Intifada 3? Kidnapped Israeli citizens might be a flashpoint

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Well, it also lasts quite well on the borders with Egypt and Jordan, despite the past wars. Because with these countries, Israel managed to formulate reasonable terms which both sides can find acceptable in the long term. Hamas doesn't even try. They either talk about Israel destroyed, or demand territories permanently, but as a short term solution. In other words, a scam operation.

"We want to settle your land and pound you when you get pissed" isn't reasonable or acceptable, asshole.

How, exactly, is that relevant to what I said?

I'm also quoting your previous reply just to show everyone how much of a dumbass you are. You clearly talked about reasonable terms, I replied that you clearly did not offer reasonable terms to Palestine.

Nor are your agreements from before Hamas even existed (Egypt) or was even close to power (Jordan) relevant.

How am I supposed to understand that? That Hamas can never be as reasonable as them? In this case, what is there to discuss?

I don't know, something about how Israel's terms are pretty much bullshit? A fact that you're working hard to ignore? Oh no, Hamas isn't accepting that you get to keep settlements (which violate international law) or conquered territory (which, again, violates international law).

A lot of these territories Israel offered to give away. The neighbors refuse the honor.

Which ones, and when? That's important. Also, you are still a dumbass: saying "well we offered to only violate international law half the time" isn't an argument.

And you still refuse to give evidence that this "moderation" is different from the one described here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200403061925 ... =Eircomnet

Why are you so stupid as to present an article from 2004?

Ah, so somehow I am at fault when your ramblings can be understood in any of a dozen ways with no indication which is the correct one. Where is the figure of casualties that should be ignored? One hundred thousandth of the population? One ten thousandth? Well, Israel is a country that values every single one of its citizens - Hamas know it best with the prisoner exchanges. You complain that our people are first priority for us, while Palestinians are second priority? Well, why don't you argue with Hamas, for whom Palestinians are not even fifth priority, and Israeli civilians remain first priority for killing even when military targets (which someone here claimed they would have preferred) are in front of them as far as they can see.

I... I...

I don't even know how to respond to the fact that you just used the same arguments used by the Golden Dawn. Excuse me.

Then what did it imply? I asked whether the Palestinian casualties are an existential threat. What did you answer? You talked about damage to a city, and not a word about people. My stupidity... or your goalpost shifting?

Do you even know how language works, you stupid fucking jackboot?

---

What you essentially said wasn't that Israel was safe, but that Israelis were safe. That is obviously not the case (and just FYI, the reason I took the kid's death so emotionally is that my son is almost exactly the same age and with not too different luck, he might have been the one hit). If you meant the former, than I have no idea why you brought up Iron Dome, much less Iron Beam, as Israel was not facing an existential threat from the rockets before those existed. That raises the question, however, of whether you can only respond to nationally existential threats.

Quote where I said "Israelis" in the part you replied, or where Omeganian did the same. Please, no "essentially" weasel words.

As for Israel not facing an existential threat either before or Iron Dome, thanks, that was exactly my point.

If the US had actually found significant amounts of WMD in Iraq, would you argue their previous allegations were just luck?

Sure, why not? If they had actual proof, I'd ask why they never showed it but instead sent Powell to commit career suicide at the UN.

The casus belli for the actual attack on Gaza was the rockets coming from Gaza. Those are a matter of public record.

The only things that are a matter of public record is that Netanyahu whipped the public into a frenzy over the kidnappings, and that Israel attacked Hamas with airstrikes before Hamas responded with rockets. Unless Israel attacked Hamas for rockets launched by other organizations (yes they did), and also unless airstikes are not "actual attacks" (lolnope).

Don't know about 1973. OTOH, in 1948 Israel (which was desperate to acquire weapons, IIRC it could only arm a third of its personnel) was placed under an arms embargo by the US among others. As far as 1967 is concerned, you can still find people (including on this board, if you look in pre-IvP moratorium posts) who condemn Israel the agressor in that war.

Bolded because holy shit, what a dishonest fuck you are.

The UN declared a truce on 29 May, which came into effect on 11 June and lasted 28 days. The truce was designed to last 28 days and an arms embargo was declared with the intention that neither side would make any gains from the truce. Neither side respected the truce; both found ways around the restrictions placed on them.[161] Both the Israelis and the Arabs used this time to improve their positions, a direct violation of the terms of the ceasefire.[162]

The Israeli army increased its manpower from approximately 30,000–35,000 men to almost 65,000 during the truce due to mobilization and the constant immigration into Israel. It was also able to increase its arms supply to more than 25,000 rifles, 5,000 machine guns, and fifty million bullets.[162] As well as violating the arms and personnel embargo, they also sent fresh units to the front lines like the Arabs.[162]

Come on now, children, all together: who's a dishonest fuck? Eyl's a dishonest fuck! Bravo children!

Of course, bringing those wars up is rather disengenous. A war with the Palestinians won't look like those wars, which were wars between countries; it'll look like Operations Defensive Shield, Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge. Those have hardly been uncondemned.

Most of them condemned for their breathtaking collateral damage, especially the most recent. Also, if Palestine is recognized in the UN, it'll be a war between countries by definition.

From the reports I've seen (mostly on TV, unfortunately, although here's one print source), Mashaal is the one blocking the efforts to obtain a cease-fire in the current conflict.

Skimming, your article never directly attributes any quote of the sort to Mashaal himself. Do you have something more solid as proof that he was blocking negotiations? I normally wouldn't ask since an agreement was achieved, but after seeing what you said about 1948 I'm not exactly inclined to trust your honesty.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The other half of it is, it is... at best wishful thinking and at worst willful ignorance of human nature to expect a large group of people to agree to give up something for nothing. It's usually possible to convince people to sacrifice something for something, or nothing for nothing, but not something for nothing.

Whoa there, "something for nothing"? They totally gain something: a few guaranteed years of peace and deescalation, AKA the possibility that this peace will last. If Israel thinks that this is nothing, it says little about me and a lot about Israel. If Israel thinks they can live with the current situation (which is a big obstacle), again it says nothing about me and a lot about them. If you are Devil's advocating for Israel that's okay, but calling it something for nothing is nonsense.

