Did you Support Israel Attack on Palestine

[Bonam]

Yup. Even worse than Hamas, and the last thing anyone needs.

So, having agreed on that, what is Israel supposed to do when confronted with the reality of such groups festering in the Palestinian territories, acquiring ever more rockets to harass Israeli civilians with?

Really what choice does Israel have but to try to destroy such group's abilities to attack Israel, destroy their weapons and their means of acquiring weapons? Even if Israel could come to a fruitful agreement with the PA, the reality is rocket attacks by such groups would continue. We talked about water the other day, do you think if Israel let Palestinians in the West Bank control their own water resources fully, for example, that the rocket launching terrorists in Gaza would decide to call off their holy quest? Somehow I doubt it. These groups within Palestinian society will continue to attack Israel no matter how much land or control it concedes to them. Israel may have the superior military power, but even so its options remain very limited.

[dre]

So, having agreed on that, what is Israel supposed to do when confronted with the reality of such groups festering in the Palestinian territories, acquiring ever more rockets to harass Israeli civilians with?

Really what choice does Israel have but to try to destroy such group's abilities to attack Israel, destroy their weapons and their means of acquiring weapons? Even if Israel could come to a fruitful agreement with the PA, the reality is rocket attacks by such groups would continue. We talked about water the other day, do you think if Israel let Palestinians in the West Bank control their own water resources fully, for example, that the rocket launching terrorists in Gaza would decide to call off their holy quest? Somehow I doubt it. These groups within Palestinian society will continue to attack Israel no matter how much land or control it concedes to them. Israel may have the superior military power, but even so its options remain very limited.

So, having agreed on that, what is Israel supposed to do when confronted with the reality of such groups festering in the Palestinian territories, acquiring ever more rockets to harass Israeli civilians with?

Roughly what they ARE doing. Israel doesnt have any real good options. Political and military leaders would LOVE to do nothing, because at the end of the day these rocket attacks pose no real threat. But if they do nothing they will face political conseqences.

Really what choice does Israel have but to try to destroy such group's abilities to attack Israel, destroy their weapons and their means of acquiring weapons?

The problem is as I said before Israel knows full well they cant put a stop to these things, any more than their invasion of Lebanon put a stop to Hezbollah. These strikes they are launching are entirely a political excersize. But yes... the government is acting quite rationally, and theres no other options for them.

We talked about water the other day, do you think if Israel let Palestinians in the West Bank control their own water resources fully, for example, that the rocket launching terrorists in Gaza would decide to call off their holy quest? Somehow I doubt it.

Well at this point the west bank and gaza are two completely different ballgames. A withdrawal from the west bank to the 67 borders would (as you say) most likely not make any difference in Gaza. But thats off the table anyways because no country in a desert would voluntarily give up its water supply either. Israel wouldl LOVE to rid itself of Gaza. Take a look at a map... theres nothing there that they value. Gaza is really just a security issue at this point... The west bank is about natural resources. The golan heights is about having a buffer between Syria and Lake Tiberius.

And my assertion is proven by the facts on the ground. Israel does not want to occupy Gaza even though theres a steady stream of rock attacks origionating from there. But they refuse to UN-occupy the west bank even though theres almost no attacks origionating from there, and they have the most moderate political leadership in history.

These are two completely separate scenarios for Israel with completely different policy goals.

Edited November 19, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

Roughly what they ARE doing. Israel doesnt have any real good options. Political and military leaders would LOVE to do nothing, because at the end of the day these rocket attacks pose no real threat. But if they do nothing they will face political conseqences.

3 Israelis dead and 80+ injured. Yeah, it's not exactly a threat to the existence of Israel or anything, but dead citizens means a threat that must be addressed.

The problem is as I said before Israel knows full well they cant put a stop to these things, any more than their invasion of Lebanon put a stop to Hezbollah. These strikes they are launching are entirely a political excersize. But yes... the government is acting quite rationally, and theres no other options for them.

It's not clear to me why you think military action is entirely ineffective in reducing the enemy's ability to strike. They may not stop all rocket attacks, but they can stop some of them.

Well at this point the west bank and gaza are two completely different ballgames. A withdrawal from the west bank to the 67 borders would (as you say) most likely not make any difference in Gaza.

So what is Israel supposed to do regarding the creation of a Palestinian state? Let one come about in the West Bank and make all the associated concessions, only to keep getting attacked from Gaza?

And my assertion is proven by the facts on the ground. Israel does not want to occupy Gaza even though theres a steady stream of rock attacks origionating from there. But they refuse to UN-occupy the west bank even though theres almost no attacks origionating from there, and they have the most moderate political leadership in history.

