Justifications for Gaza

[itsAj]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Hamas' actions here - but you're equating two sides that aren't on equal footing. As I said before, Israel's actions are completely disproportionate.

Well.... I have only one thing today. Don't poke the sleeping bear. If you do that, then don't complain when it bite back. Unlike the previous Gaza vs Israel conflicts, this conflict has seen a more balanced international reaction. People living outside the Middle-East are condemning the Israeli bombings as well as the Hamas rocket strikes. 

I think the international reaction has been more balanced in whole terms, but not in terms of who is doing wrong. Hamas is doing a very good PR job at making Israel look bad but they are also killing the citizens of Palestine in the process.

[1714984911]

1714984911

[1714984911]

1714984911

[1714984911]

1714984911

[1714984911]

1714984911

[1714984911]

1714984911

[1714984911]

1714984911

[DodoB]

I get the feeling you really have no idea of the situation in Gaza, and the level of devastation there. Why do you think there are currently, literally, hundreds of thousands of refugees there at the moment? Do you have any idea of what that is? And again, rockets or no rockets, civilians aren't automatically valid targets - that's a violation of the rules of war, if anyone cares.

Hundreds of thousands refugees? thats a lie. They returned to their homes after the ground invasion was stopped.
That so called level of devastation is exaggerated.

I honestly don't give it 10 years before Israel is completely isolated at this rate.

Baseless and incorrect assumption.

I'm referring to the one or two states solutions; that is, Israel either taking over the whole territory and population, or Israel and Palestine coexisting side by side, with negotiations having as a starting point the 1967 borders - both of which Israel refuses, either in word or in action.

one state sultion-you are naive if you think the Palestininans would be so happy to have the "evil zionist jews" to rule over them. The Jews would not want the Palestinian to rule over them either-rightly so.
Not with hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank,a 1967 lines agreement is practically impossible. a future Palestinian state can only be based on new lines and borders.

Is it? Again, you have little to no idea of the situation in Gaza - do us both a favor, and please, look into it: Israeli officials weren't kidding when they said it was meant to keep the Palestinian population at a level just slightly over that of a humanitarian crisis. And you know what would help solve the situation? Ending the illegal blockade and the occupation.

Lets say the disputed blockade was ended-do you really think Israel and Hamas will suddenly ride towards the sunset on a unicorn,and live happily ever after?

[kuroman]

Hundreds of thousands refugees? thats a lie. They returned to their homes after the ground invasion was stopped.
That so called level of devastation is exaggerated.

What homes are you talking about? whole neighborhoods were destroyed. you have no idea what you are talking about. even if this point was explained to you many times, heck even UN refuges are not safe from Israel bombardment which is blatantly a crime war

one state sultion-you are naive if you think the Palestininans would be so happy to have the "evil zionist jews" to rule over them. The Jews would not want the Palestinian to rule over them either-rightly so.
Not with hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank,a 1967 lines agreement is practically impossible. a future Palestinian state can only be based on new lines and borders.

And this is way Israel is pushing settlers and illegal settlement in west bank to make the same excuse you are making here. If they really wanted peace they could move the settlers out and build them new houses elsewhere, as for the building they could be sold for money so there would be no financial lose

Lets say the disputed blockade was ended-do you really think Israel and Hamas will suddenly ride towards the sunset on a unicorn,and live happily ever after?

Nope but at least it will ease the tension and it would especially relief the Gaza population, they could at least get medical treatment, first necessity equipment and goods, right now they don't even have access to sewage system or clean water and I'm not going to talk about electricity which seems to be a luxury in the area nowadays.

Most of the problems would be solved if Israel accepts and follows the UN resolutions and following the 67 borders and giving palestinians to have their rights as in any other country, which again not going to happen because Israel does not want that.

[DodoB]

What homes are you talking about? whole neighborhoods were destroyed. you have no idea what you are talking about. even if this point was explained to you many times, heck even UN refuges are not safe from Israel bombardment which is blatantly a crime war

Many neighbourhoods were destroyed,but im pretty sure at least a half(and im under exaggerating here) of Gaza still stands,they can go there. Just because some UN shelters were allegedly bombed doesn't mean they are all unsafe.

