Israel/Palestine discussion

[zmic]

But even more so, I feel like Israel's issue with Iranian nukes is simply the fact that Iran would now have a nuclear umbrella. They can much more easily arm Hezbollah and Hamas with minimal repercussions with bigger weapons. They can blackmail the world out of sanctions the same way North Korea has. Occasionally sink a ship or two. The popular uprising that Israel can't wait for will be entirely on its own when it happens -- it's unlikely an outside force will declare a no-fly-zone over a nuclear power. In other words, that uprising probably won't happen, Iran's gonna stick around and going to make things increasingly difficult (and probably by orders of magnitude) for Israel.

A nuclear Iran's a huge issue for Israel even if it doesn't come close to the red button.

Well yes, if Iran becomes more powerful then Israel becomes less powerful. Such is the nature of zero-sum power politics.

Your argument may justify the sanctions from the Israel viewpoint. but it does not justify the sanctions from a more impartial perspective.

I think a nuclear Iran would actually restore some balance of power in the Middle East, rather than disturbing it.

[zmic]

Does it get the same treatment as North Korea and Pakistan?

It's funny but when you think about it, Israel is the country which resembles North Korea most:

Insular

Socialist

Nuclear

Highly militarized society

Having one very powerful supporter

Behaving like a mad dog towards neighbors

[yedidyak]

Apart from the vibrant democracy, free press, NGOs, immigration, emigration, open academia, first world infrastructure, tourism etc. Yes, I suppose your right.

You're obviously a troll, kudos for keeping it going so long.

[yurell]

Apart from the vibrant democracy, free press, NGOs, immigration, emigration, open academia, first world infrastructure, tourism etc. Yes, I suppose your right.

They said 'resembles North Korea the most', not 'resembles North Korea'. If you think there's a country that more resembles North Korea, present it.

Personally I disagree with Zmic — Israel probably resembles NK the least (except for maybe Palestine & Jordan). Iran and Syria bear far more semblance — they're totalitarian military dictatorships, and that culture I feel is far more important to resemblance that being nuclear armed or having a powerful ally (which are more superficial things).

[sourmìlk]

I'm somehow doubtful you have a citation towards the Palestinian application to UNESCO being based on "to maintain intransigence", but feel free to provide one.

Because if they didn't want to remain intransigent with Israel, they could have negotiated with Israel and done this whole thing properly. The UN bid was necessarily an avoidance of negotiations with Israel because going to the UN only acts as a means of accomplishing the goal of statehood without negotiating with Israel. It doesn't need a citation, it's res ipsa loquitor.

LaserGuy, what in Israel's history, or indeed all history gives you the impression that Israeli concessions without promises of peace in return will reduce Palestinian terrorism? Israel has done that in the past with the Gaza Strip and the Oslo Accords, and each time it substantially increased terrorism. Also, I don't know if you've even talked to any Israelis you haven't been arguing with, but Israel would like nothing more than to get rid of the occupation. Even the extreme right wants to get rid of the occupation, they just have really stupid ways of doing it. All of the parties, perhaps sans one or two, in the Knesset have a goal of ending the occupation. Israel has been trying like hell to end it: they've made several offers and continue to try and negotiate, but the Palestinians refuse, and when they enter negotiations, they don't do any actual negotiating. And to bypass this Palestinian intransigence and the terrorism that accompanies it, you want Israel to concede. That has never worked.

And LaserGuy, I'm not denying that Palestinians share a common ancestry, religion, and culture. But that alone isn't enough to define an ethnicity. I share a common ancestry, religion, and culture with my sister, but we aren't an ethnicity. It has to be distinct, and in that respect the Palestinians are not distinct from the surrounding Arabs.

