Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[Alphi]

Sana,Alphy, what's the deal with this?

http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/

there is no doubt at all that both Isreal and hamas use propaganda to further their gains.. that article is a good example of isreali propaganda.
firstly it paints a picture of Hamas being a Terrorist group in control of Gaza.

Hamas is actually the political organisation.. Al-Qassam is actually the militant group..
the article neglects to mention that Hamas was also democratically elected.

this shows very clear bias.

Steven Stotsky is a pro isreal journalist who works for CAMERA and the Isreali press.

Steven Stotsky is a senior analyst with The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a U.S.-based group that monitors the news media for what it considers to be anti-Israel bias.

you have to ask yourself why is a group calling themselves Accuracy in Middle east Reporting only focussing on Anti-Isreal bias?
why not focus on all bias and propaganda from all sides in the middle east?

I think ill pass on the propaganda and wait for the official UN figures.
 
here is more if you want to read about what CAMERA actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America

[zolace]

Sana,Alphy, what's the deal with this?

A similar dispute over casualty figures occurred during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip in January 2009. The Israelis contended that the majority of the fatalities were combatants; the Palestinians claimed they were civilians. The media and international organizations tended to side with the Palestinians. The UN’s own investigatory commission headed by Richard Goldstone, which produced the Goldstone Report, cited PCHR’s figures along with other Palestinian groups providing similar figures. Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report. Initially, playing to the international audience, it was important for Hamas to reinforce the image of Israel’s military action as indiscriminate and disproportionate by emphasizing the high number of civilians and low number of Hamas combatants among the fatalities. However, later on, Hamas had to deal with the flip side of the issue: that Hamas’s own constituency, the Gazan population, felt they had been abandoned by the Hamas government, which had made no effort to shelter them.

http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/

Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant.

sooooo.... what are the numbers we believe?

[sana8410]

Sana,Alphy, what's the deal with this?

A similar dispute over casualty figures occurred during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip in January 2009. The Israelis contended that the majority of the fatalities were combatants; the Palestinians claimed they were civilians. The media and international organizations tended to side with the Palestinians. The UN’s own investigatory commission headed by Richard Goldstone, which produced the Goldstone Report, cited PCHR’s figures along with other Palestinian groups providing similar figures. Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report. Initially, playing to the international audience, it was important for Hamas to reinforce the image of Israel’s military action as indiscriminate and disproportionate by emphasizing the high number of civilians and low number of Hamas combatants among the fatalities. However, later on, Hamas had to deal with the flip side of the issue: that Hamas’s own constituency, the Gazan population, felt they had been abandoned by the Hamas government, which had made no effort to shelter them.

http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-...an-casualties/

Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant.

sooooo.... what are the numbers we believe?

Like I said before, death statistics are always difficult to calculate in the best of times. I tend to go with the UN figures since they tend to be a little more conservative. During Operation Cast Lead Israel declared anything Hamas a legitimate target, so when Israel calculates its figures it is likely to classify all civilian employees of Hamas as simply "militants" without making the distinction between someone from the Al Qassam Brigades and someone who was say a Hamas soccer coach or political activist.

[zolace]

They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians.

That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel.

You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing.

And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/

These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence.

What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general.

And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements.

Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law?

I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire.

1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence.

2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular).

3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised.

I don't see any examples there. Also, 1) is not a ceasefire violation. 2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and 3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire.

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

[zolace]

Also, you didn't deal with the insane person Osama Hamdan and his comments. As I think you know, I find both parties to blame. But at this point, Hamas is a huge deterrent to anything being accomplished. Their comments are pretty much insane, and they don't even bother to agree that Israel has a right to exist. There really is no way for Israel to negotiate.

Which is what makes Israel not being a partner for peace with Abbas and instead breathing life into Hamas all the more frustrating. I would love nothing more than to see Hamas politically marginalized and eventually dismantled, Israeli policy isn't conducive to that though.

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Aslong as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant.

You are saying Hamas is not really a militant group while also saying they have the militant wing that is causing the problems. You can't have it both ways.

