The Inevitable Return of the Middle East and North Africa Thread (aka MENA 15)

[Shryke]

Also true. We did not start military hostilities, they did (over money, no less! They couldn't pay their militants, so off to war we go!). Watching funerals every day on tv is not how we wanted to spend the summer, I can tell you that.

Uh, no. This started because 3 Israeli teens were kidnapped by, it turned out, 3 people loosely affiliated with but not under orders from Hamas.

Occupier implies... occupation. A physical presence of some sort. Gaza is Jew/Israeli free, just the way they like it. We owe them not a single centimeter of land in Gaza. As for controlling ways in and out - they do keep smuggling rockets in. Rockets which later we get to meet. Personally. So hell yeah, our border is tightly controlled, and the sea access is under blockade.

No, occupation implies control. Israel is controlling all access in and out of the territory and can move in and out at will. It's an occupation. You are literally recognized as so by international law. So please, drop the bullshit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories)

They can have all the financial prosperity they want, if they just stop trying to kill us.

No, they can't. The West Bank is proof of this.

It's really not talked about. See above.

0) At least we tell them where we are going to strike and warn them to leave beforehand. A consideration Hamas does not extend to Israeli civilians before shooting rockets at them.

1) Enough with the prison camp already. All the land they are entitled to in Gaza, they have. They want our stranglehold lifted? A constructive first step would be to stop trying to kill us.

2) Well, yeah. Most of it anyway. They can have a land swap for the bits we can't give them because there are too many people living there.

3) Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, who has disavowed violence, has a police force under his control (which we do not attack or interfere with), and the mechanisms of a functioning state.

0) And? That doesn't make it anything but monstrous. You can't get a sticker for forced relocation and destroying people's homes and people's people just because you make a phonecall first. If Hamas called before firing a rocket would that suddenly make it ok? (you know it wouldn't)

1) It's basically a prison camp dude. You occupy the territory and arbitrarily restrict all traffic in and out. The denials are sad.

2) Well, at least you admit Israelis been swiping their land. Is Israel going to swap them land of equal value? Of equal congruity? Will it relocate settlers at all, or does the state of Israel get to keep all the land it's people stole?

3) Please. Part of the mechanisms of a functioning state are sovereignty, which they most certainly don't have.

[Samalander]

A) Uh, no. This started because 3 Israeli teens were kidnapped by, it turned out, 3 people loosely affiliated with but not under orders from Hamas.

Bee) No, occupation implies control. Israel is controlling all access in and out of the territory and can move in and out at will. It's an occupation. You are literally recognized as so by international law. So please, drop the bullshit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories)

C)No, they can't. The West Bank is proof of this.

It's really not talked about. See above.

0) And? That doesn't make it anything but monstrous. You can't get a sticker for forced relocation and destroying people's homes and people's people just because you make a phonecall first. If Hamas called before firing a rocket would that suddenly make it ok? (you know it wouldn't)

1) It's basically a prison camp dude. You occupy the territory and arbitrarily restrict all traffic in and out. The denials are sad.

2) Well, at least you admit Israelis been swiping their land. Is Israel going to swap them land of equal value? Of equal congruity? Will it relocate settlers at all, or does the state of Israel get to keep all the land it's people stole?

3) Please. Part of the mechanisms of a functioning state are sovereignty, which they most certainly don't have.

A) But the acts of war (shooting rockets, etc.) were definitely began by Hamas. We shot nobody over the kidnapped teens.

Bee) The same international law proclaimed our sea blockade as justified and legal. From Wikipedia:

In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the naval blockade is legal

.

C) The West Bank is doing much much better financially than Gaza. The even build new modern cities, for a prosperous Palestinian Middle Class.

0) It's not "forced relocation". It is a war zone. They are told to evacuate. We would love nothing more than for Hamas to come out of their rat holes and face us in the open field. They choose to do battle in and around the homes of their own people. So be it. We will not wave a white flag and let off just because of this.