Well, honestly I think people sometimes subconsciously come up with analogies like this because it's fun to side with the little guy and say the big guy is in the wrong; there's a certain pleasure in condemning a big nasty villain. Especially for modern intellectuals who mostly think violence is categorically wrong and favor peaceful compromise in pretty much all situations.

But it's important to watch the words we use, so we don't frame the debate in a way that impairs our objectivity. Such as thinking of competent statesmen and guerilla warfare experts as though they were a bunch of children, incapable and ignorant of strategic thinking, and not responsible for their own actions.

You are the one who thought of this interpretation. Are you trying to force intent on van Creveld? Are you perhaps interpreting this metaphor incorrectly? This isn't fiction, it is military history; we can't just go all death of the author over it. Trust me, I'm literally studying literary theory right now.

Except that the Troubles were a quite different situation.

Holy shit, again?

Israel is dealing with areas full of hostile displaced populations that have a huge irredentist thing going in which a lot of them want to claim all the land Israel now occupies. And the displaced people have a nearly 100% disapproval of Israel and would probably be perfectly happy if all the Israelis jumped off a cliff*.

At least we agree that Palestinian hatred is justified and not them being irrational beasts or whatever, because I've seen shit claimed, man. I've seen shit.

And the "all the land" is bullshit as far as Hamas is concerned. Sorry, I gave links before, to you even. Of course, Hamas might fall from power in favor of even more extreme people like Fatah did, and I can't say anything about this apart from the assumption that this would happen because Hamas can't stop Israel from bombing Gaza.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, the UK faced a divided population in Northern Ireland, where part of the population was Unionist and part was Irish-nationalist, and where they could basically adopt a position of neutrality while trying to combat specific acts of terrorism on the part of the Irish nationalists. They didn't have to worry about, for example, the IRA forming a semi-independent state in County Antrim and firing masses of random mortars and rockets into Belfast, let alone London.

So it's very questionable whether it's even realistic to think of the Troubles as an analogy for the situation in Palestine. The UK had a lot of options that Israel doesn't.

And Gaza isn't divided? Is it a monolithic bloc? The UK held back and eventually solved this. Extreme people on both sides might bitch and moan (they often do about compromise), but Britain solved this.

Meanwhile, there is Rupert Smith. He's a British officer who rose through the ranks in the Troubles and therefore knows the situation firsthand. Here is what he's saying for the IvP conflict. I've also found a part of his book, The Utility of Force, about this issue, but it's sailing the Internet sea and I'll need time to track it down.

In Hamas's case, the most basic form of their cause (Palestinian independence) is symapthetic and falls under 'freedom fighter' in many minds... but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that they're not in any real sense "resisting" an army that occupies their people.

Lolwut? I agree with the rest, but please tell me how Hamas isn't a resistance army against Israel.

It is my opinion that BOTH sides are responsible and NEITHER side can realistically impose peace unilaterally. As a consequence it may be impossible to impose peace at all... or not. I'm not sure.

Come on, this is a golden mean fallacy and you know it. Besides, I strictly talked about who has the capacity, not the will.

Maybe- but it's very hard to say. Essentially, you're asking Israel to roll the dice on the good faith and peaceable intentions of people who are actively trying to kill them.

Which is a LOT to ask of anyone, without some gesture of good faith by the other side... even if said other side is in no position to make gestures.

If the other side is incapable of gestures, isn't it wholly unreasonable to ask for one?

What, softening one's rhetorical stance while continuing the rocket bombardment? I'm skeptical.

This isn't only rhetoric. Hamas had been enforcing the ceasefire, not launching rockets, and policing Gaza to prevent launches from non-Hamas people. Israel, meanwhile, got attacked by non-Hamas rockets, but fired on Hamas anyway as if they were responsible. Pull a "citation needed" on me here if you wish, I'll try to scrounge up my source later.

[eyl]

What you essentially said wasn't that Israel was safe, but that Israelis were safe. That is obviously not the case (and just FYI, the reason I took the kid's death so emotionally is that my son is almost exactly the same age and with not too different luck, he might have been the one hit). If you meant the former, than I have no idea why you brought up Iron Dome, much less Iron Beam, as Israel was not facing an existential threat from the rockets before those existed. That raises the question, however, of whether you can only respond to nationally existential threats.

As for Israel not facing an existential threat either before or Iron Dome, thanks, that was exactly my point.

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe a state is unjustified in the use of force except in cases of threats to the nation's existence?

Sure, why not? If they had actual proof, I'd ask why they never showed it but instead sent Powell to commit career suicide at the UN.

Because there are never any reasons a state may not want to make intelligence public, right?

The only things that are a matter of public record is that Netanyahu whipped the public into a frenzy over the kidnappings, and that Israel attacked Hamas with airstrikes before Hamas responded with rockets. Unless Israel attacked Hamas for rockets launched by other organizations (yes they did), and also unless airstikes are not "actual attacks" (lolnope).

The airstrike against Hamas specfiically was against one of their tunnels, and there's dispute as to whether the Hamas members killed there died from the airstrike or when explosives stored in the tunnel went off some time later.

Don't know about 1973. OTOH, in 1948 Israel (which was desperate to acquire weapons, IIRC it could only arm a third of its personnel) was placed under an arms embargo by the US among others. As far as 1967 is concerned, you can still find people (including on this board, if you look in pre-IvP moratorium posts) who condemn Israel the agressor in that war.

Bolded because holy shit, what a dishonest fuck you are.

The UN declared a truce on 29 May, which came into effect on 11 June and lasted 28 days. The truce was designed to last 28 days and an arms embargo was declared with the intention that neither side would make any gains from the truce. Neither side respected the truce; both found ways around the restrictions placed on them.[161] Both the Israelis and the Arabs used this time to improve their positions, a direct violation of the terms of the ceasefire.[162]

You know, when you're accusing someone of dishonesty, as a rule it's advised not to lie yourself.

Of course, maybe I'm doing you a disservice. Possibly you're simply in need of some remedial geography (or politography, whatever).

The UN is this international organization made of representatives from the various nations on the planet. A truce was indeed organised through it which included a month-long embargo. Except, I specified the US; it's this big powerful state on the North American continent. It instituted an arms embargo on 5 December 1947 which AFAIK lasted until the end of the war. Technically the embargo applied to all the belligerents but the Arab forces weren't trying to buy weapons from the US in the first place (they were getting arms from the British, for example, at the very least in Jordan, and the British actually urged the US to maintain the embargo). In addition, the State Department exerted strong pressure on Truman to abandon support of the partition plan both before and after the vote.