[sana8410]

Also, you didn't deal with the insane person Osama Hamdan and his comments. As I think you know, I find both parties to blame. But at this point, Hamas is a huge deterrent to anything being accomplished. Their comments are pretty much insane, and they don't even bother to agree that Israel has a right to exist. There really is no way for Israel to negotiate.

Which is what makes Israel not being a partner for peace with Abbas and instead breathing life into Hamas all the more frustrating. I would love nothing more than to see Hamas politically marginalized and eventually dismantled, Israeli policy isn't conducive to that though.

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Aslong as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant.

You are saying Hamas is not really a militant group while also saying they have the militant wing that is causing the problems. You can't have it both ways.

Hamas isn't one or the other it is both. Trying to tell me that employees at a Hamas run soup kitchen should be considered militants is somewhat ridiculous.

[zolace]

Also, you didn't deal with the insane person Osama Hamdan and his comments. As I think you know, I find both parties to blame. But at this point, Hamas is a huge deterrent to anything being accomplished. Their comments are pretty much insane, and they don't even bother to agree that Israel has a right to exist. There really is no way for Israel to negotiate.

Which is what makes Israel not being a partner for peace with Abbas and instead breathing life into Hamas all the more frustrating. I would love nothing more than to see Hamas politically marginalized and eventually dismantled, Israeli policy isn't conducive to that though.

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists. Aslong as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

Hamas' is really a catch-all term that we use for the organization. Hamas technically is a civil service and political organization and network. It's militant wing (what most people probably think of when they say Hamas) are the Al Qassam Brigades. 90% of Hamas (the entire umbrella) is rooted in non-militant activities; everything from the running of soup kitchens, to sports teams, to schools, charities, community centers, etc. Being a member of / employed by Hamas doesn't mean that you are automatically a militant.

You are saying Hamas is not really a militant group while also saying they have the militant wing that is causing the problems. You can't have it both ways.

Hamas isn't one or the other it is both. Trying to tell me that employees at a Hamas run soup kitchen should be considered militants is somewhat ridiculous.

I suspect that on an international scale, your perspective is a small minority. So you're suggesting that a cook in the US military isn't really part of the army in the event of an attack? How about if that army cook is making food for some civilians? How exactly do you objectively draw the line?

[sana8410]

They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians.

That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel.

You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing.

And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/

These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence.

What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general.

And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements.

Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law?

I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire.

1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence.

2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular).

3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised.

I don't see any examples there. Also, 1) is not a ceasefire violation. 2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and 3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire.

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

It absolutely is as the terms of many of the past ceasefires stipulate conditionals regarding the blockade. Saying it isn't a breach of past ceasefires seems to indicate a lack of familiarity of what all the past ceasefires entailed.

[zolace]

They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians.

That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel.

You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing.

And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/

These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence.

What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general.

And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements.

Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law?

I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire.

1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence.

2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular).

3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised.

I don't see any examples there. Also, 1) is not a ceasefire violation. 2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and 3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire.

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

It absolutely is as the terms of many of the past ceasefires stipulate conditionals regarding the blockade. Saying it isn't a breach of past ceasefires seems to indicate a lack of familiarity of what all the past ceasefires entailed.

It may be if that was specified, but you have yet to show any example of that. See, here I am asking you for examples, and you're telling me I don't know of examples.

[sana8410]

2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and

There are no transparent trials. There is largely just impunity, Israel doesn't even legally classify it as acts of terrorism which allows most who are even arrested to avoid any sort of criminal trial.

The lack of trials doesn't mean that there aren't third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in violent acts against Palestinians during ceasefire periods.

[zolace]

2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and

There are no transparent trials. There is largely just impunity, Israel doesn't even legally classify it as acts of terrorism which allows most who are even arrested to avoid any sort of criminal trial.

The lack of trials doesn't mean that there aren't third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in violent acts against Palestinians during ceasefire periods.

Rhetoric.Link?

[sana8410]

3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire.

Hamas has operatives in both locations as do most major Gazan factions. The ceasefire isn't with any sort of political state entity (it would be hard to argue that since Israel doesn't recognize one as existing) it is with the organizations in question.

