Hamas honored the last cease fire and so did Israel, but as soon as that agreement expired Hamas started shooting rockets again (I think they stole the idea from Hezbollah, though that group had better aim). This is true. A Hamas leader recently killed in an air strike would lead huge gatherings in front of homes of other Hamas leaders Israel would target and dared them to attack the crowd of civilians. (On the sad note, the air strike that killed this man also wiped out his entire family including 3 women and I think it was six children). That's what's called "training to be a suicide bomber." Plus, those bombers are trained in the use of their explosives knowing how to put them together/take them apart. Yes. Israel caved to political pressure from all around and gave up Gaze and Hamas and related groups considered it a victory for the cause and step forward in destroying Israel. I actually think it's the other way around (except for Fox News XD). I think both sides are a bit at fault. Radical groups get a lot of support from the Palestinians and use that support to launch attacks, and I think Israel often goes a wee bit (ok more than a 'wee') overboard in dealing with the problem.
Tactical nuclear weapons are a bit of a misnomer. During the cold war both sides fielded "tactical" nuclear weapons with yields in excess of the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are nuclear weapons that are much smaller than the ones used in WW2, such as the Davy Crockett, but they're a bit redundant. If Israel wanted the effects of a small nuclear weapon they could just use massive artillery strikes, air fuel bombs and cruise missiles to achieve a similar net effect: Destroying everything within a wide radius. Hamas are unlikely to be able to accquire a nuclear weapon in the near future. No one is likely to sell one to them, and they most certainly will never have a functioning nuclear programme in Gaza. Even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, they wouldn't turn around and hand one over to Hamas. It's one thing to feed conventional weaponry and cash to Hamas and Hezbollah, it's quite another to give them nuclear weapons. TL;DR: Nuclear weapons aren't on the table, because Israel doesn't need to use them, and Hamas doesn't have them. Israel's stocks are for deterring other Arab countries from attacking. Some issues from a military perspective: In order to claim 'victory' Hamas doesn't need to defeat the Israeli advance, or even hamper it significantly. They'd love to do what Hezbollah did in Lebanon (kick the Israelis out), but they don't have anything like the supplies, preparation or elbow room that Hezbollah had. What they need to do is keep up the rocket fire going until after an Israeli withdrawal. They can then claim that they have 'won', because Israel wasn't able to stop them. Israel doesn't need to destroy Hamas - they merely need to be able to stop the rocket fire. They're on a time table, though. The longer they spend in Palestine with rockets coming through, the worse they look. More civillians die, the humanitarian situation worsens, and the pressure for a withdrawal will increase. Politically speaking: One of the main obstacles to peace in a situation like this is that neither side wants to look weak by making concessions. The exact same thing happened for a while in South Africa between the apartheid government and the ANC. The ANC refused to renounce violence (one of their only draw cards) before negotiations, while the government refused to negotiate until the ANC had renounced violence. Happily, that conflict turned out to be less intractable than the Middle East one, but you can see some of the same patterns emerging. One of the big differences was that in South Africa, the costs of continuing to fight became far greater than the value of a negotiated settlement. In the Middle East, there's very little incentive for either side to stop. Hamas gets its support and legitimacy and very rationale for existing from being violently opposed to Israel. If they recognise Israel and attempt negotiations their support will disappear like snow in the Sahara. Israel is in a militarily dominant position. They have little incentive to make concessions, since that would make the government look 'weak', which is electorally problematic. In any case, since their existence isn't remotely threatened, they aren't about to start "giving in" to terrorists.
I see what you mean about the nukes. Hezobllah didn't kick the Israelis out that fiasco ended with a UN ceasefire that achieved nothing more than putting off the inevitable. Hamas will never 'win' because their only goal is the destruction of Israel. A bunch of rockets are sort of a trivial matter. They only win if they take over the country and even if they managed, we all can guess the US will probably do something about it. Still I doubt the Palestinians will ever reach that point. Israel has most of the regions educated and skilled labor and the backing of multiple nations like the US and probably one of the better military forces in the world. The palestinians can cause a lot of damage if they try but they can't 'win.' I disagree. I think that Israel's only way to 'win' in the situation is to remove Hamas from power in the Palestinian National Authority (the Palestinian government) where they've had a majority control of the ruling body going on like a decade. The rocket attacks might stop but if they want to stop all future attacks Hamas must be removed. Again though if Hamas goes out another group will just take it's place and Hamas has a lot of support from the Palestinian population. Needless to say I don't think there can be a winner. This is war of attrition in it's purest form for the Palestinians and they will keep getting hammered by Israeli military, but Israel can't really stop the violence without a lot of cooperation from the other side and that just doesn't seem to be there. I think Israel has made some concessions (they gave up Gaza) and it's not so much a matter of concession but a matter of futility. Palestinians never had their own country and though it was certainly stupid for the rest of the world to walk in and remake a kingdom that got trashed countless times in ancient times, giving that land to the Palestinians is redundant. Israel has halted attempts within the Jewish population to attack Palestinians, they've even arrested Jewish suicide bombers! There is far more equality under the Jewish government than there was under the previous series of Muslim-Arab and Ottoman Turk governments of previous centuries. I see Israel making every point to live peacefully with it's neighbors if it's neighbors made the effort. It's obvious the only concession that Hamas and the like will accept is no more Israel with is an unrealistic demand and one the country will never make, where Israel's request is plain and simple "stop shooting at us." People shooting rockets into civilian populations, however ineffective, is a threat to their existence. This is a bit unnecessary. You think they should sit back and bat an eye at an obvious violent action? Israel can't do nothing because it's population (muslim and jewish) is at risk of being injured in attacks. They go overboard but doing nothing is not an option.
I have heard many rumors and received many e-mails claiming that Mcdonalds and Starbucks are both giving most of their profit from the next two weeks to Israel to help them with this conflict. I find this very unlikely though do you guys think this could honestly be true?
I doubt it. Both corporations are far too greedy to give that much money away. Especially in this sort of economic climate.
My opinion is (and no, I have not been following the running conversation) that it is the nature of the cultures in this part of the world that religion plays a large role in the inner sentiments of the warring factions. This automatically means that one must remove the rational card from the deck. We can look at this from whatever standpoint one wishes, but this one overriding factor will always throw the game off balance. Religion answers to a different set of questions and rules than all of the other factors (geography, politics, economics, power structure, allies, enemies, etc.) No one has ever been able to solve ‘The Mid-East Issue,’ and no one will. It is not within the power of any person to reason a solution because the solution will not answer to reason.
