Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[sana8410]

while any deviation from he status quo is a level of security that is unknown, and potentially much worse (especially given the state of affairs in the larger middle east).

3.) That isn't really true. We do have a more known visual of that in the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and Abbas.

4.) By maintaining the status quo (which is expansion into occupied territories and increasingly worse political and economic rights perspectives for Palestinians) Israel only empowers Hamas. The Hamas political wing has been less thrilled about the current fighting, but the Qassam Brigade is certainly up in arms about it. It is good PR for them and the longer that Israel keeps the occupation the stronger Hamas can become and the weaker that peaceful factions like Abbas become (who are increasingly seen as passive in the face of Israeli abuses at best and downright Israeli puppets at worse).

5.) The above realities means that the status quo is unsustainable in the area of security. However you think meaningful peace talks will effect security, I can guarantee you that security will worsen in the long run if the West Bank breaks down into a Third Intifada. And that's another thing, we know exactly what will happen security wise if things don't improve. We already saw that outcome in the Second Intifada.

6.)It isn't just about security from Palestinians, but security issues when it comes to addressing global jihadism and terrorism as well. The conflict not only decreases security for Israel, but also for Western Europe and the US as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the primary PR and propaganda tools used within Jihadi circles to justify mass attacks against the west and to stir up anti-western fervor.

[Rigon]

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.

[sana8410]

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.

The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does.

[Rigon]

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.

The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does.

I prefer starting with the Egypt-brokered ceasefire first. Then negotiations can start afterwards.

[sana8410]

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.

The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does.

I prefer starting with the Egypt-brokered ceasefire first. Then negotiations can start afterwards.

Except that's what was supposed to happen in 2012 and despite a very quiet year in 2013 the blockade remained in place. Of what long run benefit would another unsustainable ceasefire be to Al Qassam?

[Rigon]

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.

The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does.

I prefer starting with the Egypt-brokered ceasefire first. Then negotiations can start afterwards.

Except that's what was supposed to happen in 2012 and despite a very quiet year in 2013 the blockade remained in place. Of what long run benefit would another unsustainable ceasefire be to Al Qassam?

I prefer to ease the blockade after the ceasefire.

[sana8410]

Hamas has rejected the ceasefire. Israel stopped its attacks in Gaza for six hours while Hamas continued to fire rockets.

The ceasefire called for a halt to hostilities after 12 hours. Hamas was/is still considering it. The Al Qassam Brigade openly rejected it, but in the end it is the political wing that tends to get its way. Either way, like I said, a ceasefire won't really last long / do much unless Israel releases the people it arbitrarily detained and unless it is willing to significantly ease the blockade. Neither of which this ceasefire really does.

I prefer starting with the Egypt-brokered ceasefire first. Then negotiations can start afterwards.

Except that's what was supposed to happen in 2012 and despite a very quiet year in 2013 the blockade remained in place. Of what long run benefit would another unsustainable ceasefire be to Al Qassam?

I prefer to ease the blockade after the ceasefire.

A nice sentiment, but that hasn't happened historically despite promises which leads elements like al Qassam and the Palestinian Jihad to be highly skeptical of such a simple offer. They don't get anything out of it. It's also largely why the ceasefire broke down leading up to Operation Cast Lead.

[umair127]

Israel does everything in their power to only strike militant targets, while Hamas does everything in their power to strike civilian targets. Hamas is committing a double war crime by hiding behind civilians and attacking civilians.

[sana8410]

Israel does everything in their power to only strike militant targets, while Hamas does everything in their power to strike civilian targets. Hamas is committing a double war crime by hiding behind civilians and attacking civilians.

That's absolutely not true. In fact there is well documented UN evidence to the contrary. Hamas use of rocket attacks against Israel is a war crime absolutely. But that doesn't change anything discussed in this thread.

[umair127]

Shelling kills four boys on Gaza beach; Israel, Hamas set five-hour truce
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...source=twitter   Part of me wanted to think the violation of the cease fire was done by outliers to stoke the fire..but 100+ rockets...come on. They kind of asked for it.

[zolace]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

[atc1]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

I don't think these wars are being fought for any historical claims for land,rather Israel is going to war because Hamas refuses to give up shooting rockets into their country. Hamas fights because Israel is continuing to build settlements in what was once Arab land. The arbitrary manner in which the British divided the country and declared a new country right in their midst doesn't help either.

[hologram]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

Keep calm, is just cause Arab don't like Jews, Kurds, Turk... It's an excuse.

[sana8410]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

Palestinian is a rather new sub-ethnic identity, they are Arabs, but they were also a population that was also Arabized. That is to say when the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula expanded their empire they exported their culture, language, and religion to existing groups living elsewhere, these indigenous people then became Arabs over time. During the Ottoman Empire, we didn't just see banners of Arab nationalism rise against Turkish rule, but more localized expressions of nationalism like Phonetician Nationalism in Palestine and southern Lebanon. They've long held strong regional identities, particularly (where Palestine is concerned) in conjunction and relation to Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.
Under the Ottoman Empire Ottoman land codes which are legally recognized internationally (and technically by Israel's high court though they are often ignored when it comes to settlement expansion) can stipulate land ownership.