1) a. The most basic definition of territory is: a tract of land. As previously stated, before this conflict, not one of our boots touched their land.

b. We have no direct control of the Egyptian border. Yet they don't like Hamas either (now, anyway) and choose to close their border. Does that make them occupiers of their Arab brethren?

2) Value of land swapped is matter of negotiation. Some settlers will have to be relocated, others not. "Swiping"/"stealing" indicates removal from legal ownership. For legal ownership (that is not private) to exist there must have existed some state/nation to claim legal ownership of land. No such entity exists, or has existed, as of yet.

3) They have many trappings of sovereignty, among them an autonomy to manage their internal affairs.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3) They have many trappings of sovereignty, among them an autonomy to manage their internal affairs.

*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan *cough*

[Shryke]

A) But the acts of war (shooting rockets, etc.) were definitely began by Hamas. We shot nobody over the kidnapped teens.

Sure, I guess if we want to ignore all context. And WWI was begun when Germany invaded Belgium. (I think that's how all wars begin actually)

Bee) The same international law proclaimed our sea blockade as justified and legal. From Wikipedia:

... and?

C) The West Bank is doing much much better financially than Gaza. The even build new modern cities, for a prosperous Palestinian Middle Class.

And yet Israelis still steal their land and the Israel military still exerts power over the area. How do you "build new cities" on land that might be bulldozed the next day in an act of collective punishment or taken from you?

0) It's not "forced relocation". It is a war zone. They are told to evacuate. We would love nothing more than for Hamas to come out of their rat holes and face us in the open field. They choose to do battle in and around the homes of their own people. So be it. We will not wave a white flag and let off just because of this.

No, it's forced reolcation. You are destroying homes and basic infrastructure and agriculture en mass.

More importantly, dude, just because Hamas may hide shit in civilian homes doesn't make it ok to bomb and kill civilians and destroy their homes. This is pretty basic shit. Like, holy shit, are you even listening to what you are saying?

1) a. The most basic definition of territory is: a tract of land. As previously stated, before this conflict, not one of our boots touched their land.

b. We have no direct control of the Egyptian border. Yet they don't like Hamas either (now, anyway) and choose to close their border. Does that make them occupiers of their Arab brethren?

Irrelevant. You control the land and that's what matters. You occupy it. A prison guard does not live in a prison cell, he rarely if ever enters it, but it's still under his/her control.

2) Value of land swapped is matter of negotiation. Some settlers will have to be relocated, others not. "Swiping"/"stealing" indicates removal from legal ownership. For legal ownership (that is not private) to exist there must have existed some state/nation to claim legal ownership of land. No such entity exists, or has existed, as of yet.

Wait, I thought the West Bank had the mechanisms of a functioning state? But no such entity exists or has existed and no one claims legal ownership of the land?

:lol: Wow dude.

3) They have many trappings of sovereignty, among them an autonomy to manage their internal affairs.

See above and also Roose Bolton's eloquent and simple example.

Really, this is pathetic on your part. Though I guess I had always figured one day you'd just come right out and support the bombing of civilians and confiscation of their land for Israeli expansion.

[Samalander]

*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan *cough*

Some tiny tinsy differences:

1) Israel has plenty of Arab citizens. It's the Palestinians insist that their land must be Jew-free.

2) Their current status is temporary, contingent mainly on them accepting such basic facts as: Israel is a Jewish State, No future flooding of Israel with Palestinians, once the Palestinian State is formed that means you can't kill any more Jews ("End of Conflict"), etc.

3) Lots more I can't think of right now.

A) Sure, I guess if we want to ignore all context. And WWI was begun when Germany invaded Belgium. (I think that's how all wars begin actually)

Bee) And yet Israelis still steal their land and the Israel military still exerts power over the area. How do you "build new cities" on land that might be bulldozed the next day in an act of collective punishment or taken from you?

C) More importantly, dude, just because Hamas may hide shit in civilian homes doesn't make it ok to bomb and kill civilians and destroy their homes. This is pretty basic shit. Like, holy shit, are you even listening to what you are saying?