The Israeli army increased its manpower from approximately 30,000–35,000 men to almost 65,000 during the truce due to mobilization and the constant immigration into Israel. It was also able to increase its arms supply to more than 25,000 rifles, 5,000 machine guns, and fifty million bullets.[162] As well as violating the arms and personnel embargo, they also sent fresh units to the front lines like the Arabs.[162]

Come on now, children, all together: who's a dishonest fuck? Eyl's a dishonest fuck! Bravo children!

Read your own fucking source next time.

According to Karsh before the arrival of arms shipments from Czechoslovakia as part of Operation Balak, there was roughly one weapon for every three fighters, and even the Palmach could arm only two out of every three of its active members

And according to the section you yourself quoted, the IDF had enough small arms for less than half its troops (Actually considerably less than that, since you're not going to be able to issue every one of your rifles to the field - you have to leave quite a few as spares, for training, rear area security, etc.)

Of course, bringing those wars up is rather disengenous. A war with the Palestinians won't look like those wars, which were wars between countries; it'll look like Operations Defensive Shield, Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense and Protective Edge. Those have hardly been uncondemned.

Most of them condemned for their breathtaking collateral damage, especially the most recent. Also, if Palestine is recognized in the UN, it'll be a war between countries by definition.

Ah, you're one of those.

Tell me, just how do you think a war between Israel and a Palestinian state would look like? Conventional forces have the drawback of being easy meat for the side with the more powerful airforce/artillery, and the Palestinians are highly unlikely, to say the least, to be able to match Israel in those fields (especially assuming they want to have a remotely functional economy). They're not Syria or Egypt with ample areas far from Israel where they can set up, store and train large conventional forces. The only chance they have is to turn it into a guerilla fight by withdrawing into the cities (IINM Iran has a somewhat similiar strategy in the face of attack by the US or other superior force). That means that a war will devolve into something like the above operations - city fighting, which will inevitably involve a large number of civilian casualties - and hence condemnation.

For that matter, if you look at the history of UN condemnations of Israel, you'll see that very often they consist of a condemnation of Israeli actions but barely a mention (much less condemnation, "concern" at the most) of the other side which performed the initial attack to which Israel was responding.

[Omeganian]

"We want to settle your land and pound you when you get pissed" isn't reasonable or acceptable, asshole.

How, exactly, is that relevant to what I said?

I'm also quoting your previous reply just to show everyone how much of a dumbass you are. You clearly talked about reasonable terms, I replied that you clearly did not offer reasonable terms to Palestine.

Well, did the Palestinians care about these settlements before Bibi said we might be dismantling them? Why should they now?

As for "pounding you when you get pissed", I don't remember Israel bombarding Gaza in response to a street demonstration. Maybe you are talking about Israel responding to attacks, but the right for responding to an aggression isn't something that can be denied to a state.

Nor are your agreements from before Hamas even existed (Egypt) or was even close to power (Jordan) relevant.

How am I supposed to understand that? That Hamas can never be as reasonable as them? In this case, what is there to discuss?

I don't know, something about how Israel's terms are pretty much bullshit? A fact that you're working hard to ignore? Oh no, Hamas isn't accepting that you get to keep settlements (which violate international law)or conquered territory (which, again, violates international law).

What has this got to do with the date of the treaties? Except for the fact that Hamas, according to you, knew throughout its existence that Israel can be negotiated with peacefully, I mean.

And you still refuse to give evidence that this "moderation" is different from the one described here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200403061925 ... =Eircomnet

Why are you so stupid as to present an article from 2004?

So, the only difference you can find is the date. Does this mean you concede that point?

Ah, so somehow I am at fault when your ramblings can be understood in any of a dozen ways with no indication which is the correct one. Where is the figure of casualties that should be ignored? One hundred thousandth of the population? One ten thousandth? Well, Israel is a country that values every single one of its citizens - Hamas know it best with the prisoner exchanges. You complain that our people are first priority for us, while Palestinians are second priority? Well, why don't you argue with Hamas, for whom Palestinians are not even fifth priority, and Israeli civilians remain first priority for killing even when military targets (which someone here claimed they would have preferred) are in front of them as far as they can see.

I... I...

I don't even know how to respond to the fact that you just used the same arguments used by the Golden Dawn. Excuse me.

Clarify.

Then what did it imply? I asked whether the Palestinian casualties are an existential threat. What did you answer? You talked about damage to a city, and not a word about people. My stupidity... or your goalpost shifting?

Do you even know how language works, you stupid fucking jackboot?

Yes. Now, mind speaking it?

[Thanas]

So the toll now stands at:

Israel:
68 dead (4 civilians)
?? injured

Palestine:
2100 dead (? civilians)
10.500 injured


How is that in any way a proportional response?

[Grumman]

How is that in any way a proportional response?

It's a proportional response because Hamas was launching artillery attacks on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv. The fact that Israel has become very good at stopping people murdering innocent Israeli civilians while Hamas goes out of their way to get Palestinians killed - up to and including murdering them outright as "collaborators" - does not change that.

[Thanas]

How is that in any way a proportional response?

It's a proportional response because Hamas was launching artillery attacks on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv. The fact that Israel has become very good at stopping people murdering innocent Israeli civilians while Hamas goes out of their way to get Palestinians killed - up to and including murdering them outright as "collaborators" - does not change that.

Yeah, noneffective threats generally justify a disproportionate response.

[Beowulf]

How is that in any way a proportional response?

It's a proportional response because Hamas was launching artillery attacks on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv. The fact that Israel has become very good at stopping people murdering innocent Israeli civilians while Hamas goes out of their way to get Palestinians killed - up to and including murdering them outright as "collaborators" - does not change that.

Yeah, noneffective threats generally justify a disproportionate response.

Because people are potatoes.

[Omeganian]

How is that in any way a proportional response?

It's a proportional response because Hamas was launching artillery attacks on Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv. The fact that Israel has become very good at stopping people murdering innocent Israeli civilians while Hamas goes out of their way to get Palestinians killed - up to and including murdering them outright as "collaborators" - does not change that.

