(Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

When was the last time somebody from a territory controlled by Hamas hijacked an airplane?

When was the last time anyone even flew out of Hamas controlled territory? Try never. Both Gaza airports were closed by 2004, and Hamas wasn't elected until 2006.

Quote:

Why wouldn't they?

Because they hate them. Or enough of them do, anyways. Seriously, are you not familiar with what they preach in their schools?

Quote:

Palestinians, at least the Muslim Palestinians, would be willing to grant Jews the same rights and freedoms that the Israelis currently grant them.

No, they wouldn't. This is a delusion of the highest order.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Egypt has a right to fight terrorism, like any other state (although serious attempts to conduct dialogue should not be neglected, before a possible use of force). But I don't think blockading Gaza entirely (to prevent arms smuggling by Hamas, according to this source: https://honestreporting.com/gaza-blockade-explainer/) is the proper answer, from a humanitarian point of view.

Egypt blockades Gaza to prevent arms smuggling to terrorists. I wonder why Israel might blockade Gaza? It's a total mystery! And it's also a total mystery (well, not really) why Israel gets all the blame for the blockade, even though Egypt is doing it too..

Quote:

Perhaps Iran would be glad to fly into Gaza

Yeah, you're right. Terrorists aren't going to hijack their own arms shipments.

Quote:

There are about 30,000 Palestinians working reluctantly in Israeli settlements (https://palestinakomiteen.no/palesti...k-settlements/). Perhaps they wouldn't mind if their bosses get resident status (and are not expelled back to Israel), otherwise they might lose their job: no boss, no job.

Those workers might mind, but plenty of others wouldn't. And if there's one thing we no Palestinians are willing to sacrifice, it's other Palestinians.

Quote:

You may not be familiar with the basic legal principles of the U.N. Charter. I quote:

(https://treaties.un.org/doc/publicat.../uncharter.pdf)
Israel is protected by the Charter, even if the largest "voting bloc" at the U.N. General Assembly is the one of Muslim Nations.

The Charter is a joke. Member states regularly flaunt it. It isn't a self-enforcing document.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

... one of the definitions of anti-semitism is holding Israel accountable to standards that are not applied to other, similar countries.

I hold Israel to the same standards that led to the creation of the state of Israel out of humanitarian concerns. Is that unfair?

I support the norms in international law that forbid changing international borders by force, or invading a foreign nation using military or civilian forces (eg, Morocco's forced occupation of Western Sahara). Should I make some sort of exception for Israel in this regard, and why? If Israel makes peace with its neighbors, is it official policy to return the Golan Heights, or were they annexed outright?

I hold anyone who seeks to justify policy using religious law as a totalitarian fruitcake, be it some crazed Abrahamic whacko, Myanmar Buddhist killers, or intolerant Hindus. Is that unfair?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

I hold Israel to the same standards that led to the creation of the state of Israel out of humanitarian concerns. Is that unfair?

No. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

I support the norms in international law that forbid changing international borders by force, or invading a foreign nation using military or civilian forces (eg, Morocco's forced occupation of Western Sahara). Should I make some sort of exception for Israel in this regard, and why? If Israel makes peace with its neighbors, is it official policy to return the Golan Heights, or were they annexed outright?

No. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

I hold anyone who seeks to justify policy using religious law as a totalitarian fruitcake, be it some crazed Abrahamic whacko, Myanmar Buddhist killers, or intolerant Hindus. Is that unfair?

No. Why do you ask?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Why wouldn't they? Palestinians, at least the Muslim Palestinians, would be willing to grant Jews the same rights and freedoms that the Israelis currently grant them. I dont' think Jews would even notice a difference, what with all religions having equal status in Israel today.

Assuming this is actually a serious point, if you really believe this, you should read Hamas' charter. They have no interest at all in living with the Jews, nor in granting them any rights except to leave what they consider to be purely Islamic lands.
Islamic Jihad are implacably committed to the destruction of the State of Israel, which doesn't sound like a recipe for neighbourly peace.
As has been mentioned upthread, the PLO was also dedicated to driving out the Jews.
Historically, the Jews were appallingly treated by the Muslims, under the Charter of Umar (the dhimmi laws). It does not seem likely that this will be revoked.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Why wouldn't they? Palestinians, at least the Muslim Palestinians, would be willing to grant Jews the same rights and freedoms that the Israelis currently grant them.