Moderate leadership is nice but promises made by the PA don't mean much when they don't control all of the Palestinians but only 1 of 2 of their territories.

These are two completely separate scenarios for Israel with completely different policy goals.

Agreed. But a Palestinian state in the West Bank is unlikely as long as terrorist attacks against Israel continue, whether they are from the West Bank or from Gaza. The Palestinians have to get it together. Or maybe the two state solution is out and we have to start talking about a three state solution.

[dre]

3 Israelis dead and 80+ injured. Yeah, it's not exactly a threat to the existence of Israel or anything, but dead citizens means a threat that must be addressed.

It's not clear to me why you think military action is entirely ineffective in reducing the enemy's ability to strike. They may not stop all rocket attacks, but they can stop some of them.

So what is Israel supposed to do regarding the creation of a Palestinian state? Let one come about in the West Bank and make all the associated concessions, only to keep getting attacked from Gaza?

Moderate leadership is nice but promises made by the PA don't mean much when they don't control all of the Palestinians but only 1 of 2 of their territories.

Agreed. But a Palestinian state in the West Bank is unlikely as long as terrorist attacks against Israel continue, whether they are from the West Bank or from Gaza. The Palestinians have to get it together. Or maybe the two state solution is out and we have to start talking about a three state solution.

It's not clear to me why you think military action is entirely ineffective in reducing the enemy's ability to strike.

Well this has been going on for 50 years. Longer than either of us have been alive. I guess youre hoping that its finally going to work now all of a sudden?

So what is Israel supposed to do regarding the creation of a Palestinian state? Let one come about in the West Bank and make all the associated concessions, only to keep getting attacked from Gaza?

Yes exactly. THe West Bank and Gaza are totally separate regions with different governments. Theres no reason to tie one to the other (besides the REAL reason why Israel withdrew from Gaza but not the west bank). WHich I explained.

Agreed. But a Palestinian state in the West Bank is unlikely as long as terrorist attacks against Israel continue, whether they are from the West Bank or from Gaza. The Palestinians have to get it together. Or maybe the two state solution is out and we have to start talking about a three state solution.

A palestininian state in the west bank is unlikely PERIOD. Israel wants/needs stuff there, which is why they are spending billions of dollars building infrastructure and settlements. Do you honestly think they would be doing this if they were planning to leave soon? Really? They are maneuvering to keep it permanently.

[Bonam]

Well this has been going on for 50 years. Longer than either of us have been alive. I guess youre hoping that its finally going to work now all of a sudden?

The purpose of strikes isn't to provide a permanent solution. It is to prevent strikes in the present and immediate future. After any flareup of violence is dealt with, the terrorists restock, and a few years later launch rockets again, and Israel must destroy their weapons again. I

Yes exactly. THe West Bank and Gaza are totally separate regions with different governments. Theres no reason to tie one to the other (besides the REAL reason why Israel withdrew from Gaza but not the west bank). WHich I explained.

One has to be tied to the other unless the expectation is for multiple separate Palestinian states rather than one unified Palestinian state. If you're gonna split it up, why stop with just 2 though? Let's say Israel negotiates with Abbas, the negotiations go well, and a Palestinian state is founded on 98% of the West Bank. Then the guys in the remaining 2 % decide to take up arms against Israel and demand their own state, and want a whole bunch of new territory that they lost in 1948 (as opposed to in 1967). Where does it stop?

Negotiation and concessions leading to a Palestinian state cannot and will not happen until and unless there is a final definitive deal with all Palestinian leaders agreeing to it, period.

A palestininian state in the west bank is unlikely PERIOD. Israel wants/needs stuff there, which is why they are spending billions of dollars building infrastructure and settlements. Do you honestly think they would be doing this if they were planning to leave soon? Really? They are maneuvering to keep it permanently.

First, billions of dollars is basically pocket change these days. Second, the only resources there that are relevant are water, and as we discussed the other day, a few billion dollars and a few years to build em and Israel could have desalination plants for all the water they need. Settlements are being built because tiny fringe parties in Israel have too much power due to its proportional representation system. But most importantly, Israel has no interest in keeping that area permanently: they can't annex it into Israel since there are too many Arabs for Israel's demographics to survive it, and they can't keep the current situation going forever because it makes them lose international support over time.

So I actually think a Palestinian state in the West Bank is extremely likely at some point in the future, the only question is when.