Yeah, noneffective threats generally justify a disproportionate response.

What would you call a proportionate response? More importantly, one that would stop the rockets.

[Thanas]

What would you call a proportionate response? More importantly, one that would stop the rockets.

Reinforce Iron Dome. Then start targeting hamas leadership hard-liners as usual. Then negotiate in good faith for a return to 1967 borders and a right to return. Give them something to live for instead of nothing to die for.

Bombing the place to even more rubble will only stop rockets when every palestinian is dead. You think that acceptable?

[The Grim Squeaker]

What would you call a proportionate response? More importantly, one that would stop the rockets.

Reinforce Iron Dome. Then start targeting hamas leadership hard-liners as usual.

Which isn't what was done before the land entry (and didn't stop or slow down the rocketS), how?
That's what was done.

Bombing the place to even more rubble will only stop rockets when every palestinian is dead. You think that acceptable?

Generally, sane people stop firing rockets when they feel they have more to lose by being shot back at, than continuing to shoot.

[Thanas]

Which isn't what was done before the land entry (and didn't stop or slow down the rocketS), how?
That's what was done.

Nope, what was being done was half-assing into a ground war after deciding Palestinians were bad people for rioting after having some of their people killed in a retaliatory killing. There was no strategy at all and no exit - and there is still none.

Generally, sane people stop firing rockets when they feel they have more to lose by being shot back at, than continuing to shoot.

Nobody in this conflict is remotely sane.

[Elfdart]

So the toll now stands at:

Israel:
68 dead (4 civilians)
?? injured

Palestine:
2100 dead (? civilians)
10.500 injured


How is that in any way a proportional response?

As if Palestinian lives had value.

Seriously though. Imagine if the Turkish government had decided to exact similar revenge against Israel for the killing of nine passengers on the Mavi Marmara.

Reinforce Iron Dome. Then start targeting hamas leadership hard-liners as usual. Then negotiate in good faith for a return to 1967 borders and a right to return. Give them something to live for instead of nothing to die for.

Iron Dome is a fraud. Strengthening a fraud is futility cubed.

Bombing the place to even more rubble will only stop rockets when every palestinian is dead. You think that acceptable?

That's kinda the idea. Either Palestinians can lay down like sheep as their land is stolen and they're herded into smaller and smaller ghettos (which will be considered consent), die out like the Tainos, or if and when the ghettos' gates are opened they can flee to Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere (which will be considered voluntary emigration). Either way, Greater Israel will carry on with its Lebensraum policy.

[cosmicalstorm]

Yeah the Israelis work in slow-motion. Slowly driving the Palestinians away. I'm happy that is not something happening to my hometown! I wonder how much Israel would like to expand beyond it's current border? Are they content with what they have?

[Simon_Jester]

So the toll now stands at:

Israel:
68 dead (4 civilians)
?? injured

Palestine:
2100 dead (? civilians)
10.500 injuredHow is that in any way a proportional response?

As if Palestinian lives had value.

Seriously though. Imagine if the Turkish government had decided to exact similar revenge against Israel for the killing of nine passengers on the Mavi Marmara.

If the Turks had reason to believe the Israelis were going to keep trying to kill more Turks on a regular basis, and were going to physically intrude on Turkish soil to do so, and had already been forced to spend billions building up defenses against said intrusions...

HELL YES I would say the Turks would be justified in launching a counterattack with the stated effects. Even if the Israelis did respond by withdrawing all their forces into civilian areas, mixing with the civilians, and as a result getting lots of Israeli civilians killed and writing them off as martyrs to the cause.

Which is one of the complaints here that you don't seem to grasp, that Hamas itself is showing no more respect for the lives of its own people than the Israelis are. And that it is ultimately this willingness to sacrifice their own people's well-being that even makes it possible for them to keep up their side of the cycle of violence.

Reinforce Iron Dome. Then start targeting hamas leadership hard-liners as usual. Then negotiate in good faith for a return to 1967 borders and a right to return. Give them something to live for instead of nothing to die for.

Iron Dome is a fraud. Strengthening a fraud is futility cubed.

You are either ignorant or lying, or the word "fraud" just does not mean the same things in your bizarre version of a language that it does in English.

That's kinda the idea. Either Palestinians can lay down like sheep as their land is stolen and they're herded into smaller and smaller ghettos (which will be considered consent), die out like the Tainos, or if and when the ghettos' gates are opened they can flee to Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere (which will be considered voluntary emigration). Either way, Greater Israel will carry on with its Lebensraum policy.

Which Israelis have stolen which land in the Gaza Strip over the past eight years? Be specific.

Yeah the Israelis work in slow-motion. Slowly driving the Palestinians away. I'm happy that is not something happening to my hometown! I wonder how much Israel would like to expand beyond it's current border? Are they content with what they have?

This accurately describes the situation in the West Bank. In Gaza it's the opposite of true; Israel withdrew its settlements, ceded authority over the territory to the locals, and now much of southern Israel is living in a slow-motion version of the London Blitz as a result.

---

The other half of it is, it is... at best wishful thinking and at worst willful ignorance of human nature to expect a large group of people to agree to give up something for nothing. It's usually possible to convince people to sacrifice something for something, or nothing for nothing, but not something for nothing.

Whoa there, "something for nothing"? They totally gain something: a few guaranteed years of peace and deescalation, AKA the possibility that this peace will last...

They gain a possibility of getting peace. They also gain a possibility that after a year or two of quiet and rearmament, Hamas will start launching rockets again, this time with more resources and more opportunities to acquire bigger, nastier rockets.

So if you look inside an Israeli's head while they hear your offer, what they're really hearing goes something like:

1) I DEMAND that you stop shooting today, it's the only honorable course of action because YOU have control over this situation!
2) As a result of you not shooting, AND ceding land to Hamas, you gain the following:
3) An 80% chance of Hamas coming after you with more and bigger weapons in a few years as soon as the international community stops paying attention, OR
4) A 20% chance of peace breaking out because Hamas has suddenly seen the light and decided to let Israelis live in peace, without being deposed by even more radical Palestinian organizations as Hamas themselves deposed Fatah.