And this is way Israel is pushing settlers and illegal settlement in west bank to make the same excuse you are making here. If
they really wanted peace they could move the settlers out and build them new houses elsewhere, as for the building they could be sold for money so there would be no financial lose

whether Israel pushes more settlers doesn't matter,there are already hundreds of thousands of settlers.
If Israel would kick them out wouldnt that be illegal? the settlers will become refugees in their own country,is it ok for you just because they're not Palestinian?
In the same manner we can ask Hamas to kick out all the Palestinian "settlers" in Gaza and move them to Egypt,a fellow Arab-Muslim country! isn't that wonderful?

Nope but at least it will ease the tension and it would especially relief the Gaza population, they could at least get medical treatment, first necessity equipment and goods, right now they don't even have access to sewage system or clean water and I'm not going to talk about electricity which seems to be a luxury in the area nowadays.

Do you have any accurate unbiased information about the internet,sewage and clean water in Gaza as of today? i doubt it.
You keep nagging about what the Palestinians get from the removal of the blockade-but what will Israel get? long term peace? nobody can assure that. Logically the Palestinians being the losing side(according to your post) are in no place to make big demands.

[bryant.coleman]

An important point to make here is that Israel had dismantled all of its settlements (a total of 21 villages, including the infamous Elei Sinai) in Gaza (during the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005). If the rocket attacks are continuing despite this, then the Israelis are having a valid excuse to claim that the Hamas is opposed to the very existence of Israel.

[u9y42]

I get the feeling you really have no idea of the situation in Gaza, and the level of devastation there. Why do you think there are currently, literally, hundreds of thousands of refugees there at the moment? Do you have any idea of what that is? And again, rockets or no rockets, civilians aren't automatically valid targets - that's a violation of the rules of war, if anyone cares.

Hundreds of thousands refugees? thats a lie. They returned to their homes after the ground invasion was stopped.
That so called level of devastation is exaggerated.

Unfortunately no; if anything, I'm putting it mildly: according to Unicef's Pernille Ironside (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/gaza-cost-far-exceeds-estimate-official-says.html?_r=0), they are currently dealing with some 350.000 refugees there. And it's a little hard for them to return home when Israel destroyed them: at least some 17.000 were totally destroyed, and 37.000 damaged. However, these figures are likely to increase, especially as the conflict continues. And this to say nothing of what Israeli attacks on vital infrastructure have done to access to healthcare, food and water. In fact, in the article I linked, Pernille Ironside goes on to say that, if the blockade isn't at least eased, some estimates put the time to reconstruct Gaza after the latest attack at 18 years!

I honestly don't give it 10 years before Israel is completely isolated at this rate.

Baseless and incorrect assumption.

I offered it as my own personal opinion, so take it as you will; but from all I've seen so far, that seems to me the most likely outcome, unless things start changing very soon.

I'm referring to the one or two states solutions; that is, Israel either taking over the whole territory and population, or Israel and Palestine coexisting side by side, with negotiations having as a starting point the 1967 borders - both of which Israel refuses, either in word or in action.

one state sultion-you are naive if you think the Palestininans would be so happy to have the "evil zionist jews" to rule over them. The Jews would not want the Palestinian to rule over them either-rightly so.
Not with hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank,a 1967 lines agreement is practically impossible. a future Palestinian state can only be based on new lines and borders.

And this is way Israel is pushing settlers and illegal settlement in west bank to make the same excuse you are making here. If
they really wanted peace they could move the settlers out and build them new houses elsewhere, as for the building they could be sold for money so there would be no financial lose

whether Israel pushes more settlers doesn't matter,there are already hundreds of thousands of settlers.
If Israel would kick them out wouldnt that be illegal? the settlers will become refugees in their own country,is it ok for you just because they're not Palestinian?
In the same manner we can ask Hamas to kick out all the Palestinian "settlers" in Gaza and move them to Egypt,a fellow Arab-Muslim country! isn't that wonderful?

I'm not Palestinian, so again, take it as you will; but I'd say the average Palestinian cares less about what the land is called, and far more about their human rights being respected, than what you think - see this interview with Shir Hever for more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYeWeoQ-uQ (at about the 7 minute mark, though I definitely recommend the full interview).