[Greyarcher]

But even more so, I feel like Israel's issue with Iranian nukes is simply the fact that Iran would now have a nuclear umbrella. They can much more easily arm Hezbollah and Hamas with minimal repercussions with bigger weapons. They can blackmail the world out of sanctions the same way North Korea has. Occasionally sink a ship or two. The popular uprising that Israel can't wait for will be entirely on its own when it happens -- it's unlikely an outside force will declare a no-fly-zone over a nuclear power. In other words, that uprising probably won't happen, Iran's gonna stick around and going to make things increasingly difficult (and probably by orders of magnitude) for Israel.

A nuclear Iran's a huge issue for Israel even if it doesn't come close to the red button.

Well yes, if Iran becomes more powerful then Israel becomes less powerful. Such is the nature of zero-sum power politics.

Your argument may justify the sanctions from the Israel viewpoint. but it does not justify the sanctions from a more impartial perspective.

I think a nuclear Iran would actually restore some balance of power in the Middle East, rather than disturbing it.

Balance of power? I doubt the surrounding nations would agree. At most, it puts Iran on a slightly more even playing field with Israel. But that's pretty worthless because Israel doesn't give three hoots about Iran except insofar as Iran causes trouble for it.

Producing a parity in power doesn't necessarily make a situation more stable. In some relations, a lesser power may be less likely to cause a serious disturbance exactly because it has less power.

[yoni45]

Because if they didn't want to remain intransigent with Israel, they could have negotiated with Israel and done this whole thing properly. The UN bid was necessarily an avoidance of negotiations with Israel because going to the UN only acts as a means of accomplishing the goal of statehood without negotiating with Israel. It doesn't need a citation, it's res ipsa loquitor.

Lol. More typical sourmilk bullshit a la "I don't have to prove anything because I just can't think of any other possibilities". Ghostbear was right -- you're hopeless.

[yoni45]

Well yes, if Iran becomes more powerful then Israel becomes less powerful. Such is the nature of zero-sum power politics.

Your argument may justify the sanctions from the Israel viewpoint. but it does not justify the sanctions from a more impartial perspective.

I think a nuclear Iran would actually restore some balance of power in the Middle East, rather than disturbing it.

What impartial perspective? If you're impartial as to whether totalitarian dictatorships that hang homosexuals succeed over vibrant democracies, then yeah -- you probably wouldn't have any reason to support one state over another.

This argument is quite clearly from the Western viewpoint (not necessarily just the Israeli one, but the Israeli one would obviously be that much stronger in that regard).

Giving Iran a power balance is as useful as giving it to the mafia against the police.

[sourmìlk]

Lol. More typical sourmilk bullshit a la "I don't have to prove anything because I just can't think of any other possibilities". Ghostbear was right -- you're hopeless.

This isn't an argument, it's an insult. Please don't insult me.

What impartial perspective? If you're impartial as to whether totalitarian dictatorships that hang homosexuals succeed over vibrant democracies, then yeah -- you probably wouldn't have any reason to support one state over another.

Definitely this. Wanting Iran not to become more powerful at the expense of Israel isn't just bias towards Israel, it's bias towards democracy and peace. Can we all agree those are good things?

[LaserGuy]

LaserGuy, what in Israel's history, or indeed all history gives you the impression that Israeli concessions without promises of peace in return will reduce Palestinian terrorism?

Independence movements generally stop fighting for their independence once they gain it. See: Pretty much every independence movement in modern history for examples. The Irish War of Independence provides a number of useful comparisons, for example. As does the American Revolution. I'm sure there must be some independence movements who, once successful, continue to fight against the original country, but I think such examples are probably pretty rare.

[Izawwlgood]

LaserGuy, what in Israel's history, or indeed all history gives you the impression that Israeli concessions without promises of peace in return will reduce Palestinian terrorism?

Independence movements generally stop fighting for their independence once they gain it. See: Pretty much every independence movement in modern history for examples. The Irish War of Independence provides a number of useful comparisons, for example. As does the American Revolution. I'm sure there must be some independence movements who, once successful, continue to fight against the original country, but I think such examples are probably pretty rare.