I just made up the numbers, but I suspect that the average Israeli would consider them very optimistic about the chance for a lasting peace.

Now, basically, my point here is that you seem to be totally overlooking the role of (3) in making your proposal unappetizing to Israel. It's like:

"Roll the dice. If you win, you get peace. If you lose, you end up in a bigger nastier war than before. And the international community will STILL call you the bad guys if you go on the offensive at any point during this war."

THAT is why Israel sees this as a "something for nothing" situation. They have no reliable assurance that they will get peace by making concessions and stopping their incursions into Gaza. They have only a possibility of getting peace... and a large corresponding risk of getting an even bigger war than the one they have now, one which will cost them more than this one does.

They're giving up a thing with 100% probability, but they have only a limited probability of getting the reward for doing so. Which is, at best, a form of gambling, with the security of their population as the stakes.

You may want them to make that gamble. But an Israeli might well argue that the reason you want them to gamble is not a very good reason. From your arguments, they may well conclude that you ignore (3) on purpose. That you value an end to the war more than you value Israel's safety.

Israelis would be out of their minds to think that way, even if they are the unambiguous villains of the story. Therefore, they're not going to agree to a proposal like yours. Not if it doesn't come with some kind of meaningful assurance that the Gazans won't just resume the attack in a few years' time in hopes of biting off another slice of territory.

But it's important to watch the words we use, so we don't frame the debate in a way that impairs our objectivity. Such as thinking of competent statesmen and guerilla warfare experts as though they were a bunch of children, incapable and ignorant of strategic thinking, and not responsible for their own actions.

You are the one who thought of this interpretation. Are you trying to force intent on van Creveld? Are you perhaps interpreting this metaphor incorrectly? This isn't fiction, it is military history; we can't just go all death of the author over it. Trust me, I'm literally studying literary theory right now.

I think that there's a large vein of military-historical thought which tends to view the Palestinians as somehow not as responsible, or not as to-blame, for their actions as the Israelis are.

In my opinion, it's what happens when orientalism meets anticolonialism. Instead of viewing the foreigner as too ignorant to govern himself, you view him as being too ignorant to fight intelligently, to think and plan ahead the way a responsible person who cares about their own people would.

Thus, Israelis are blameworthy for launching offensive military operations that serve only to perpetuate the cycle of violence, but when Palestinians fire rockets they are not blameworthy, even though it clearly has the same effect on the cycle.

There is another vein of such thought that holds the Israelis totally blameless for everything they do and the Palestinians as EVILVILLAINMOOSLEMS. This leads to even greater stupidities. However, this vein tends to be populated by stupider people.

Israel is dealing with areas full of hostile displaced populations that have a huge irredentist thing going in which a lot of them want to claim all the land Israel now occupies. And the displaced people have a nearly 100% disapproval of Israel and would probably be perfectly happy if all the Israelis jumped off a cliff*.

At least we agree that Palestinian hatred is justified and not them being irrational beasts or whatever, because I've seen shit claimed, man. I've seen shit.

Well, the thing is, their anger is rational, but their responses have become irrational. They're human, they're understandable, but they represent a nation given over to hate.

I've heard it quoted from some Israeli political figure that "the war will end when they decide they love their children more than they hate us," and while that's a very uncharitable statement, I think there's an essential truth to it- if the Israelis need to let go of their determination to ensure security by keeping a boot on Palestinian necks, so too do the Palestinians need to figure out a way to govern themselves that is not purely, utterly given over to the expression of hatred against Israel.

Because as we have seen demonstrated very effectively in Gaza over the past seven and a half years, hateocracy simply doesn't work when your nation is surrounded by a far more powerful enemy who is the focus of your hatred.

And the "all the land" is bullshit as far as Hamas is concerned. Sorry, I gave links before, to you even. Of course, Hamas might fall from power in favor of even more extreme people like Fatah did, and I can't say anything about this apart from the assumption that this would happen because Hamas can't stop Israel from bombing Gaza.

Hamas' present claims do not include all of Israel. My point is that the Palestinians collectively, not without reason, feel they have such a claim on some gut level. So there is no point beyond which the Israelis can withdraw and be sure that the war is over; only points beyond which they theoretically could withdraw (by displacing large chunks of their population) and at least hope that the war is over.

And even after they did withdraw they would have to worry not only about a Palestinian radical group taking over to push them farther, but also about such a group simply not being restrained. If Hamas accepted an Israeli retreat to the 1967 borders, for instance, and assuming Israel simply decided not to worry about how vulnerable that makes parts of their nation to military attack... well, if the new group decides it wants to push the Israelis all the way into the sea, and Hamas is still in charge, will Hamas take steps to stop them?

If not, then Israel has gained very little in exchange for its territorial concession, despite having had to force a quite large chunk of its population to move in the process.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, the UK faced a divided population in Northern Ireland, where part of the population was Unionist and part was Irish-nationalist, and where they could basically adopt a position of neutrality while trying to combat specific acts of terrorism on the part of the Irish nationalists. They didn't have to worry about, for example, the IRA forming a semi-independent state in County Antrim and firing masses of random mortars and rockets into Belfast, let alone London.

So it's very questionable whether it's even realistic to think of the Troubles as an analogy for the situation in Palestine. The UK had a lot of options that Israel doesn't.

And Gaza isn't divided? Is it a monolithic bloc? The UK held back and eventually solved this. Extreme people on both sides might bitch and moan (they often do about compromise), but Britain solved this.

Gaza isn't divided about whether or not they hate the Israelis; if it ever was it certainly isn't now.

See, Britain solved a different problem, and while that might speak well of the solvability of such problems in general, it doesn't mean you can simply copy their solution into a totally different context. So while "Britain solved this," is true, the 'this' they solved isn't the same 'this' as Israel's 'this.'

If the British had to deal with an IRA-controlled state in County Down firing mortars into Belfast on a regular basis and periodically launching a barrage of longer range rockets across the Irish Sea at major British port cities, that would at least begin to approximate the Troubles that Israel is dealing with.

Meanwhile, there is Rupert Smith. He's a British officer who rose through the ranks in the Troubles and therefore knows the situation firsthand. Here is what he's saying for the IvP conflict. I've also found a part of his book, The Utility of Force, about this issue, but it's sailing the Internet sea and I'll need time to track it down.