D) Wait, I thought the West Bank had the mechanisms of a functioning state? But no such entity exists or has existed and no one claims legal ownership of the land?

:lol: Wow dude.

E) See above and also Roose Bolton's eloquent and simple example.

F) Really, this is pathetic on your part. Though I guess I had always figured one day you'd just come right out and support the bombing of civilians and confiscation of their land for Israeli expansion.

A) Wars begin with shooting. It's that simple. What was their casus belli anyway? That we hurt their feelings by blaming them for the kidnapping?

Bee) I guess that means your description is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, as that's exactly what they are doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawabi

C) That's exactly what it means. Check your Geneva Accords. If Hamas hides rockets in a building, that building becomes a legitimate military target. Optimally, we like to warn the civilians, so they can leave before we bomb said legitimate military target. But if you follow the Geneva Accords to the letter, as long as the damage those hidden rockets can cause outweighs the collateral damage of our bombing, then we are well within our rights to do what has to be done.

D) OMG! You just noticed that legal realities and actual realities are not the same thing!

E) See above my response to Roose Bolton's eloquence and simplicity.

F) Your hang ups are your own concern.

[The Iceman of the North]

C) That's exactly what it means. Check your Geneva Accords. If Hamas hides rockets in a building, that building becomes a legitimate military target. Optimally, we like to warn the civilians, so they can leave before we bomb said legitimate military target. But if you follow the Geneva Accords to the letter, as long as the damage those hidden rockets can cause outweighs the collateral damage of our bombing, then we are well within our rights to do what has to be done.

.

So you admit that IDF is in breach of the Geneva Accords by bombing these buildings? It's quite obvious to anyone that the danger that those rockets poses are not even close to the collateral damage.

[Shryke]

Some tiny tinsy differences:

1) Israel has plenty of Arab citizens. It's the Palestinians insist that their land must be Jew-free.

2) Their current status is temporary, contingent mainly on them accepting such basic facts as: Israel is a Jewish State, No future flooding of Israel with Palestinians, once the Palestinian State is formed that means you can't kill any more Jews ("End of Conflict"), etc.

3) Lots more I can't think of right now.

A) Wars begin with shooting. It's that simple. What was their casus belli anyway? That we hurt their feelings by blaming them for the kidnapping?

Bee) I guess that means your description is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, as that's exactly what they are doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawabi

C) That's exactly what it means. Check your Geneva Accords. If Hamas hides rockets in a building, that building becomes a legitimate military target. Optimally, we like to warn the civilians, so they can leave before we bomb said legitimate military target. But if you follow the Geneva Accords to the letter, as long as the damage those hidden rockets can cause outweighs the collateral damage of our bombing, then we are well within our rights to do what has to be done.

D) OMG! You just noticed that legal realities and actual realities are not the same thing!

E) See above my response to Roose Bolton's eloquence and simplicity.

F) Your hang ups are your own concern.

a) No, they don't. I guess you didn't understand the WWI example in the slightest.

b) Uh, no, that in no way invalidates my point. Hell, your link talks about issues with the Settlers.

c) Right, so you are stating that rockets potentially hidden in civilian buildings make the killing of potentially dozens of people ok? Despite the fact that there are strict rules about proportionality? I mean, the IDF blew up the freaking powerplant and Gaza will be out of fresh water in a matter of days. How many rockets were hidden in fields. None of this is proportional. This is terrorizing the population.

And don't even talk about ethical. cause holy shit "It's ok to destroy people's homes because Hamas" is incredibly fucked up.

d) Stop dodging the point. Either the Palesntians have legitimate claims and authority to the land, in which case Israel is violating the shit out of it, or they don't, in which case all your claims about authority are bullshit. Which one is it?

e) Your response covered nothing. At the points when you claim they have a functioning government, you said they have the "trappings of sovereignty, among them an autonomy to manage their internal affairs". Which, firstly, hilarious freudian slip since you are saying they only have the appearance of sovereignty rather then the substance. And secondly, their trappings of control over internal affairs doesn't make them sovereign (as Israel can and does exert power within that territory). The substance of RBPL's point was that we've seen similar things int he past where a country builds ghettos and then gives them "power" over their own internal affairs as a way to, well, ghettoize the residents by exchanging actual power within the larger political system for illusory political power within a mostly meaningless local government.