No, they wouldn't. This is a delusion of the highest order.

I have done some research on this. Five years ago (in January 2014), the Times of Israel wrote:

Quote:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has previously rejected the idea of settlers remaining in a future Palestinian state, insisting there can be no Israeli civilian or military presence, but on Sunday night the top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat firmly reiterated that position and castigated the settlement enterprise as illegal.

“Anyone who says he wants to keep the settlers in a Palestinian state is really saying he does not want a Palestinian state,” Erekat declared. “No settler will be permitted to stay in a Palestinian state, not one, because the settlements are illegal and the presence of settlers on occupied lands is illegal.”

(https://www.timesofisrael.com/source...-in-palestine/)
and (a little later):

Quote:

Palestinians: Yes to Jews, no to settlers in our state

The Palestinian refusal to accept Israeli settlers in their future state does not stem from anti-Jewish sentiment, Palestinian officials said on Monday. Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, told The Times of Israel that Jews and members of all religions would have the right to apply for Palestinian citizenship. But “Palestine” could not accept “ex-territorial Jewish enclaves” where residents maintained their Israeli citizenship status, she said.

(https://www.timesofisrael.com/palest...-in-our-state/)
In other words, it would seem that the Palestinian Authority would be ready to accept former Israeli settlers on its territory, but would not allow dual citizenship: remaining settlers would have to give up their Israeli nationality (Israel, on the other hand, allows double citizenship: http://dlgimmigration.com/united-sta...l-citizenship/). This was, at least, the official position in 2014.

It seems to me the Palestinians should be more flexible on this: achieving peace requires concessions from both sides. Perhaps they have evolved a little since 2014, after suffering more settlement expansions.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

You may not be familiar with the basic legal principles of the U.N. Charter. I quote:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

(https://treaties.un.org/doc/publicat.../uncharter.pdf)
Israel is protected by the Charter, even if the largest "voting bloc" at the U.N. General Assembly is the one of Muslim Nations.

You may not be familiar with how UN member states actually behave:

Egypt:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1945

Jordan:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1955

Syria:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1945

Lebanon:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1945

Three of those four nations are founding members of the UN. It's their charter you're appealing to. It's obvious that there's no "basic legal principle" in the UN charter that protects Israel from Arab member states.

This is also a specific example of the general case that appeals to "international law" are laughable.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You may not be familiar with how UN member states actually behave:

Egypt:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1945

Jordan:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1955

Syria:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1945

Lebanon:

• Attacked Israel 1967
• Attacked Israel 1973

UN Member since 1945

Three of those four nations are founding members of the UN. It's their charter you're appealing to. It's obvious that there's no "basic legal principle" in the UN charter that protects Israel from Arab member states.

This is also a specific example of the general case that appeals to "international law" are laughable.

I don't think we should move into an idiotic, lawless and barbarian society, governed by the law of the jungle, or the law of the strongest, in which the countries that are dumb enough to accumulate more tanks and military airplanes would get to rule the world. Laws and commitments are important, whether in a specific country, or internationally.

I think it is generally accepted that what happened in 1967 was a major Israeli aggression, with seizure of territories (this is why U.N. resolution 242 was voted), after harassment by Egypt. Then, Arab countries tried to take back their lost territories. Protection of the law applies to all, including Israel, of course. The U.N. Security Council can authorize the use of force, when needed, for example to free an invaded country.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I think it is generally accepted that what happened in 1967 was a major Israeli aggression, with seizure of territories (this is why U.N. resolution 242 was voted), after harassment by Egypt. Then, Arab countries tried to take back their lost territories. Protection of the law applies to all, including Israel, of course. The U.N. Security Council can authorize the use of force, when needed, for example to free an invaded country.