And you know, there is one way to deal with the illegal settlements without kicking anyone out again: give them the chance to stay and integrate them into a future Palestinian state, or monetary incentives to return to Israel and resettle, for example (they are currently being given governmental monetary incentives to illegally occupy Palestinian land, so it wouldn't be much of a shift there).

Nope but at least it will ease the tension and it would especially relief the Gaza population, they could at least get medical treatment, first necessity equipment and goods, right now they don't even have access to sewage system or clean water and I'm not going to talk about electricity which seems to be a luxury in the area nowadays.

Do you have any accurate unbiased information about the internet,sewage and clean water in Gaza as of today? i doubt it.
You keep nagging about what the Palestinians get from the removal of the blockade-but what will Israel get? long term peace? nobody can assure that. Logically the Palestinians being the losing side(according to your post) are in no place to make big demands.

Human rights must be respected, whether or not you're the losing side. And yes, there is no assurance that the removal of the blockade will end the conflict, especially if the occupation and human rights abuses continue; but you can be sure that continuing the blockade will make the situation far worse over time - as I said before, it is only further radicalizing the population there, in the West Bank, and in Israel.

As to the lack of clean water, they were already dealing with water shortages before the recent conflict; after Israel hit water wells and sewage treatment plants (which contaminated several regions), it has been one of the main jobs of Unicef to ensure that the population has access to water as much as possible, job which continues to this day - the article I linked above mentions this, though you can easily find it elsewhere if you bother looking.

[u9y42]

An important point to make here is that Israel had dismantled all of its settlements (a total of 21 villages, including the infamous Elei Sinai) in Gaza (during the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005). If the rocket attacks are continuing despite this, then the Israelis are having a valid excuse to claim that the Hamas is opposed to the very existence of Israel.

You may reach that conclusion if you ignore that the occupation as a whole never ended, and neither did Israeli human rights abuses, or interference in the region - the Fatah-Hamas conflict, for example, was largely pushed by the US and Israel (among others). Further, the disengagement served a few other Israeli goals that you omitted there: it increased the separation between Gaza and the West Bank (not only physically in contravention of previous agreements, but also politically as stated above), and allowed Israel to focus on advancing its settlements of the West Bank (which sharply increased at that time).

[DodoB]

Unfortunately no; if anything, I'm putting it mildly: according to Unicef's Pernille Ironside (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/gaza-cost-far-exceeds-estimate-official-says.html?_r=0), they are currently dealing with some 350.000 refugees there. And it's a little hard for them to return home when Israel destroyed them: at least some 17.000 were totally destroyed, and 37.000 damaged. However, these figures are likely to increase, especially as the conflict continues. And this to say nothing of what Israeli attacks on vital infrastructure have done to access to healthcare, food and water. In fact, in the article I linked, Pernille Ironside goes on to say that, if the blockade isn't at least eased, some estimates put the time to reconstruct Gaza after the latest attack at 18 years!

Is Gaza made out of only 17,000 houses? No. problem solved then.
These figures wont increase as a permanent ceasefire was signed today-Israel must be the worst genocider ever,signing 11 ceasefires which most were violated by Hamas,now signing another one.

I offered it as my own personal opinion, so take it as you will; but from all I've seen so far, that seems to me the most likely outcome, unless things start changing very soon.

Assad still has allies(Iran,Russia,Lebanon,etc) with 260,000 people dead on his hands,im sure Israel can get away with 2000.China and Russia would love to get their hands on Iron Dome,once the US finally abandons the monopoly on Israeli tech.
the world mostly doesn't realy give a damn about the Palestinians.

And you know, there is one way to deal with the illegal settlements without kicking anyone out again: give them the chance to stay and integrate them into a future Palestinian state, or monetary incentives to return to Israel and resettle, for example (they are currently being given governmental monetary incentives to illegally occupy Palestinian land, so it wouldn't be much of a shift there).

Sorry but you are too naive if you think multiculturalism will work here.

[itsAj]

An important point to make here is that Israel had dismantled all of its settlements (a total of 21 villages, including the infamous Elei Sinai) in Gaza (during the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005). If the rocket attacks are continuing despite this, then the Israelis are having a valid excuse to claim that the Hamas is opposed to the very existence of Israel.