PS - "No future flooding of Israel with Palestinians" WTF????

[Ranger275]

How should Israel handle the current situation?

[The Iceman of the North]

How should Israel handle the current situation?

First step would be to actually talk to Hamas rather than acting like a butthurt kid.

[Ranger275]

First step would be to actually talk to Hamas rather than acting like a butthurt kid.

Haven't there been numerous talks held throughout the years? What is a viable compromise between the two sides that would leave both happy and prevent future blood-shed? Lets start with the hamas side, first. What are their demands, and once identified, are they reasonable enough for Israel to acquiesce? Would Hamas be trusted to uphold their side of the agreement?

[The Iceman of the North]

Haven't there been numerous talks held throughout the years?

Not directly as Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organisation and refuses to negotiate with terrorists.

[Samalander]

So you admit that IDF is in breach of the Geneva Accords by bombing these buildings? It's quite obvious to anyone that the danger that those rockets poses are not even close to the collateral damage.

I admit no such thing. As the person on the receiving end of those rockets, I can tell you that they are very dangerous. They have short range mortars that the Iron Dome cannot handle. They have anti-tank missiles that burn troop carriers like confetti. They have long range missiles that reach beyond Tel-Aviv. Every day with Hamas is a bloody 4th of July.

a) No, they don't. I guess you didn't understand the WWI example in the slightest.

B) Uh, no, that in no way invalidates my point. Hell, your link talks about issues with the Settlers.

c) Right, so you are stating that rockets potentially hidden in civilian buildings make the killing of potentially dozens of people ok? Despite the fact that there are strict rules about proportionality? I mean, the IDF blew up the freaking powerplant and Gaza will be out of fresh water in a matter of days. How many rockets were hidden in fields. None of this is proportional. This is terrorizing the population.

And don't even talk about ethical. cause holy shit "It's ok to destroy people's homes because Hamas" is incredibly fucked up.

d) Stop dodging the point. Either the Palesntians have legitimate claims and authority to the land, in which case Israel is violating the shit out of it, or they don't, in which case all your claims about authority are bullshit. Which one is it?

e) Your response covered nothing. At the points when you claim they have a functioning government, you said they have the "trappings of sovereignty, among them an autonomy to manage their internal affairs". Which, firstly, hilarious freudian slip since you are saying they only have the appearance of sovereignty rather then the substance. And secondly, their trappings of control over internal affairs doesn't make them sovereign (as Israel can and does exert power within that territory). The substance of RBPL's point was that we've seen similar things int he past where a country builds ghettos and then gives them "power" over their own internal affairs as a way to, well, ghettoize the residents by exchanging actual power within the larger political system for illusory political power within a mostly meaningless local government.

PS - "No future flooding of Israel with Palestinians" WTF????

A) I guess I'm just dense that way. Still, at least I provided a real reason for their shooting (no money). You, as I recall... have not.

Bee) Which just goes to show that Settlers don't run Israel. The Palestinians get to build their city, we don't destroy it, everybody is happy.

C) The power plant, I think, was a mistake. We don't bomb willy-nilly. If a building is bombed, there is usually a good military reason (though mistakes do happen. This is a war, after all). Hamas has integrated its military infrastructure with the civilian infrastructure. If we want to hit their military infrastructure, then there will inevitably be damage to the civilian infrastructure. The other option is just to sit on our thumbs and do nothing (which we cannot and will not do).

D) They have no legal claim as a collective to the land. What historical/practical/national right they have to the land and what portions of it, is something that needs to be determined in negotiation with the Israeli government.