Personally, I strongly support a two state solution, but frankly, do not have any hopes that granting the Palestinians their own independent state will stop any sort of infighting. Keep in mind there's a deep seated cultural hatred going on here; Hamas' charter isn't just 'Secure an independent state for our people', it's also 'kill the Jews and destroy Israel'. So sure, maybe we'll see LESS fighting in such a scenario, but I sincerely doubt we'll see a reduction of terrorism.

[LaserGuy]

LaserGuy, what in Israel's history, or indeed all history gives you the impression that Israeli concessions without promises of peace in return will reduce Palestinian terrorism?

Independence movements generally stop fighting for their independence once they gain it. See: Pretty much every independence movement in modern history for examples. The Irish War of Independence provides a number of useful comparisons, for example. As does the American Revolution. I'm sure there must be some independence movements who, once successful, continue to fight against the original country, but I think such examples are probably pretty rare.

Personally, I strongly support a two state solution, but frankly, do not have any hopes that granting the Palestinians their own independent state will stop any sort of infighting. Keep in mind there's a deep seated cultural hatred going on here; Hamas' charter isn't just 'Secure an independent state for our people', it's also 'kill the Jews and destroy Israel'. So sure, maybe we'll see LESS fighting in such a scenario, but I sincerely doubt we'll see a reduction of terrorism.

Why would anybody want to join Hamas once Palestine is an independent state? I'm not denying that those things are part of Hamas' charter; I'm arguing that Hamas will cease to be a relevant entity once Palestine is fully independent. As I've said numerous times in this discussion: people who are free, healthy, wealthy, and have good prospects for their children generally do not engage in self-destructive behaviours. People who lack these things, however, will often engage in the sorts of behaviours that groups like Hamas promote, in the hopes of someday getting these things. If you want to kill Hamas, the best thing to do is build up Palestine, not tear it down.

[Izawwlgood]

I don't want to dispute the possibility that an independent state for the Palestinians will delegitimize organizations like Hamas, but I honestly think you're being overly optimistic about the way it would play out. Deep seated hatred between the Israelis and the Palestinians isn't going to simply vanish because the Palestinians are recognized by the UN, and more to your point, hatred of the State of Israel isn't going to vanish either.

[bentheimmigrant]

An additional problem is that Israel will still be able to exert power over Palestine should it become a state. Don't get me wrong, I think Israel does need to take these first steps, but any solution will still have its downsides, just like Northern Ireland.

[LaserGuy]

I don't want to dispute the possibility that an independent state for the Palestinians will delegitimize organizations like Hamas, but I honestly think you're being overly optimistic about the way it would play out. Deep seated hatred between the Israelis and the Palestinians isn't going to simply vanish because the Palestinians are recognized by the UN, and more to your point, hatred of the State of Israel isn't going to vanish either.

I think the lack of conflict on the West Bank side of things for a number of years now would tend to suggest it could probably happen rather quickly if conditions were right. I honestly don't see any reason why the West Bank couldn't become an independent state tomorrow, albeit one with disputed borders. The security situation there is already pretty good. Gaza, admittedly, needs a little more time. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of a three-state solution.

[sourmìlk]

The problem is that the goal of the Palestinians isn't just an independent state, it's also an eventual end to Israel. The Palestinians are probably going to work towards that goal regardless of whether or not they have a state, so Israel needs to ensure that they attempt to accomplish that goal peacefully, which they can only do if they have something to give the Palestinians in exchange for peace. Again, appeasement doesn't work, particularly not with the Palestinians.

think the lack of conflict on the West Bank side of things for a number of years now would tend to suggest it could probably happen rather quickly if conditions were right. I honestly don't see any reason why the West Bank couldn't become an independent state tomorrow, albeit one with disputed borders. The security situation there is already pretty good. Gaza, admittedly, needs a little more time. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of a three-state solution.

The security situation in the West Bank is only good because of the Israeli presence. The IDF regularly conducts operations in the West Bank to thwart terrorist attempts. An immediate withdrawal would lead the situation very similar to Gaza.