...Not quite. Israel was the initial attacker towards Egypt, yes, and towards Egypt, specifically, "major Israeli aggression" is at least a justifiable term. The rest of the specifics seem a bit off, though. "Harassment," for example, generally isn't the word for loudly and publicly claiming that one's going to destroy a neighboring country and moving significant forces into position to attack, like the leader of Egypt did. Some of the other things, of course, could be called harassment, though, I suppose. As for the other countries, Egypt called up the other countries and lied to them, a lot, as it happened and those other countries attacked Israel while thinking that Israel was losing to Egypt. Israel responded with counterattacks that ended up seizing territory, so your rendition of the timeline related to them is backwards. Perhaps you might have a reason for getting things backwards, though?

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

When was the last time anyone even flew out of Hamas controlled territory? Try never. Both Gaza airports were closed by 2004, and Hamas wasn't elected until 2006.

My question was when was the last time somebody from Hamas controlled territory hijacked a plane--not when was the last time a plane that flew out of Gaza was hijacked. Obviously, if there aren't any airports in Gaza, nobody can fly directly out of Gaza. So anybody living in Hamas controlled territory who wants to fly somewhere for any reason--business, pleasure, or hijacking--will need to leave Hamas controlled territory to get to an airport first. So when was the last time that happened. i.e., somebody living in Gaza drove or took a train or walked or whatever to an airport outside of Gaza to catch a flight somewhere and then hijacked the plane?

Or is your claim that the good residents of Gaza are prone to hijacking airplanes based on nothing at all?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

My question was when was the last time somebody from Hamas controlled territory hijacked a plane--not when was the last time a plane that flew out of Gaza was hijacked. Obviously, if there aren't any airports in Gaza, nobody can fly directly out of Gaza. So anybody living in Hamas controlled territory who wants to fly somewhere for any reason--business, pleasure, or hijacking--will need to leave Hamas controlled territory to get to an airport first. So when was the last time that happened. i.e., somebody living in Gaza drove or took a train or walked or whatever to an airport outside of Gaza to catch a flight somewhere and then hijacked the plane?

Or is your claim that the good residents of Gaza are prone to hijacking airplanes based on nothing at all?

Palestinian terrorists have a long and storied history of airplane hijackings. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. Given that Hamas is a terrorist organization, anyone who trusted them not to go back to old habits would be foolish indeed.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think we should move into an idiotic, lawless and barbarian society, governed by the law of the jungle, or the law of the strongest, in which the countries that are dumb enough to accumulate more tanks and military airplanes would get to rule the world.

Move into such a world? My dear, dear boy: the middle east is already such a world, and has been since time immemorial.

Quote:

I think it is generally accepted that what happened in 1967 was a major Israeli aggression

Nope.

Quote:

Protection of the law applies to all, including Israel, of course.

That would be nice, if it were true. It's not.

Quote:

The U.N. Security Council can authorize the use of force, when needed, for example to free an invaded country.

It could. Or, Russia could veto it, in order to shaft us by shafting one of our allies.

[Henri McPhee]

There is an interesting analysis of Israel being at war with Iran as well as Gaza and the Palestinians at:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019...inst-iran.html

Quote:

A war against Iran at this time would be a war against a stretch of the world that has seen too many wars in recent times, that would like to open the door to peace. Trump—with Bolton and Pence—seek to provoke a war. These are dangerous men with a dangerous agenda.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

No, clearly you haven't got it, because you have mistaken a point about racism for a point about different systems of government.
Try reading more slowly next time.

I get it you see no moral difference between Israel and Saudi Arabia and don't so trying to hold it to a higher standard than the saudi baseline is pointless. Rather like that while the Rohinga genocide is happening arguing about clean water in flint is a pointless action. We can of course only deal with one issue at a time and so discussing any other issue is pointless.

That is the fundamental structure of your argument, you can't care about one bad thing because something else is worse.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Assuming this is actually a serious point, if you really believe this, you should read Hamas' charter. They have no interest at all in living with the Jews, nor in granting them any rights except to leave what they consider to be purely Islamic lands.