E) Like I said: they want full country powers and authority (though maybe no military) - they sign a permanent peace with us first. We can't give them a country and then they jump up and say they want our country too. No way.

PS) The so-called "Right of Return". They want every descendant of 1948 Palestinian refugees to be able to come live in Israel proper.

How should Israel handle the current situation?

I foresee three possible courses of action, which I shall now outline in order of probability:

Option 1 - Business As Usual (85%): We keep trading body blows with Hamas while we demolish all the attack tunnels they dug into Israel. We concede something (that allows them access to money). They accept and stop shooting. We all get relative quiet for two-three years. Then we do this all over again.

Option 2 - Peace In Our Time (10%): Hamas, under pressure and lacking funds agrees to disarm (at least the heavy ordnance). International supervisers oversee the process. Hamas remains a major player and rejoins the Palestinian fold as a legitimate political party. We open the gates to Gaza, allowing moneys and materials to flood in. Relative prosperity for the Gazan people ensues. Now unified, the Palestinian people enter serious End of Conflict talks with Israel.

Option 3 - Apocalypse Now (5%): Hamas, backed into a corner and with nothing to lose, fights to the last man, refusing all cease-fire offers. Seeing no other alternative, we conquer the Gaza Strip losing 100+ soldiers in the process, killing over 1000 Palestinians. We then spend one-two years micromanaging Gazan affairs and hunting down Hamas operatives in bloody guerrila warfare. If we are lucky Abbas agrees to take Gaza off our hands. If not, the Zionist Occupation of Gaza returns.

As you can see, what we end up doing is very contingent on what the other side does.

[Clueless Northman]

Israel hasn't exactly treated the Palestinians fairly in recent years, but they aren't going to start rounding them up.

Indeed, because there's no need to round them up.

We would love nothing more than for Hamas to come out of their rat holes and face us in the open field. They choose to do battle in and around the homes of their own people. So be it.

Damn these Soviets, hiding their military in the middle of Stalingrad civilian population!

PS) The so-called "Right of Return". They want every descendant of 1948 Palestinian refugees to be able to come live in Israel proper.

Where the heck do you think they got the idea, but from Israel's own "right of return" to every Jewish person on the planet, even if none of his ancestors had inhabited the land since Bar Koshba ;)

Whatever, I agree with you, Option 1 is the likeliest outcome. IDF can't really risk going beyond the 2.000 dead limit and there'll be some kind of cease-fire in a few days, then a real truce, then over for a time - Hamas claiming victory because it survived, Israel claiming victory because of body count and sheer destruction of Gaza and of Hamas infrastructure.

Big problem is that with every conflict of this kind, the ranks of people that have a less-than-rosy view of Israel grows while the ranks of Israel supporters slowly decrease - including in the US. It's a risky game because in a few cycles, the war for international opinion could be definitely lost. Even with ongoing Hamas provocations, Israeli government should work hard to come with a clever plan to improve the situation and long-term ideas to end the conflict. Current strategy ends up in ongoing stalemates at the Palestine/Israel level, which might be OK for Israeli leaders, but on the wider world stage, it's a losing strategy, and sooner or later, it will matter because it makes it ever more difficult for the US to fully support Israel in any possible way.

[peterbound]

Whatever, I agree with you, Option 1 is the likeliest outcome. IDF can't really risk going beyond the 2.000 dead limit and there'll be some kind of cease-fire in a few days, then a real truce, then over for a time - Hamas claiming victory because it survived, Israel claiming victory because of body count and sheer destruction of Gaza and of Hamas infrastructure.

Big problem is that with every conflict of this kind, the ranks of people that have a less-than-rosy view of Israel grows while the ranks of Israel supporters slowly decrease - including in the US. It's a risky game because in a few cycles, the war for international opinion could be definitely lost. Even with ongoing Hamas provocations, Israeli government should work hard to come with a clever plan to improve the situation and long-term ideas to end the conflict. Current strategy ends up in ongoing stalemates at the Palestine/Israel level, which might be OK for Israeli leaders, but on the wider world stage, it's a losing strategy, and sooner or later, it will matter because it makes it ever more difficult for the US to fully support Israel in any possible way.

disagree on this one. If anything, it's only strengthening the resolve of the two sides.