[zolace]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

Palestinian is a rather new sub-ethnic identity, they are Arabs, but they were also a population that was also Arabized. That is to say when the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula expanded their empire they exported their culture, language, and religion to existing groups living elsewhere, these indigenous people then became Arabs over time. During the Ottoman Empire, we didn't just see banners of Arab nationalism rise against Turkish rule, but more localized expressions of nationalism like Phonetician Nationalism in Palestine and southern Lebanon. They've long held strong regional identities, particularly (where Palestine is concerned) in conjunction and relation to Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.
Under the Ottoman Empire Ottoman land codes which are legally recognized internationally (and technically by Israel's high court though they are often ignored when it comes to settlement expansion) can stipulate land ownership.

that makes sense. i just constantly see/hear people arguing BUT THE PALESTINIANS WERE THERE FIRST! people aren't very good at rational argument.

[sana8410]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

I don't think these wars are being fought for any historical claims for land,rather Israel is going to war because Hamas refuses to give up shooting rockets into their country. Hamas fights because Israel is continuing to build settlements in what was once Arab land. The arbitrary manner in which the British divided the country and declared a new country right in their midst doesn't help either.

Most importantly though is the evolution of our global society into one that wishes to see the establishment of norms and the realization of a better world. Part of that are things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and another part is putting an end to the acquisition of land through military action, and the respect for basic human rights for everyone in the world. It is these things that Israel stands in violation of, the ideals of our future society. We don't want to see such theft specifically because we have seen it in the past and it is horrible. These laws and norms started coming into existence after WWI and especially after WWII.

[umair127]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

I don't think these wars are being fought for any historical claims for land,rather Israel is going to war because Hamas refuses to give up shooting rockets into their country. Hamas fights because Israel is continuing to build settlements in what was once Arab land. The arbitrary manner in which the British divided the country and declared a new country right in their midst doesn't help either.

Most importantly though is the evolution of our global society into one that wishes to see the establishment of norms and the realization of a better world. Part of that are things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and another part is putting an end to the acquisition of land through military action, and the respect for basic human rights for everyone in the world. It is these things that Israel stands in violation of, the ideals of our future society. We don't want to see such theft specifically because we have seen it in the past and it is horrible. These laws and norms started coming into existence after WWI and especially after WWII.

Both of you bring up interesting points.

Ancient Jews, Canaanites, and Phoenicians had their own culture and language until they were Arabized by the Arab Muslims who migrated North and spread their religion. All of those groups can be considered Middle Eastern but I do not consider all Middle Easterners Arabs. There are Arabs, Kurds, Phoenicians, Palestinians, Jews, Turks, Berbers, and other groups. If you are Middle Eastern, then you are obviously Middle Eastern, but you are not necessarily an Arab. Pan-Arab nationalism did not really take hold until Islam conquered much of North Africa and Southwest Asia. Then a pan-Arab identity took hold of the region.

[zolace]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

I don't think these wars are being fought for any historical claims for land,rather Israel is going to war because Hamas refuses to give up shooting rockets into their country. Hamas fights because Israel is continuing to build settlements in what was once Arab land. The arbitrary manner in which the British divided the country and declared a new country right in their midst doesn't help either.

Most importantly though is the evolution of our global society into one that wishes to see the establishment of norms and the realization of a better world. Part of that are things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and another part is putting an end to the acquisition of land through military action, and the respect for basic human rights for everyone in the world. It is these things that Israel stands in violation of, the ideals of our future society. We don't want to see such theft specifically because we have seen it in the past and it is horrible. These laws and norms started coming into existence after WWI and especially after WWII.

Both of you bring up interesting points.

Ancient Jews, Canaanites, and Phoenicians had their own culture and language until they were Arabized by the Arab Muslims who migrated North and spread their religion. All of those groups can be considered Middle Eastern but I do not consider all Middle Easterners Arabs. There are Arabs, Kurds, Phoenicians, Palestinians, Jews, Turks, Berbers, and other groups. If you are Middle Eastern, then you are obviously Middle Eastern, but you are not necessarily an Arab. Pan-Arab nationalism did not really take hold until Islam conquered much of North Africa and Southwest Asia. Then a pan-Arab identity took hold of the region.

This is a good observation. Most Americans have a really monolithic view of Middle Eastern cultural identity.

Oh my bad, that's pre gulf wars. Now we know there are Sunnis and Shiites and Afghans. Don't forget the Kurds!!

[noviapriani]

so one conceptual thing i don't totally understand. if israel in some sense stole the lands from the palestinians, didn't the palestinians steal the land from the romans, who stole the land from the greeks, who stole the land from the persians, who stole the land from the babylonians, who stole the land from the assyrians, who stole the land from the jews? i don't understand why the "right" to the land started arbitrarily at one point in time (so the argument seems to me to go).

'palestinians' are a new creation/fabrication.

A weapon to use against Israel.

They are Arabs.

If you look at their surnames, many of them betray their origin. Far from being a 'palestinan' people, one of the most common names in Gaza is "Al-Masri" which means "The Egyptian".

[umair127]

Also, in addition to their being differences in the Middle Eastern ethnic groups, there are even differences within countries. For example, Iraq has Arabs and Kurds. Iran has Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, etc. Israel has Ashkenazi European Jews, Sephardic and Mizrahi Middle Eastern Jews, and Ethiopian Jews. About half of Israel's Jews are non-European and are Middle Eastern and Ethiopian.