[sardia]

You should consider the oppOsite perspective. Would Israelis be ok with Palestinians in charge and Israelis living in the west bank + gaza? What would a Jewish group do if they were in refugee camps against a nation who's only concern is their own citizens? Would they accept the excuse of appeasonment as to why they can't do certain agreements?

[Iulus Cofield]

Israel Loves Iran

...

This week, a very different social media campaign has gathered momentum in Israel — one begun by Israelis who oppose the war with Iran that they fear their government is pursuing and who are seeking to use Facebook as a tool of direct diplomacy.

As the Israeli blogger Dimi Reider reported, last week, “an Israeli couple — two graphic designers named Ronny Edry and Michal Tamir — decided to cut across the growing anxiety and fear over the possibility of an Israel-Iran war and address Iranian citizens directly.” Working with graphic design students, the couple made it easy for fellow Israelis to create posters of themselves on Facebook with the slogan: “Iranians, We Will Never Bomb Your Country. We Love You.”

In a message to the Iranian people posted with the images on Facebook, Mr. Edry wrote: “For there to be a war between us, first we must be afraid of each other, we must hate. I’m not afraid of you, I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you.” He added: “I see sometimes here, on the TV, an Iranian. He is talking about war. I’m sure he does not represent all the people of Iran. If you see someone on your TV talking about bombing you, be sure he does not represent all of us.”

Two days after uploading the first antiwar posters, Mr. Edry told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that he had started to receive private messages from Iranians echoing the message of peace. “We also love you,” read one reply. “Your words are reaching us despite the censorship.” On Sunday, a series of posters “We Love You Israeli People” started to appear on the graphic design students’ Facebook page and on a new blog, “Israel Loves Iran.”

In a video message posted on YouTube on Sunday, Mr. Edry said that “within 48 hours, the Iranian people started responding to the posters, and shared back their love to us — hundreds of messages arriving from Iran, telling the Israeli people, ‘We love you back.’”

[Izawwlgood]

The problem is that the goal of the Palestinians isn't just an independent state, it's also an eventual end to Israel.

False, the goal of Hamas is the eventual end of Israel. You are in dangerous territory if you attribute the goals of an organization to the goals of an entire people, even in a situation where the majority vote went to the organization; I firmly believe that many Palestinians want nothing more than peace, and both corruption in voting practices and other things that Hamas does for the people were factors contributing to the election results.

As for the Israel loves Iran thing, I have to say, I think it'd be very interesting to do an analysis of the groups involved, particularly, their education level. I have a strong suspicion that the group is likely enriched for educated individuals, compared to the rest of the population.

[yoni45]

Israel Loves Iran

...

This week, a very different social media campaign has gathered...

Times like these are when I just think -- Fucking Hell. It seems like there are very few outcomes to this whole ordeal that wouldn't suck on a massive scale, for *both* the Iranians and the Israelis.

Disregarding Israel's wellbeing, I feel like all those progressive Iranians are going to get thoroughly screwed if Israel attacks or if Israel doesn't and Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons. I just really don't see the Iranian regime falling anytime soon under a nuclear umbrella.

I think the lack of conflict on the West Bank side of things for a number of years now would tend to suggest it could probably happen rather quickly if conditions were right. I honestly don't see any reason why the West Bank couldn't become an independent state tomorrow, albeit one with disputed borders. The security situation there is already pretty good. Gaza, admittedly, needs a little more time. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of a three-state solution.

A few things to consider:

The security situation in the West Bank improved largely due to Operation Defensive Shield. That's not to say that it would revert back if Israel was to pull out (the local forces have a much better grip, the political echelon controlling them no longer seems interested in terrorism, and the populace seems far more moderate), but it also didn't get to that point through Israeli appeasement.