I'm actually completely ok with Israel's actions. Hate to break it to everyone, but war is hell, and they have a right to defend themselves. If cowards want to hide in complexes/buildings occupied by their own folks, these are the realities they will have to face. If anything, your bitching and arguments for righteousness only makes it worse, you make their actions seem legit. You are outraged by Israel's actions, but somehow are totally fine with Hamas hiding out. I can't understand how any one can actually disagree with their right to exist, and defend their homes, and country.

There's a statement that I like: If Israel laid down their arms, and stopped fighting, there would be massive bloodshed and genocide committed upon them. If Hamas and the Arab states surrounding them laid down their weapons, the next day there would be peace. Israel has time and time again tried to make this shit work, the palestinians refuse any type of rational outcome outside of destroying the Israeli state.

[Suttree]

There's a statement that I like: If Israel laid down their arms, and stopped fighting, there would be massive bloodshed and genocide committed upon them. If Hamas and the Arab states surrounding them laid dow their weapons, the next day there would be peace. Israel has time and time again tried to make this shit work, the palestinians refuse any type of rational outcome outside of destroying the Israeli state.

:bs:

[peterbound]

:bs:

One faction in the fight exists for the utter destruction of the other.

the Other faction fights to exist. Can't you see the difference?

ETA: But fuck it.. you want to know the truth of it? To me, in this one, might is right. You want to bring the fight to someone, don't get pissed with they kick the shit out of you. If the world can, and should, take anything away from this little fight is that you should fuck with Israel. I'm not sure how many times Hamas (and the surrounding arab states for that matter) need to be taught this lesson before it sets in.

[Suttree]

One faction in the fight exists for the utter destruction of the other.

the Other faction fights to exist. Can't you see the difference?

Certainly, it's just that it has almost zero bearing on the current situation.

[Shryke]

disagree on this one. If anything, it's only strengthening the resolve of the two sides.

I'm actually completely ok with Israel's actions. Hate to break it to everyone, but war is hell, and they have a right to defend themselves. If cowards want to hide in complexes/buildings occupied by their own folks, these are the realities they will have to face. If anything, your bitching and arguments for righteousness only makes it worse, you make their actions seem legit. You are outraged by Israel's actions, but somehow are totally fine with Hamas hiding out. I can't understand how any one can actually disagree with their right to exist, and defend their homes, and country.

Firstly, where has anyone said they are "totally fine with Hamas hiding out"? Please quote it.

Secondly, your being ok with Israeli actions just says alot of terribly unflattering shit about your own character. The IDF blew up a freaking fruit market today. Was Hamas hiding rockets among the kiwis? Does that justify killde 17 and injuring over 150? How about when they fired on a UN-run school despite being told their were civilians inside?

There's a statement that I like: If Israel laid down their arms, and stopped fighting, there would be massive bloodshed and genocide committed upon them. If Hamas and the Arab states surrounding them laid down their weapons, the next day there would be peace. Israel has time and time again tried to make this shit work, the palestinians refuse any type of rational outcome outside of destroying the Israeli state.

Firstly, we know what would happen if the Palestinians laid down there weapons. It's happening in the West Bank right now. The answer is, Israelis are stealing their land and treating them like shit.

And your characterization of "Israel has time and time again tried to make this shit work" is just born of your own ignorance. Israel has itself been a huge source of problems with brokering any sort of peace here. Especially recently.

There was even a great piece from NewRepublic recently goign over the finer details of the recent negotiations:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-died

Both sides are fucking the whole thing up.

Your whole post here is simplistic and reductionist and ignorant. You are basically saying "well, Hamas are bad people so that justifies any and all Israeli actions". Do we have to explain what's wrong with that viewpoint? Cause we shouldn't.