Weird so many jews immigrated to their country then. And of course we can totally judge the country by the stated policy of the ruling party so there is no need to differentiate the policies of the Likud party and Israel.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Aridas

...Not quite. Israel was the initial attacker towards Egypt, yes, and towards Egypt, specifically, "major Israeli aggression" is at least a justifiable term. The rest of the specifics seem a bit off, though. "Harassment," for example, generally isn't the word for loudly and publicly claiming that one's going to destroy a neighboring country and moving significant forces into position to attack, like the leader of Egypt did. Some of the other things, of course, could be called harassment, though, I suppose. As for the other countries, Egypt called up the other countries and lied to them, a lot, as it happened and those other countries attacked Israel while thinking that Israel was losing to Egypt. Israel responded with counterattacks that ended up seizing territory, so your rendition of the timeline related to them is backwards. Perhaps you might have a reason for getting things backwards, though?

Like how Britain was the aggressor with Germany in WWII. I mean sure they invaded Poland but Britain didn't have to declare war because of that, and so they can rightfully be seen as the aggressor.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Like how Britain was the aggressor with Germany in WWII. I mean sure they invaded Poland but Britain didn't have to declare war because of that, and so they can rightfully be seen as the aggressor.

Like how if someone approaches you with a loaded gun pointed at your head , while explaining to you that he intends to blow your face off, and how after he does it his half-retarded friends are going to come by to kill the rest of your family, you must wait until he pulls the trigger before you can defend yourself because if you don't you're a Zionist war criminal.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Got it there really is no need for them to be any better than any of the other dictatorships in the area and we shouldn't expect them to be anything else, they certainly are not some bastion of liberal democracy that is laughable. They are no different than any other nation in the region.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

No, clearly you haven't got it, because you have mistaken a point about racism for a point about different systems of government.
Try reading more slowly next time.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I get it you see no moral difference between Israel and Saudi Arabia and don't so trying to hold it to a higher standard than the saudi baseline is pointless. Rather like that while the Rohinga genocide is happening arguing about clean water in flint is a pointless action. We can of course only deal with one issue at a time and so discussing any other issue is pointless.

That is the fundamental structure of your argument, you can't care about one bad thing because something else is worse.

There is a definite pattern here. Every time you claim to have got something, you then go on to show that you clearly haven't.
You are either really bad at reading comprehension, or you think that endless strawman arguments are the best way to approach a debate.
Which is it- or, just to show the utter falsehood of your feeble attempt at a point, is it both?

I can cope with more than one thing at a time, by the way.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Aridas

...Not quite. Israel was the initial attacker towards Egypt, yes, and towards Egypt, specifically, "major Israeli aggression" is at least a justifiable term. The rest of the specifics seem a bit off, though. "Harassment," for example, generally isn't the word for loudly and publicly claiming that one's going to destroy a neighboring country and moving significant forces into position to attack, like the leader of Egypt did. Some of the other things, of course, could be called harassment, though, I suppose. As for the other countries, Egypt called up the other countries and lied to them, a lot, as it happened and those other countries attacked Israel while thinking that Israel was losing to Egypt. Israel responded with counterattacks that ended up seizing territory, so your rendition of the timeline related to them is backwards. Perhaps you might have a reason for getting things backwards, though?

I don't think I was "backwards". The 1967 events have been studied by experts at the time, and this led to U.N. Resolution 242, which is fairly clear:

Quote:

The Security Council, ...
Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political
independence of every State in the area

(link: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peac...281967%29.pdf/).
Resolution 2334 (about settlements), voted in December 2016, during the last days of the Obama administration (thank you, Barack) sends a similar message:

Quote:

The Security Council, ...
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, ... Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements ...Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace

(https://undocs.org/S/RES/2334(2016)/).
President Donald Trump sadly seems to have a tendency of aggravating almost everything he touches, but principles of international law and justice remain valid and important, even in this dark age of Trump. Obama understood the basic legal principles, but did not act decisively against Israel. He could for example have imposed an arms embargo against Israel (or tried to, if Congress had let him do it), but unfortunately he didn't do that.

[Ziggurat]

You're totally right, Michel. Israel totally needs to give Gaza back to Egypt, and the West Bank back to Jordan.