[Topaz]

As I said before, when nations start to pick which side they are on, then we will always have wars. NATO countries back Israel and the other nations backing Palestine. In this situation, both sides are to blame and both sides are killing their people, especially the children, who learn hatred for the other side. So why hasn't the US or Canada call for peace? Instead they just come out and say Israel has the right to defend itself. Well, yeah, it does, just like any other country, like Palestine! Is the reason no one wants to stop this war, is the fact it could help NATO into Syria and Iran. After all, one must have a good reason for invading another country. This is becoming a sad hatred world, where are the peace makers?

[jbg]

On another note, one thing complicating things in Gaza, is the growth of jihadist groups in Gaza that are not under the control of Hamas.

Recently Hisham al-Saedni was killed by an Israeli strike while on the back of a motorcycle. He was a Salafi-jihadist, and leader of a group called Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad. This is a group that organizes a lot of rocket attacks against Israel, and they are at odds with Hamas, who they claim are "too moderate". Al-Saedni was arrested and jailed by Hamas in 2011.

Dre, you hit the nail on the head as to why Israel cannot really negotiate with these people. It's more like playing whack-a-mole at the mall than a real discussion.

If you make a deal with one shadowy group, Hamas, another group called Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad pops up and takes front and center in the butchery. How can Israel find a negotiating partner?

[bleeding heart]

Hahaha. So you want to discuss present events while completely ignoring how said "present events" started.

You misunderstood his remark.

[bleeding heart]

They were expecting the same thing as always: a few new photos of dead children to use for their propaganda campaign. And, as always, the world's media is eating it up.

So, they could eschew "propaganda" by not reporting Palestinian casualties at all.

CNN just this morning reported on, and I quote, "Massive casualties on both sides."

So, at least you got the word--"propaganda"--correct. The rest of your sentence is misconceived.

Edited November 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

Can you throw rocks at someone's house if they blockade your house, and stop and search you and everyone else going in and out of your house....and draw up a restrictive list of articles you can bring in to your house - including preventing you from bringing in enough food to feed your children adequately? Or as one Israeli cabinet minister described it:"putting Gazans on a diet! So, how do you like that analogy?

How do the Israelis “stop & search” the comings and goings along the Gaza-Egyptian border?

[Moonlight Graham]

I mean that Israel protects its citizens while Hamas puts Palestinian citizens in harm's way.

In a way, yes. But they are putting them in harm's way as a tactic to be able to launch rockets. Hamas has no chance against the IDF, if rockets were in non-civilian areas they would be easily destroyed ASAP, and Gaza would have hardly any military ability, so in a way Hamas is kinda trying to protect Palestinians by giving them this military ability, but on the other hand more civilians die during times of conflict.

[Moonlight Graham]

Glad to see you are open to reasoned exchange of ideas on this topic

Truth > pride. LOL

[Guest American Woman]

In a way, yes. But they are putting them in harm's way as a tactic to be able to launch rockets. Hamas has no chance against the IDF, if rockets were in non-civilian areas they would be easily destroyed ASAP, and Gaza would have hardly any military ability, so in a way Hamas is kinda trying to protect Palestinians by giving them this military ability, but on the other hand more civilians die during times of conflict.

No matter the reason, they are putting them in harm's way. Your explanation of Hamas' behavior seems to be that they are 'sacrificing few for the good of many,' and if that is the case, then the higher civilian death count in Palestine is not due to Israel's strategies - Hamas' war strategy is the cause.

Edited November 19, 2012 by American Woman

[dre]

First, billions of dollars is basically pocket change these days. Second, the only resources there that are relevant are water, and as we discussed the other day, a few billion dollars and a few years to build em and Israel could have desalination plants for all the water they need.

Israel IS trying to build dessalination plants but you are drastically underestimating the cost of a nation using desalinated water for all of its drinking water and agriculture.

Second, the only resources there that are relevant are water

Water and land, but yeah.

[dre]

No matter the reason, they are putting them in harm's way. Your explanation of Hamas' behavior seems to be that they are 'sacrificing few for the good of many,' and if that is the case, then the higher civilian death count in Palestine is not due to Israel's strategies - Hamas' war strategy is the cause.

Both Israeli and Palestinian authorities are putting their civilians in harms way through their policies.

[DogOnPorch]

Both Israeli and Palestinian authorities are putting their civilians in harms way through their policies.

Israel has more than enough shelters for every citizen...gas masks and atropine injections, too.

[DogOnPorch]

Israel IS trying to build dessalination plants but you are drastically underestimating the cost of a nation using desalinated water for all of its drinking water and agriculture.

Water and land, but yeah.