There's also the possibility and my personal hunch that Gaza has a far higher proportion of people likely to be religiously extreme, with a religiously extreme political echelon that has managed to all but wipe out any moderate forces in the strip. Arguably, the Gazans actually have less reason to resist than the West Bankers do: the West Bank is still occupied, Gaza is not.

[sourmìlk]

You should consider the oppOsite perspective. Would Israelis be ok with Palestinians in charge and Israelis living in the west bank + gaza? What would a Jewish group do if they were in refugee camps against a nation who's only concern is their own citizens? Would they accept the excuse of appeasonment as to why they can't do certain agreements?

Considering that the Israelis were forced into refugee camps by the Arabs with Arabs living in Israel and they managed to not only tolerate that but flourish under it, I don't think the Palestinians have an excuse.

The problem is that the goal of the Palestinians isn't just an independent state, it's also an eventual end to Israel.

False, the goal of Hamas is the eventual end of Israel. You are in dangerous territory if you attribute the goals of an organization to the goals of an entire people, even in a situation where the majority vote went to the organization; I firmly believe that many Palestinians want nothing more than peace, and both corruption in voting practices and other things that Hamas does for the people were factors contributing to the election results.

Unfortunately this isn't true. The vast, vast majority of Palestinians say that the two state solution is a means to an end of Israel as a Jewish state. 75% of Palestinians think that it's perfectly acceptable to kill innocent Jews in accomplishing this goal, though only 22% support outright Jihad. I linked to this poll a few times.

As for the Israel loves Iran thing: it's very nice, and it does give me some hope, but not really for the current government. Clearly, the problem isn't between the Iranian and Israeli people. They're cool with each other, except for the extremists. The problem is the Iranian government, and if they were swayed by the opinions of their people, we wouldn't be having this problem. The best we can hope for, I think, is that the Iranian revolution comes as quickly as possible, and that the new government actually tolerates or even likes the West.

[jules.LT]

The vast, vast majority of Palestinians say that the two state solution is a means to an end of Israel as a Jewish state. 75% of Palestinians think that it's perfectly acceptable to kill innocent Jews in accomplishing this goal, though only 22% support outright Jihad. I linked to this poll a few times.

If Israel stopped its policy of keeping Palestinians on the brink of humanitarian crisis (remember that wikileaks cable?), those figures might change much faster than you'd expect.

Edit: ok, that's just the Gaza strip. But it doesn't raise any hopes about Israel's actual policy towards the West Bank.

[sourmìlk]

As I've said, I don't actually see a problem with Israel not exceeding its obligations to Gaza, particularly seeing that Hamas simply uses all aid to attack Israel. Collective punishment isn't appropriate, but if Israel's meeting its obligations, then there's no collective punishment going on, it's just a lack of collective reward. Not to mention that, considering that the Gazans elected Hamas, a terrorist group that has in its charter the goal to commit genocide, I really don't think that those views are a reaction to the blockade. As I've said, Palestinian anti-Semitism was not caused by the occupation. It's been going on since long before that.

[jules.LT]

You don't see a problem with a policy of keeping the Gaza strip on the brink of humanitarian crisis? This post had objectionable content.

That's too personal -- Zamfir

Edit: sorry about that, Zamfir. I wasn't sure how to express how repulsive that position is to me...

[Maurog]

We all see a problem with Hamas keeping Gaza on the brink of humanitarian crisis.

The obvious solution is removing Hamas. What did you have in mind?

[bentheimmigrant]

Except it's not Hamas.

[Maurog]

Except it is

You don't seriously expect countries to have obligations towards hostile entities that shoot rockets at them daily, do you? It's not about oppressing the poor innocent Gazans, it's about trying to reduce the ongoing damage they keep doing.

If anyone has an obligation towards Gazan citizens, it's their government, i.e. Hamas. It hasn't been very successful, has it?

[yedidyak]

The vast, vast majority of Palestinians say that the two state solution is a means to an end of Israel as a Jewish state. 75% of Palestinians think that it's perfectly acceptable to kill innocent Jews in accomplishing this goal, though only 22% support outright Jihad. I linked to this poll a few times.