[zolace]

3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire.

Hamas has operatives in both locations as do most major Gazan factions. The ceasefire isn't with any sort of political state entity (it would be hard to argue that since Israel doesn't recognize one as existing) it is with the organizations in question.

I find the irony in you saying Israel doesn't recognize a state entity great, considering the position of Hamas. And you wonder why I say both sides are at fault equally?

[sana8410]

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of?

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists.

Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises.

As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

This is just rhetoric

[sana8410]

They can't be trusted, any more than if Israel said they would go along with the ceasefire, and some faction within Israel decided to attack Palestinians.

That literally happens during every single ceasefire that has ever existed and lasted any significant amount of time since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Also, according to these standards, the Abbas government should be in a permanent state of war with Israel.

You seem to want to delve into the reasons both sides hate each other. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of Hamas to live up to it's promises, when the political arm of it and the military arm seem to never know what the other is doing.

And then Hamas has people like this for their spokesman:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ham.../04/id/586835/

These people are literally insane, and can't really be negotiated with, with any degree of confidence.

What you seem to want is for Hamas to be a more highly centralized dictatorial governance structure than it actually is and is capable of being and all of this despite the huge destruction of the Strip's infrastructure. It is unrealistic to expect things to be able to be 100% controlled right away. That's impossible, and such impossibilities are not limited to this conflict, it is a pretty standard characteristic of conflicts in general.

And if you want me to start on the broader "living up to ceasefire promises" issue, then Israel performs just as badly in that department via historical ceasefires; only they do so under the venue of actually having strong control over its factions which makes the violations official state policy rather than an inability to control some fringe elements.

Can you give some examples of Israel not living up to ceasefire agreements where the parties involved weren't tried in a transparent court of law?

I can give several, both blatant violations, violations by third parties, and violations of what I would call the spirit of the ceasefire.

1.) Blatant violations largely surround the issue of border closure policies and the blockade. Every day that Israel closed the borders on humanitarian aid and civilian commercial flow, every day that it prevented Palestinians from fishing is a day that past ceasefires have been violated. That applies especially to Operation Cast Lead and is exactly the reason why Hamas didn't renew the ceasefire which led to the violence.

2.) Pricetag attacks are pretty common in the West Bank and have been on the rise. That represents third parties under Israeli jurisdiction engaging in acts of terrorism against Palestinians while ceasefires were in effect (the pricetag attacks are fairly regular).

3.) In terms of the spirit of the law. Israel routinely targets Hamas members (and members of other Gazan factions) in the West Bank during ceasefires with Hamas. When Hamas has complained in the past Israel's response has been "Our ceasefire only applies to Gaza." When you kill or arbitrarily arrest members of say the Palestinian Islamic Jihad's familial structure in the West Bank you shouldn't be surprised when Hamas' ability to coerce said organization into refraining from retaliating is somewhat compromised.

I don't see any examples there. Also, 1) is not a ceasefire violation. 2) would be subject to what I described earlier with transparent trials and 3) is pretty straightforward. If a country agrees to a ceasefire with one party under specific terms, it doesn't affect other countries or other groups unless it's specifically part of the ceasefire.

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

It absolutely is as the terms of many of the past ceasefires stipulate conditionals regarding the blockade. Saying it isn't a breach of past ceasefires seems to indicate a lack of familiarity of what all the past ceasefires entailed.

It may be if that was specified, but you have yet to show any example of that. See, here I am asking you for examples, and you're telling me I don't know of examples.

I gave you an example, the ceasefire that lasted until the start of Operation Cast Lead. In fact, the specific reason why the ceasefire ended (or rather wasn't renewed) wasn't over attacks at all, it was called off because Hamas demanded that Israel allow EU monitors to be stationed in Egypt, not Israel so that Israel couldn't prevent the opening of the Rafah crossing by preventing the movement of said monitors to Rafah.

Even the last Egyptian ceasefire (of 2012) had a stipulation pertaining to the blockade, and that provision has always been key to Hamas which is why it rejected Egypt's original ceasefire option this time that made no mention of the blockade.