[peterbound]

Your whole post here is simplistic and reductionist and ignorant. You are basically saying "well, Hamas are bad people so that justifies any and all Israeli actions".

Yup, that's it. And I'm alright with it.

No need to explain. In my little world you're the one living in some sort of simplistic, and easily manipulated world.

Also reductionist, and ignorant aren't really the same thing. Because i'm able to sleep at night with an understanding that doesn't require your nitpicking doesn't make it wrong. I will say again. Israel has time and time again tried to broker peace, and has gone out of it's way to accommodate the palestinian people. But you can only get fucked with for so long before you lose it. If I had my druthers, I'd say let go of the reigns and see who wins this battle of wills. If the people who are harboring Hamas, and are aware of their actions against the Israeli state are tired if getting their shit pushed in, they shouldn't allow them to do the shit they do. End of story. I'm ok with that out look in life. To me there is nothing wrong with that outlook. Hell, if anything it makes me right.

And yes, Hamas are bad people. Their entire purpose in life is the destruction of a people. That doesn't make you a good guy. I would counter that you, sir, are the ignorant one, and someone who doesn't live in reality. Pull your head out of what ever kind cloud you live in and deal with the world. They want to fuck up Israel, and Israel isn't letting them, and hasn't for decades. Not sure why that bothers you, but you should probably start to deal with it.

ETA: Also, and i'm really curious, how would you see it ending if Israel just stopped fighting? Do you think the Arab nations would let them be? do you think Hamas would lay off? Do you think there would be a nation of Israel?

I don't, and neither do the Jewish people. That frames their desire for defense and safety.

[Shryke]

A) I guess I'm just dense that way. Still, at least I provided a real reason for their shooting (no money). You, as I recall... have not.

Bee) Which just goes to show that Settlers don't run Israel. The Palestinians get to build their city, we don't destroy it, everybody is happy.

C) The power plant, I think, was a mistake. We don't bomb willy-nilly. If a building is bombed, there is usually a good military reason (though mistakes do happen. This is a war, after all). Hamas has integrated its military infrastructure with the civilian infrastructure. If we want to hit their military infrastructure, then there will inevitably be damage to the civilian infrastructure. The other option is just to sit on our thumbs and do nothing (which we cannot and will not do).

D) They have no legal claim as a collective to the land. What historical/practical/national right they have to the land and what portions of it, is something that needs to be determined in negotiation with the Israeli government.

E) Like I said: they want full country powers and authority (though maybe no military) - they sign a permanent peace with us first. We can't give them a country and then they jump up and say they want our country too. No way.

PS) The so-called "Right of Return". They want every descendant of 1948 Palestinian refugees to be able to come live in Israel proper.

a) Yes, you are dense. The current conflict, as I already explained, goes back further then the rocket attacks because that's not even the most basic of precipitating incidents to the current crisis. The same way WWI doesn't start with Germany crossing the Belgium border because so much shit happened before that which lead up to that.

b) Everybody is not happy at all actually. But please, do continue to pretend that Israelis aren't still stealing land in the West Bank. The Settlers don't have to run Israel. They just have to be tolerated and supported by the government. Which is what's happening.

c) How many "mistakes" before it's just a pattern? How many civilians have to be shelled? How long does a blockade of items having nothing to do with threatening Israel have to go on before it's a defacto plan? Israel has demonstrated little to no concern for loss of civilian life in this conflict, hence why the death toll is so ridiculously high already.

The other option is just to sit on our thumbs and do nothing (which we cannot and will not do).

Except you both can and have. Israel is not invading Gaza at all times after all. Hell, the entire current "mowing the lawn" strategy is built on doing mostly nothing for long stretches.

d) Right, so you are denying that the Palestinian have any claim to the land. Which means everything you've ever said before now about sovereignty and self-rule was just a lie you trot out to dodge tough questions. Good to know.

e) Right, so we are again back to you dropping the charade and basically saying that they don't have any current authority. You are "giving" them a country. How magnanimous of you, to deign to allow them self-rule.