The catch is that while Smith may well think he's got good advice, it's not obvious to me that he's right in and of itself. He may be the equivalent of the British officers who said to the US in Vietnam "just do XYZ," and they went and did XYZ. And it was a disastrous failure that made everything worse because Vietnamese culture and Malayan culture are different, and the Viet Cong and the Malay guerillas were different and had different wellsprings of strength too, and so on.

In Hamas's case, the most basic form of their cause (Palestinian independence) is symapthetic and falls under 'freedom fighter' in many minds... but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that they're not in any real sense "resisting" an army that occupies their people.

Lolwut? I agree with the rest, but please tell me how Hamas isn't a resistance army against Israel.

The army is not, in point of fact, occupying the territory that they're launching their operations in.

The Maquis in France was fighting Germans who occupied France. They did not have this little patch of ground surrounded by Germans (civilian and military alike) where they could govern their own strip full of Frenchmen as they pleased, and then launch shellings and commando raids across the border into German territory.

That is not resistance, that is counterattack.

Counterattack can certainly be justified- but that doesn't mean it is always the right thing to do. It doesn't get an automatic blank check to do absolutely whatever you personally think is required. It is different from fighting to resist people who are on your land, trying to rule over your people.

It is my opinion that BOTH sides are responsible and NEITHER side can realistically impose peace unilaterally. As a consequence it may be impossible to impose peace at all... or not. I'm not sure.

Come on, this is a golden mean fallacy and you know it. Besides, I strictly talked about who has the capacity, not the will.

No, the Golden Mean fallacy is if I say "one side says they're right, and the other side says they're right, so the truth must lie in the middle."

What I'm saying is, more or less, "it takes two to tango." Or rather, "it takes one to start a war, but two to make a peace."

It is not the Golden Mean fallacy to say that a war is going to go on as long as either side wants war rather than peace, and that it cannot be brought about by one side saying "you know what, I have decided the war will end" unless the other side says "okay, let's have it end now."

Maybe- but it's very hard to say. Essentially, you're asking Israel to roll the dice on the good faith and peaceable intentions of people who are actively trying to kill them.

Which is a LOT to ask of anyone, without some gesture of good faith by the other side... even if said other side is in no position to make gestures.

If the other side is incapable of gestures, isn't it wholly unreasonable to ask for one?

Debateable.

In this case, the other side's politics are so dominated by hate that they "can't" make concessions like "we will stop trying to kill you." But that's not a "can't" in the sense of "physically impossible." That's a "can't" in the sense of "politically impossible."

It is debateable whether Party A should have to tolerate being killed due to how awkward and difficult it would be for Party B to renounce killing. Even if Party B "cannot" renounce it for political reasons.

What, softening one's rhetorical stance while continuing the rocket bombardment? I'm skeptical.

This isn't only rhetoric. Hamas had been enforcing the ceasefire, not launching rockets, and policing Gaza to prevent launches from non-Hamas people. Israel, meanwhile, got attacked by non-Hamas rockets, but fired on Hamas anyway as if they were responsible. Pull a "citation needed" on me here if you wish, I'll try to scrounge up my source later.

I'll take your word for it.

If the Israelis had reason to be convinced that Hamas was enforcing the cease-fire, then that was a wrongful action on their part.

If the Israelis were highly skeptical (say, if they had reason to think that Hamas actually was quietly turning a blind eye to those launches), then what we have on our hands is tragedy, in the literary sense of the word.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very rich ground for producing tragedy.

[cosmicalstorm]

This accurately describes the situation in the West Bank. In Gaza it's the opposite of true; Israel withdrew its settlements, ceded authority over the territory to the locals, and now much of southern Israel is living in a slow-motion version of the London Blitz as a result.

Why did they do it? The cynical part of me suspects that it was too costly to occupy the place. I recall that Sharon was the driving force, he seemed to be able to make very cold blooded calculations. I wonder how Israel will deal with Gaza in the future? Slow erosion via a bomb campaign every fifth year? If Egypt suffers a collapse like Syria and Libya maybe the border will evaporate.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe a state is unjustified in the use of force except in cases of threats to the nation's existence?

Fuck off. This isn't my argument.

Because there are never any reasons a state may not want to make intelligence public, right?

Because just trusting them at their word is a good idea, right?

The airstrike against Hamas specfiically was against one of their tunnels, and there's dispute as to whether the Hamas members killed there died from the airstrike or when explosives stored in the tunnel went off some time later.

Thanks for conceding that you attacked Hamas first without proof, then!

You know, when you're accusing someone of dishonesty, as a rule it's advised not to lie yourself.

Of course, maybe I'm doing you a disservice. Possibly you're simply in need of some remedial geography (or politography, whatever).

The UN is this international organization made of representatives from the various nations on the planet. A truce was indeed organised through it which included a month-long embargo. Except, I specified the US; it's this big powerful state on the North American continent. It instituted an arms embargo on 5 December 1947 which AFAIK lasted until the end of the war. Technically the embargo applied to all the belligerents but the Arab forces weren't trying to buy weapons from the US in the first place (they were getting arms from the British, for example, at the very least in Jordan, and the British actually urged the US to maintain the embargo). In addition, the State Department exerted strong pressure on Truman to abandon support of the partition plan both before and after the vote.

Which is all very nice and all, but you know what this isn't? This isn't proof that specifically Israel faced international condemnation for 1948.

Simple. You claimed that Israel would be condemned irrespective of what they did. I asked who condemned you in a bunch of wars and you replied that you got embargoed in 1948. Except that the embargo applied to both sides, and it was aimed at stopping hostilities. It's nice that you specified the US, but you initially said about international condemnation and the US isn't the entire planet so I'm not exactly shedding tears for your leapfrogging arguments.

And according to the section you yourself quoted, the IDF had enough small arms for less than half its troops (Actually considerably less than that, since you're not going to be able to issue every one of your rifles to the field - you have to leave quite a few as spares, for training, rear area security, etc.)

Which changes nothing, you know.

Ah, you're one of those.

And you, apparently, one of those others.