An example from 2012: note section 1C: http://live.reuters.com/Event/Confli...Strip/57460762

[zolace]

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of?

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists.

Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises.

As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

This is just rhetoric

I think I answered this in the body of this post. I'm not arguing that Israel is not culpable. I'm saying there is no moving forward when there are rockets falling on Israel, and when Hamas...whether you like them or not...refuse to acknowledge Israel exists. In truth, Israel's choices are pretty limited when you consider the geography of the area, and the weaponry available to Hamas.

[sana8410]

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of?

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists.

Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises.

As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

This is just rhetoric

I think I answered this in the body of this post. I'm not arguing that Israel is not culpable. I'm saying there is no moving forward when there are rockets falling on Israel, and when Hamas...whether you like them or not...refuse to acknowledge Israel exists. In truth, Israel's choices are pretty limited when you consider the geography of the area, and the weaponry available to Hamas.

You should know that I have better standards than that. Why you are so adverse to believing a very well documented issue (so much so that it is covered by the US State Department's own terrorism reportings) is beyond me. Or rather more concerning: why you would be so ready to dismiss such a widespread phenomenon as mere rhetoric. The West Bank settler pricetag campaign hasn't been very secretive.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/21/i...ttler-violence

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/och...11_english.pdf

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/un-sa...attacks-4-fold

[sana8410]

I find the irony in you saying Israel doesn't recognize a state entity great, considering the position of Hamas. And you wonder why I say both sides are at fault equally?

And yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge anything that Israel is at fault for while i've already said that I strongly dislike Hamas and want to see it marginalized and dismantled while simultaneously not denying any of the human rights abuses that they have engaged in. I'm not the one with the seeming double standards here in my stances.

[zolace]

I find the irony in you saying Israel doesn't recognize a state entity great, considering the position of Hamas. And you wonder why I say both sides are at fault equally?

And yet you don't seem to want to acknowledge anything that Israel is at fault for while i've already said that I strongly dislike Hamas and want to see it marginalized and dismantled while simultaneously not denying any of the human rights abuses that they have engaged in. I'm not the one with the seeming double standards here in my stances.

I'm not going to deal the prior stuff because it's not really what I was trying to discuss. I can easily acknowledge Israel's fault in many things. The most obvious being that if you try to use force to keep people in poverty and oppression, they will ALWAYS be willing to die to try and lift the yoke. That's human nature, and a serious problem with ISrael. What I see no point in is discussing breaches by either side, and I accidentally let myself get drawn into it. I'm only interested in pragmatic solutions. And as long as Israel has the trump hand, which it will for longer than I will be alive, the way to negotiate is not to throw rockets at them. Tempting as it may be out of anger, or frustration, or whatever. That is the reality on the ground.

[sana8410]

But I would like to browse through some examples if possible of the sort of blatant disregard for ceasefires such as the recent Hamas disaster.

There are hundreds of them, what specifically would you like an example of?

This is just rhetoric. I suspect Israel would be willing to engage in peace talks with anyone that agrees that Israel actually exists.

Abbas has always recognized Israel's right to exist, that was granted by the Palestinian Authority before he even came into power, and it certainly hasn't made Israel any more willing to halt settlement expansion as per their past peace plan promises.

As long as Palestinians elect Hamas, it's kind of pointless to expect Israel to negotiate with people only negotiating in bad faith.

This is just rhetoric

I think I answered this in the body of this post. I'm not arguing that Israel is not culpable. I'm saying there is no moving forward when there are rockets falling on Israel, and when Hamas...whether you like them or not...refuse to acknowledge Israel exists. In truth, Israel's choices are pretty limited when you consider the geography of the area, and the weaponry available to Hamas.

I find this to be a bit of a scapegoat excuse in the face of the fact that Israel does have a partner for peace with which to work in Abbas and has refused to do so for the past 8 years regardless of how calm or volatile things are over in Gaza. You claim that Israel would be a partner for peace if there were no rockets? Then why hasn't Israel lived up to any of its West Bank specific peace plan promises to the PA despite years of peace in the West Bank? Why haven't we seen any follow through on peace plan promises even when things are also quiet in Gaza?