Let's see if we can make that happen, eh?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You're totally right, Michel. Israel totally needs to give Gaza back to Egypt, and the West Bank back to Jordan.

Let's see if we can make that happen, eh?

Quote:

You're totally right, Michel.

Thank you, Ziggurat.

Quote:

Israel totally needs to give Gaza back to Egypt, and the West Bank back to Jordan.

Let's see if we can make that happen, eh?

The Six-Day war took place more than 50 years ago, and the passage of time must be taken into account. If Israel could lift the Gaza blockade, and evacuate all remaining occupied territories (West Bank and East Jerusalem), this would be a giant step forward for a lasting peace, I think, and far better security for Israel at the lower cost (not only to Israel, but also for the U.S., which gives Israel military aid). Better security, more international respect, and less boycott, divestment and sanctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycot...and_Sanctions/) could be powerful incentives for Israel. Or perhaps its powerful U.S. ally would have just to say a few words (the U.S has a great responsibility in this situation) ...

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Thank you, Ziggurat.

The Six-Day war took place more than 50 years ago, and the passage of time must be taken into account. If Israel could lift the Gaza blockade, and evacuate all remaining occupied territories (West Bank and East Jerusalem), this would be a giant step forward for a lasting peace, I think, and far better security for Israel at the lower cost (not only to Israel, but also for the U.S., which gives Israel military aid). Better security, more international respect, and less boycott, divestment and sanctions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycot...and_Sanctions/) could be powerful incentives for Israel. Or perhaps its powerful U.S. ally would have just to say a few words (the U.S has a great responsibility in this situation) ...

Except that, as has been mentioned before in this thread, the moment Israel left Gaza, Hamas moved in and started launching rockets into Israel, and- also mentioned previously- Egypt is also blockading Gaza. If Hamas wasn't so intent on using most of the imports to build tunnels and other means of attacking Israel, there wouldn't be a blockade at all.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Assuming this is actually a serious point, if you really believe this, you should read Hamas' charter. They have no interest at all in living with the Jews, nor in granting them any rights except to leave what they consider to be purely Islamic lands.
Islamic Jihad are implacably committed to the destruction of the State of Israel, which doesn't sound like a recipe for neighbourly peace.
As has been mentioned upthread, the PLO was also dedicated to driving out the Jews.
Historically, the Jews were appallingly treated by the Muslims, under the Charter of Umar (the dhimmi laws). It does not seem likely that this will be revoked.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Weird so many jews immigrated to their country then. And of course we can totally judge the country by the stated policy of the ruling party so there is no need to differentiate the policies of the Likud party and Israel.

How many Jews have immigrated to lands controlled by Hamas?
If by your statement you are talking about the settlements, how many of the settlers have been welcomed by the Arabs?
As a point of fact, you are the one trying to judge a country by its ruling party: I have yet to see you make any kind of distinction between any of Israel's citizens at all. As usual (yes, I'm a quick learner), you are trying to have it both ways. Israel, according to you, can be defined by one politician or one party, but the Palestinian Arab territories cannot.
Can you list some figures showing that Hamas' stated policy of claiming all of Palestine, and destroying Israel, has only the support of a minority of Palestinian Arabs? If not, do you have any real points to make?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think I was "backwards".

I pointed out specific points that you made false or misleading claims about, when it comes to the conflict in question. Your response there didn't address ANY of them. You got important facts backwards, with important ramifications.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Except that, as has been mentioned before in this thread, the moment Israel left Gaza, Hamas moved in and started launching rockets into Israel, and- also mentioned previously- Egypt is also blockading Gaza. If Hamas wasn't so intent on using most of the imports to build tunnels and other means of attacking Israel, there wouldn't be a blockade at all.

Minor correction. Israel withdraw in 2005. Hamas took over in 2007.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Palestinian terrorists have a long and storied history of airplane hijackings. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. Given that Hamas is a terrorist organization, anyone who trusted them not to go back to old habits would be foolish indeed.

OK, when was the last time a Palestinian terrorist hijacked a plane? See, you're trying to make an argument that Palestinians are more prone hijackings than other people without any evidence. That's pure racism.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

OK, when was the last time a Palestinian terrorist hijacked a plane? See, you're trying to make an argument that Palestinians are more prone hijackings than other people without any evidence. That's pure racism.