Tell me, just how do you think a war between Israel and a Palestinian state would look like? Conventional forces have the drawback of being easy meat for the side with the more powerful airforce/artillery, and the Palestinians are highly unlikely, to say the least, to be able to match Israel in those fields (especially assuming they want to have a remotely functional economy). They're not Syria or Egypt with ample areas far from Israel where they can set up, store and train large conventional forces. The only chance they have is to turn it into a guerilla fight by withdrawing into the cities (IINM Iran has a somewhat similiar strategy in the face of attack by the US or other superior force). That means that a war will devolve into something like the above operations - city fighting, which will inevitably involve a large number of civilian casualties - and hence condemnation.

For that matter, if you look at the history of UN condemnations of Israel, you'll see that very often they consist of a condemnation of Israeli actions but barely a mention (much less condemnation, "concern" at the most) of the other side which performed the initial attack to which Israel was responding.

So apparently what Hamas is trying is to goad Israel to attack and inflict large amounts of collateral damage, winning sympathy for itself and international condemnation for Israel (hell, even US support is waning). They can't win in battle so they try to win in the media and, later on, the negotiations table. That's understandable so far.

Sadly, Israel is ruled by the RL version of Internet Tough Guys, so the simplest solution isn't even considered: don't get fucking suckered. Collateral damage of this magnitude is not a given: some is, but the rest depends on the means you use.

---

Well, did the Palestinians care about these settlements before Bibi said we might be dismantling them? Why should they now?

As for "pounding you when you get pissed", I don't remember Israel bombarding Gaza in response to a street demonstration. Maybe you are talking about Israel responding to attacks, but the right for responding to an aggression isn't something that can be denied to a state.

I remember Israel has been responding with utterly disproportionate force for some time now, and has certainly responded with disproportionate force in this instance.

What has this got to do with the date of the treaties? Except for the fact that Hamas, according to you, knew throughout its existence that Israel can be negotiated with peacefully, I mean.

Quit putting words in my mouth. Hamas knew throughout its existence that Israel isn't offering reasonable terms to Palestine.

So, the only difference you can find is the date. Does this mean you concede that point?

Yes, the date. Also that Hamas has stopped using suicide bombers, has been inflicting fewer and fewer casualties, has abandoned their founding charter... but beyond all these yes, only the date.

Hey, let's bring up the sack of Rome in 410 as well for all the good it'll do to us.

Clarify.

You just tried to support your position by using the same arguments Greek neonazis use to support theirs. Of course, I knew you were morally bankrupt when you said that collective punishment is moral, it's just that I wasn't expecting this argument of all things.

Yes. Now, mind speaking it?

Quit lying.

[eyl]

Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe a state is unjustified in the use of force except in cases of threats to the nation's existence?

Fuck off. This isn't my argument.

Your words (emphasis mine):

As for Israel not facing an existential threat either before or Iron Dome, thanks, that was exactly my point.

As this was in the context of a discussion of whether Israel was justified in responding with force - even though Israelis (explicitly as opposed to Israel) were not safe - how else should I take it?

Because just trusting them at their word is a good idea, right?

Nope. But in the case of Iraq, you had Powell presenting a false case, so in that case you could indeed argue that any WMDs found were a fluke. In this case, Israel did not present any evidence publicly, so you can't say that. That is, it may or may not be a fluke, but you have no evidence to say it is.

The airstrike against Hamas specfiically was against one of their tunnels, and there's dispute as to whether the Hamas members killed there died from the airstrike or when explosives stored in the tunnel went off some time later.

Thanks for conceding that you attacked Hamas first without proof, then![/quote]

Nice try.

The sequence was (insofar as Hamas was involved):

1) Throughout June, rocket attacks from Gaza increased. As a result, the IAF attacked targets in Gaza.
2) on June 29, the IAF attacked a team setting up a rocket launch. A Hamas militant was killed and two wounded.
3) In response, Hamas launched several salvoes of rockets throughout the next day.
4) The pace of rocket fire increased after the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
5) The IAF continued airstrikes.
6) July 4: Israel announced that it would likely start a major military action of the rocket fire did not stop within 48 hours.
7) The strike on the tunnel I mentioned was on July 6. I haven't been able to find any definitive source on whetehr it crossed the border or not, but article's I've seen call it a "terror tunnel", which usually indicates either a cross-border tunnel. In any event, this was well after Hamas got involved in the fighting.

None of this is dependent on whether there was or was not proof of Hamas invovlement in the murder, as the driving factor was the rocket fire.

Simple. You claimed that Israel would be condemned irrespective of what they did. I asked who condemned you in a bunch of wars and you replied that you got embargoed in 1948. Except that the embargo applied to both sides, and it was aimed at stopping hostilities. It's nice that you specified the US, but you initially said about international condemnation and the US isn't the entire planet so I'm not exactly shedding tears for your leapfrogging arguments.

The ebargo applied to both sides in theory. In practise, it effected only Israel, as the Arabs were not trying to buy arms from the US in the first place. And if you read the article I linked, the embargo was put in place by the State Department which also exerted great effort to get Truman to withdraw his support of Israel.

And according to the section you yourself quoted, the IDF had enough small arms for less than half its troops (Actually considerably less than that, since you're not going to be able to issue every one of your rifles to the field - you have to leave quite a few as spares, for training, rear area security, etc.)

Which changes nothing, you know.

Than why bring it up?

However, I'll concede on the lack of international condemnation per se during 1948 - as the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 are irrelevant anyway, since a war between Israel and Palestine would quickly devolve into urban warfare anyway.

Ah, you're one of those.

And you, apparently, one of those others.

You know how many times I've heard the argument "if only Israel ended the occupation, then if Palestine attacked it it could strike back and no-one would say anything"? It was completely disengenous the first time and hasn't gotten better.

So apparently what Hamas is trying is to goad Israel to attack and inflict large amounts of collateral damage, winning sympathy for itself and international condemnation for Israel (hell, even US support is waning). They can't win in battle so they try to win in the media and, later on, the negotiations table. That's understandable so far.

Sadly, Israel is ruled by the RL version of Internet Tough Guys, so the simplest solution isn't even considered: don't get fucking suckered. Collateral damage of this magnitude is not a given: some is, but the rest depends on the means you use.

Hamas is using Gaza's civilians as, essentially camoflauge. "Collateral damage" is pretty much inevitable, given that, how tightly Gaza is packed, and the apparent diversion fo the high-quality building materials by Hamas (which, logically, mean that the stability of the civilian buildings is less than it should be,.