You may reach that conclusion if you ignore that the occupation as a whole never ended, and neither did Israeli human rights abuses, or interference in the region - the Fatah-Hamas conflict, for example, was largely pushed by the US and Israel (among others). Further, the disengagement served a few other Israeli goals that you omitted there: it increased the separation between Gaza and the West Bank (not only physically in contravention of previous agreements, but also politically as stated above), and allowed Israel to focus on advancing its settlements of the West Bank (which sharply increased at that time).

Your argument is basically that since Israel did something that some may thing was wrong, that it is okay to attack them forever. This obviously makes zero sense. If someone is doing wrong and then correct that wrong there is no reason to attack them once the issue has been addressed.

[u9y42]

Unfortunately no; if anything, I'm putting it mildly: according to Unicef's Pernille Ironside (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/gaza-cost-far-exceeds-estimate-official-says.html?_r=0), they are currently dealing with some 350.000 refugees there. And it's a little hard for them to return home when Israel destroyed them: at least some 17.000 were totally destroyed, and 37.000 damaged. However, these figures are likely to increase, especially as the conflict continues. And this to say nothing of what Israeli attacks on vital infrastructure have done to access to healthcare, food and water. In fact, in the article I linked, Pernille Ironside goes on to say that, if the blockade isn't at least eased, some estimates put the time to reconstruct Gaza after the latest attack at 18 years!

Is Gaza made out of only 17,000 houses? No. problem solved then.
These figures wont increase as a permanent ceasefire was signed today-Israel must be the worst genocider ever,signing 11 ceasefires which most were violated by Hamas,now signing another one.

I don't think you understand what relocating hundreds of thousands of persons means; it's not just the housing that needs to be addressed - and this is already one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, so that's already a big problem - but also all the essentials that need to be made available for people to be able to live there: mostly clean water and food, but also access to healthcare and electricity. You can't just shove them on to another area and expect them to survive unaided.

I offered it as my own personal opinion, so take it as you will; but from all I've seen so far, that seems to me the most likely outcome, unless things start changing very soon.

Assad still has allies(Iran,Russia,Lebanon,etc) with 260,000 people dead on his hands,im sure Israel can get away with 2000.China and Russia would love to get their hands on Iron Dome,once the US finally abandons the monopoly on Israeli tech.
the world mostly doesn't realy give a damn about the Palestinians.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

And you know, there is one way to deal with the illegal settlements without kicking anyone out again: give them the chance to stay and integrate them into a future Palestinian state, or monetary incentives to return to Israel and resettle, for example (they are currently being given governmental monetary incentives to illegally occupy Palestinian land, so it wouldn't be much of a shift there).

Sorry but you are too naive if you think multiculturalism will work here.

Perhaps I am, but it's not like mindlessly killing each other is working either - well, not for the respective populations at least.

You may reach that conclusion if you ignore that the occupation as a whole never ended, and neither did Israeli human rights abuses, or interference in the region - the Fatah-Hamas conflict, for example, was largely pushed by the US and Israel (among others). Further, the disengagement served a few other Israeli goals that you omitted there: it increased the separation between Gaza and the West Bank (not only physically in contravention of previous agreements, but also politically as stated above), and allowed Israel to focus on advancing its settlements of the West Bank (which sharply increased at that time).

Your argument is basically that since Israel did something that some may thing was wrong, that it is okay to attack them forever. This obviously makes zero sense. If someone is doing wrong and then correct that wrong there is no reason to attack them once the issue has been addressed.

I made no such argument; I think you might have either misunderstood what I said or got the chronology there wrong - some of the events I mentioned occurred after the disengagement, or were never addressed altogether. So, for example, the Fatah-Hamas conflict Israel/US pushed along occurred after the disengagement, as did the acceleration of the illegal settlements on the West Bank, and ultimately the goal of separating Gaza and the West Bank. On the other hand, human rights abuses were never addressed, and the occupation of the territories never really ended - Gaza simply didn't have the Israeli army already inside its borders, but the government there did not otherwise have control of its borders, imports-exports, airspace, coastline, or a lot of the infrastructure.