If Israel stopped its policy of keeping Palestinians on the brink of humanitarian crisis (remember that wikileaks cable?), those figures might change much faster than you'd expect.

Did you even read the cable?

Israeli security analysts argue that a considerable portion of the civil service salaries that the PA attempts to pay each month to its Gazan employees actually find their way to Hamas or Hamas supporters (see reftel "D"). They have therefore determined that full coverage of the payroll is contrary to Israel,s security interests, even if Hamas gains some political advantage from being able to pay its salaries in full. Whether money finds its way into the territory by means of the PA payroll or the Hamas payroll, says the GOI, Hamas experiences a net increase in its funding. Israeli analysis suggests that it is best to deny the terrorist regime a larger pool of funds in Gaza, no matter the origin, preferring to minimize Hamas, ability to purchase weapons or equipment for use against Israeli civilians. Thus, they reject the PA,s argument that denying banks the liquidity to pay PA salaries in full bolsters the Hamas regime (see reftel &I8).

In determining how much new liquidity can enter Gaza at any given time, the NSC considers several factors, including the humanitarian situation in the territory. The NSC abides by the principal that Gaza should receive just enough money for the basic needs of the population but it is not interested in returning the Gazan economy to a state of normal commerce and business. The agency tries to approve a reasonable amount of new money for entry into the territory each month; however, it will not permit any large scale transfer of assets from Ramallah-based banks to their branches in Gaza for fear of improving the purchasing power of entities wishing to harm Israel.

So Israel will make sure that there is no humanitarian crisis, but not allow any more BECAUSE IT GOES TO A GROUP TRYING TO KILL ISRAELI CIVILIANS.

As to:

Edit: ok, that's just the Gaza strip. But it doesn't raise any hopes about Israel's actual policy towards the West Bank.

Again, read the cable.

Furthermore, GOI officials, while often praising the credentials of PA technocrats, doubt the effectiveness and authority of the Palestinian Monetary Authority (PMA) to regulate and police Palestinian, and especially Gazan banks. This double standard in the treatment of Gaza and the West Bank by the GOI is yet another example of how Gaza is becoming increasingly isolated from the West Bank, despite the best efforts of the PA/Fatah to maintain unity.

So Israel is very happy to let the PA handle economic matters where they have the power to, but see that they don't have that power in Gaza. In fact, the exact opposite of what you say is true. The fact that Israel has markedly different policies to the WB and Gaza precisely raises hopes about Israel's policies in the WB.

[sourmìlk]

You don't see a problem with a policy of keeping the Gaza strip on the brink of humanitarian crisis? This post had objectionable content.

That's too personal -- Zamfir

Edit: sorry about that, Zamfir. I wasn't sure how to express how repulsive that position is to me...

Do you think that America failing to help Somalia avoid a humanitarian crisis is as repulsive? Because America has even more obligation to Somalia get past the humanitarian crisis borderline than Israel does to Gaza in that Somalia is not attacking America (at least, not much). Israel is under no obligation to help Gaza beyond what is necessary. I think it would be objectionable for Israel to go out of their way to make Gaza worse, but to not go the extra mile to make it better is perfectly reasonable.

[jules.LT]

It's not about oppressing the poor innocent Gazans, it's about trying to reduce the ongoing damage they keep doing.

The problem is that the means Israel has chosen to reduce the damage from Hamas is to create a near-humanitarian-crisis situation.
I read Israel's excuses as reported in this cable thank you very much. I just don't buy that they justify this.

[sourmìlk]

jules.LT, if Hamas takes up the aid and uses it to attack Israel, how can Israel ensure its safety without keeping Gaza at a near humanitarian crisis? And if they could, under what principle are they obligated to?