But I do have evidence. It’s called history. Ever heard of it?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Aridas

Minor correction. Israel withdraw in 2005. Hamas took over in 2007.

I'm not talking about the formation of the Hamas government. I'm talking about the massive escalation of the rocket attacks that happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza.

Quote:

Attacks began in 2001. Since then (August 2014 data), almost 20,000 rockets have hit southern Israel, all but a few thousand of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palest...001%E2%80%9306

[Henri McPhee]

It's ugly politics. John Bolton wants war. It's lack of subtlety.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Except that, as has been mentioned before in this thread, the moment Israel left Gaza, Hamas moved in and started launching rockets into Israel, and- also mentioned previously- Egypt is also blockading Gaza. If Hamas wasn't so intent on using most of the imports to build tunnels and other means of attacking Israel, there wouldn't be a blockade at all.

I think that Israel should stop all forms of persecution against Palestinians, including Palestinians "to the east", in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. I believe what happens in the West Bank fuels hate towards Israel too, and probably has an influence in Gaza.

If Israel finally decided to comply with all its international obligations (U.N. Security Council Resolutions) - this is very far from being the case now, with constant settlement expansion - and if rocket attacks continued, I think Israel should deal with this by appealing to international help, rather than using its own defense forces. Blue Helmets should go in there, and do the necessary policing, look for all rockets and rocket factory (if dialogue with local Palestinian authorities proves fruitless). I see no reason to tolerate any kind of insecurity for law-abiding citizens, whether Jews, Arabs, Muslim, Atheists, or anything.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I think that Israel should stop all forms of persecution against Palestinians, including Palestinians "to the east", in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. I believe what happens in the West Bank fuels hate towards Israel too, and probably has an influence in Gaza.

If Israel finally decided to comply with all its international obligations (U.N. Security Council Resolutions) - this is very far from being the case now, with constant settlement expansion - and if rocket attacks continued, I think Israel should deal with this by appealing to international help, rather than using its own defense forces. Blue Helmets should go in there, and do the necessary policing, look for all rockets and rocket factory (if dialogue with local Palestinian authorities proves fruitless). I see no reason to tolerate any kind of insecurity for law-abiding citizens, whether Jews, Arabs, Muslim, Atheists, or anything.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Blue helmets were supposed to do all of that in Lebanon. And they failed.

Blue helmets were also supposed to protect the Tutsis in Rwanda. And they failed. They were supposed to protect the Bosnians in Yogoslavia. And they failed.

In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of when the blue helmets actually ever succeeded. Hell, even when it doesn't involve fighting, they still bring disaster. And child prostitution.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Bwahahahahahaha!

Blue helmets were supposed to do all of that in Lebanon. And they failed.

Blue helmets were also supposed to protect the Tutsis in Rwanda. And they failed. They were supposed to protect the Bosnians in Yogoslavia. And they failed.

In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of when the blue helmets actually ever succeeded. Hell, even when it doesn't involve fighting, they still bring disaster. And child prostitution.

There is a U.N. peacekeeping force in the Golan Heights since 1974, which may have contributed to maintaining a relative state of peace between Israel and Syria in the last 45 years. As far as I know, these Blue Helmets have never been associated with either cholera or child prostitution.

Quote:

The initial composition of UNDOF in 1974 was of personnel from Austria, Peru, Canada and Poland. Today, about a thousand troops are provided by Fiji, India, Ireland, Nepal, the Netherlands and the Philippines. The troops are assisted by military observers from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization's Observer Group Golan, along with international and local civilian staff.

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...bserver_Force/)
Gaza is much smaller than Lebanon, Rwanda, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and should therefore be much easier to monitor.

Some interesting opinions about U.N. peacekeeping (by Canada, in this case):

Quote:

In a 2010 Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail, barely one in five Canadians wanted more war-fighting missions like Afghanistan. Poll respondents ranked UN peacekeeping as the top priority for Canada's military, ahead even of North American security and defending the Arctic.

Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College, hopes for resurgence. "UN peace operations provide unparalleled legitimacy to international efforts," he said in a statement issued by the Canadian chapter of the World Federalist Movement. "That's why Canadians, as shown in many polls, continue to support peacekeeping, even when Canada is at an all-time low in contributions of personnel."

(Link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle4240950/)

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I think that Israel should stop all forms of persecution against Palestinians, including Palestinians "to the east", in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. I believe what happens in the West Bank fuels hate towards Israel too, and probably has an influence in Gaza.

If Israel finally decided to comply with all its international obligations (U.N. Security Council Resolutions) - this is very far from being the case now, with constant settlement expansion - and if rocket attacks continued, I think Israel should deal with this by appealing to international help, rather than using its own defense forces. Blue Helmets should go in there, and do the necessary policing, look for all rockets and rocket factory (if dialogue with local Palestinian authorities proves fruitless). I see no reason to tolerate any kind of insecurity for law-abiding citizens, whether Jews, Arabs, Muslim, Atheists, or anything.

Is it only Israel that should stop defending itself against continuous rocket attacks from a neighbour sworn to its destruction?

Whilst I accept that Israel has been heavy-handed in its treatment of the Palestinian Arabs, it is more of a reaction to the hatred bred into Muslims from a nearly age by leaders who care not a jot for the safety and security of their people.

As has been said many times before, this could have been settled years ago, but the Palestinian Arab leadership has instead chosen to prolong the conflict.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There is a U.N. peacekeeping force in the Golan Heights since 1974, which may have contributed to maintaining a relative state of peace between Israel and Syria in the last 45 years. As far as I know, these Blue Helmets have never been associated with either cholera or child prostitution.

They haven't had to do any of the things that you're asking this hypothetical intervention to do. And the peace is mostly kept by the threat to Syria of Israeli retaliation.

The blue helmets in Lebanon were supposed to do the things you mentioned, and they haven't.

Quote:

Gaza is much smaller than Lebanon, Rwanda, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and should therefore be much easier to monitor.

The problem was never the size. The problem was a lack of any will to actually fight.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

How many Jews have immigrated to lands controlled by Hamas?

That is what people have been claiming the settlements are. Just normal immigration not some kind of taking land or invasion. So the settlements would have to be under the control of the palestinians as they are on their land.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Is it only Israel that should stop defending itself against continuous rocket attacks from a neighbour sworn to its destruction?

Collective punishment is clearly the only solution. Why bother to sort the bad actors out and just punish the population indiscriminately, it has worked great for decades, look at all the territorial expansion this has permitted.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Collective punishment is clearly the only solution. Why bother to sort the bad actors out and just punish the population indiscriminately, it has worked great for decades, look at all the territorial expansion this has permitted.

Which "bad actors" are you referring to?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Which "bad actors" are you referring to?

The ones launching the missiles.

Really the problem england had with the troubles was not cracking down hard enough on the catholics. Really they haven't had the guts to do it right since cromwell. To much reconciliation and crap, they could really have taken a page in how to deal with these issues from israel.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Is it only Israel that should stop defending itself against continuous rocket attacks from a neighbour sworn to its destruction?

Israel is the only example I know of in this situation (though Hamas has sent mixed messages about Israel's right to exist, see below), and the Israeli heavy-handed approach to its security problems is fuelling much hate, and not much international consensus and respect.

The Guardian wrote, two years ago:

Quote:

Hamas presents new charter accepting a Palestine based on 1967 borders
...
In the biggest concession, the new document states that Hamas “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”.

By implication, the document accepts that there will be another state entity outside these borders, even if it does not mention Israel.

(Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-1967-borders/).

I think this should be good enough to make peace, but this will be possible only if Israel and the U.S. want it. It seems that, right now, the U.S. is more interested in persecuting various countries (Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, Russia ...) while neglecting climate and the environment, often creating or aggravating crises, as the universal troublemaker, than in making peace and working hard on "real" environmental problems.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The problem was never the size. The problem was a lack of any will to actually fight.

It is certainly better to fight for peace and world democracy than to fight for an illegally invading power.