[Omeganian]

Well, did the Palestinians care about these settlements before Bibi said we might be dismantling them? Why should they now?

As for "pounding you when you get pissed", I don't remember Israel bombarding Gaza in response to a street demonstration. Maybe you are talking about Israel responding to attacks, but the right for responding to an aggression isn't something that can be denied to a state.

I remember Israel has been responding with utterly disproportionate force for some time now, and has certainly responded with disproportionate force in this instance.

That's not what I was talking about. You claim Israel pounds Palestinians for getting pissed. We don't. If the amount of attacks will be zero, then let the response be as disproportionate as it can be; it'll still be multiplied by the same zero.

What has this got to do with the date of the treaties? Except for the fact that Hamas, according to you, knew throughout its existence that Israel can be negotiated with peacefully, I mean.

Quit putting words in my mouth. Hamas knew throughout its existence that Israel isn't offering reasonable terms to Palestine.

Did they ever try to work out such terms?

So, the only difference you can find is the date. Does this mean you concede that point?

Yes, the date. Also that Hamas has stopped using suicide bombers, has been inflicting fewer and fewer casualties, has abandoned their founding charter... but beyond all these yes, only the date.

Hey, let's bring up the sack of Rome in 410 as well for all the good it'll do to us.

So, changed tactics, increased efficiency of Israeli countermeasures... the ideology part is unclear. Not much.

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3051.htm

Clarify.

You just tried to support your position by using the same arguments Greek neonazis use to support theirs.

You throw away some argument just because it was used by some people that you find disgusting? Well, keep silent then, because it's the only way to use this principle consistently.

[wautd]

Yeah the Israelis work in slow-motion. Slowly driving the Palestinians away. I'm happy that is not something happening to my hometown! I wonder how much Israel would like to expand beyond it's current border? Are they content with what they have?

Speaking of the devil, Israel likely to grab some more lebensraum

Israel Claims Nearly 1,000 Acres of West Bank Land Near Bethlehem

JERUSALEM — Israel laid claim on Sunday to nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank land in a Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem — a step that could herald significant Israeli construction in the area — defying Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement expansion.

Peace Now, an Israeli group that opposes the construction of settlements in the West Bank, said that the action on Sunday might be the largest single appropriation of West Bank land in decades and that it could “dramatically change the reality” in the area.

Palestinians aspire to form a state in the lands that Israel conquered in 1967.

Israeli officials said the political directive to expedite a survey of the status of the land came after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed in June while hitchhiking in that area. In July, the Israeli authorities arrested a Palestinian who was accused of being the prime mover in the kidnapping and killing of the teenagers. The timing of the land appropriation suggested that it was meant as a kind of compensation for the settlers and punishment for the Palestinians.
Continue reading the main story
Graphic: In Gaza, a Pattern of Conflict

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.

Interested parties have 45 days in which to register objections.

The kidnapping of the teenagers prompted an Israeli military clampdown in the West Bank against Hamas, the Islamic group that dominates Gaza and that Israel said was behind the abductions. The subsequent tensions along the Israel-Gaza border erupted into a 50-day war that ended last week with an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire.

The land appropriation has quickly turned attention back to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and exposed the contradictory visions in the Israeli government that hamper the prospects of any broader Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Continue reading the main story
Interactive Map: Assessing the Damage and Destruction in Gaza

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, condemned the announcement and called for a reversal of the land claim, saying that it would “further deteriorate the situation.”

Though Israel says that it intends to keep the Etzion settlement bloc under any permanent agreement with the Palestinians and that most recent peace plans have involved land swaps, most countries consider Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law. The continued construction has also been a constant source of tension between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel and its most important Western allies.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

A State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the United States urged Israel to reverse its decision, calling it “counterproductive to Israel’s stated goal of a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians.”

The last round of American-brokered peace talks broke down in April. Israel suspended the troubled talks after Mr. Abbas forged a reconciliation pact with the Palestinian Authority’s rival, Hamas, which rejects Israel’s right to exist. American officials also said that Israel’s repeated announcements of new settlement construction contributed to the collapse of the talks.

Yair Lapid, Israel’s finance minister, who has spoken out in favor of a new diplomatic process, told reporters on Sunday that he “was not aware of the decision” about the land around Gvaot and had instructed his team to look into it. “We are against any swift changes in the West Bank right now because we need to go back to some kind of process there,” he said.

But Yariv Oppenheimer, general director of Peace Now, said that instead of strengthening the Palestinian moderates, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel “turns his back on the Palestinian Authority and sticks a political knife in the back” of Mr. Abbas, referring to the latest land appropriation.

“Since the 1980s, we don’t remember a declaration of such dimensions,” Mr. Oppenheimer told Israel Radio.

[cosmicalstorm]

Well they are out of the spotlight right now. As good a time as any to grab some more.

[His Divine Shadow]

There's a series of blog posts from an Yle (national finnish broadcasting company) in the west bank, describing the daily activities.

The latest was supposed to be a happy post about how they completed a daycare center for children. It wasn't as fun to read when you read about how the settlers and soliders have been sabotaging the project, even beating a palestinian man so he had to be hospitalized, how they had to smuggle in concrete and even toys and hid them from the israeli settlers who tried to take and destroy the toys.

Next post was about how 17 people where made homeless when the israeli army demolished the two houses they lived in overnight. Then a description of how a group of palestinian children need to find alternate routes to school because they keep getting attacked by israeli settlers and soldiers, plenty of stuff about israeli soldiers harrass the humanitarian workers too.

It just keeps piling up, too much to read without getting seriously despressed. Goddamn if this whole thing doesn't stink of Generalplan Ost.

[Simon_Jester]

Israeli policy in the West Bank, yes, does stink of Generalplan Ost.

At this point, I view the situations in Gaza and the West Bank as largely separate concerns, because they're so different in terms of who's provoking whom... or not provoking anyone.

[Thanas]

Doesn't feel that way to the Palestinians and wouldn't feel that way for any ethnic group.

[Darth Yan]

Apparently Egypt offered up part of the sinai for a new palestinian state.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1461098/palest ... MqjRDZX.99

Honestly, I don't know what to feel.