Nasser wasn't thinking: 'Gee, I better attack so the water resources Jordan now holds falls into Israeli hands.'

Your logic is flawed...but you just don't see it.

[eyeball]

Unlike Canada or the the United States, Israel does not have troops fighting wars in other nations, or bombing nations that are not an "existential threat".

Probably because Israel is still up to it's eyeballs with issues involving their indigenous people's.

Look on the bright side though, so long as they're bogged down at 'home' there's one one less potential rogue nation to worry about.

[dre]

Nasser wasn't thinking: 'Gee, I better attack so the water resources Jordan now holds falls into Israeli hands.'

Glad your enjoying this conversation with yourself, because nobody else claimed that was the case.

[DogOnPorch]

Glad your enjoying this conversation with yourself, because nobody else claimed that was the case.

Just referring to your usual line about the Arab-Israeli Wars being over water.

[Bonam]

Israel IS trying to build dessalination plants but you are drastically underestimating the cost of a nation using desalinated water for all of its drinking water and agriculture.

The cost of desalinated water in Israel:

http://en.wikipedia....lination#Israel

Israel's total water use (including for drinking, agriculture, and industrial use):

http://www.jewishvir...rief/Water.html

Exchange rate:

https://www.google.c...chrome&ie=UTF-8

Based on the link that shows the cost of desalinated water as being 2 NIS / cubic meter, and knowing Israel's total water consumption to be 2 billion cubic meters per year, that's a cost of 4 billion NIS / year. 1 NIS = $0.25 USD, so the cost for providing 100% of Israel's water needs using desalination is $1 billion USD/year. Care to point out where the "drastic underestimate" in this calculation is?

This conflict is not over $1 billion USD/year. If it was, a US president would have gladly spent that to earn the political points of having "solved" the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

Just referring to your usual line about the Arab-Israeli Wars being over water.

No thats not my usual line. Iv simply claimed that the hostilities been 1964 and 1968 were over water, and thats an uncontraversial and thoroughly documented historical fact. Israelis call this period HaMilhama al HaMaim, which literally means "war over water". It started with construction of the NWC, and arab water diversion projects, and caused more than 300 clashes along the border which lead to 1967 war. You can pretend none of this happened, but youll find that in literally any historical account.

Although small scale water-related skirmishes had occurred following the 1949 agreements, the major escalation took place in 1964, following Israel's completion of its National Water Carrier Project, which siphoned water from the Sea of Galilee. Arab states regarded the Israeli project as a unilateral usage of water resources outside the river basin; in response they attempted to finance and build the joint Syrian-Lebanese Headwater Diversion Plan, which would have diverted some water from flowing into Israel, particularly into the Sea of Galilee, where the National Water Carrier starts. The headwaters diversion would have directed the waters of the Banias stream into a dam at Mukhaiba for Syrian and Jordanian use, and divert the waters of the Hasbani into the Litani River for Lebanese use. The diversion works would have reduced the installed capacity of the National Water Carrier by 35%, and Israel's overall water supply by about 11%. Israel declared it would regard such a project as an infringement of its sovereign rights.

In November, when activities for the Arab diversion project started, the Israel Defense Forces launched repeated military strikes against the diversion works, which led to a prolonged chain of border clashes^[. The Arab countries eventually abandoned their project. Control of water resources and Israeli military attacks regarding the diversion effort are considered among the major factors which led to the Six-Day War in June 1967.

[DogOnPorch]

No thats not my usual line. Iv simply claimed that the hostilities been 1964 and 1968 were over water, and thats an uncontraversial and thoroughly documented historical fact. Israelis call this period HaMilhama al HaMaim, which literally means "war over water". It started with construction of the NWC, and arab water diversion projects, and caused more than 300 clashes along the border which lead to 1967 war. You can pretend none of this happened, but youll find that in literally any historical account.

Do you even know who Nasser is and when he ruled?

[dre]

This conflict is not over $1 billion USD/year. If it was, a US president would have gladly spent that to earn the political points of having "solved" the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Go tell Israel that. Ask them why they threatened to bomb Lebanon in 2003 for pumping water out of its own river. Ask them why they wasted all that time bombing various arab water diversion projects when could simply desalinate their own water. Israel has proven on many occasions that its willing to go to war over water. You can pretend thats not the case but you have to completely ignore not only history but the statements of the Israeli government itself.

[Bonam]

Go tell Israel that.

I don't have a direct line to Netanyahu. I'm just conversing on these here forums. And I'm telling you (and other posters here) that. So where is my underestimate? We're not talking history here, but simple math.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Bonam