[LaserGuy]

So Israel is very happy to let the PA handle economic matters where they have the power to, but see that they don't have that power in Gaza. In fact, the exact opposite of what you say is true. The fact that Israel has markedly different policies to the WB and Gaza precisely raises hopes about Israel's policies in the WB.

Except when Israel denies money to the WB for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with security...

[bentheimmigrant]

yedidyak- the issue that I have with this is that by maintaining Gaza at such a low economic level they are providing justification for Hamas' actions, alienating the populus, and stopping them from reaching a point that they feel in control of their own destiny. Keeping their status as the common enemy of Palestine as policy can't solve anything.

[sourmìlk]

Except when Israel denies money to the WB for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with security...

So, while I didn't support that hold on West Bank taxes, it's not true that it has nothing to do with security. The independence of the Palestinian state is a huge security matter for Israel in that is means they don't have nearly as much military agency to conduct operations in the West Bank.

yedidyak- the issue that I have with this is that by maintaining Gaza at such a low economic level they are providing justification for Hamas' actions, alienating the populus, and stopping them from reaching a point that they feel in control of their own destiny. Keeping their status as the common enemy of Palestine as policy can't solve anything.

Palestinian anti-Semitism isn't based on Israel's actions, and if it were, it's not appropriate to appease terrorism by altering those actions unless they should be altered in and of themselves. The occupation is just an excuse. There have been Palestinian extremists attempting to kill the Jews since the 1920's: if the economy of Gaza were improved and the occupation ended, the Palestinians would likely find a new reason to attack Israel because that is what they have done every single time Israel has given them something. And this entirely ignores the issue that Israel can't help Gaza without helping Hamas oppress Gaza and kill innocent Jews. In other words, even if Israel wanted to help the Gazans beyond what is required of them, they wouldn't be able to because Hamas gets in the way.

It isn't Israel's job to use concessions to improve relations with a people consistently hostile to attempts to improve relations. It's the Palestinians' responsibility, as the aggressors, to improve relations with Israel.

[yedidyak]

yedidyak- the issue that I have with this is that by maintaining Gaza at such a low economic level they are providing justification for Hamas' actions, alienating the populus, and stopping them from reaching a point that they feel in control of their own destiny. Keeping their status as the common enemy of Palestine as policy can't solve anything.

But the Palestinian populace actually voted for Hamas before the blockade, and after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. If anything, the withdrawal showed that violent resistance works, leading to votes for Hamas (along with Fatah corruption). Blockading Gaza shows that violence has consequences, and has lead to Hamas reigning back the violence.

[sourmìlk]

Israel unconditionally (or insufficiently conditionally) giving the Palestinians what they want has demonstrably and consistently lead to more terrorism. The Palestinians are going to have to promise peace if they want to see an improvement.

[bentheimmigrant]

yedidyak- the issue that I have with this is that by maintaining Gaza at such a low economic level they are providing justification for Hamas' actions, alienating the populus, and stopping them from reaching a point that they feel in control of their own destiny. Keeping their status as the common enemy of Palestine as policy can't solve anything.

But the Palestinian populace actually voted for Hamas before the blockade, and after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. If anything, the withdrawal showed that violent resistance works, leading to votes for Hamas (along with Fatah corruption). Blockading Gaza shows that violence has consequences, and has lead to Hamas reigning back the violence.

I'm not able to speak to the initial motivation for electing Hamas, but the problem still remains that what can only be described as oppression, whether warranted or not, is not going to suddenly make them see the error of their ways. In that case, they have to behave in a subservient manor with no guarantee that it will result in Israel doing what they want. It's a difficult one to frame politically from the Palestinian perspective.

[sourmìlk]

I suppose Hamas doesn't have a guarantee that Israel will stop the blockade if they disarm (although it's been made very clear that that's the condition upon which Israel will release the blockade), but they know for certain that they aren't going to be making any progress if they continue like this. You're advocating appeasement. You're saying that Israel should respond to terrorism by giving them what they want so that they might not want to commit terrorism. That doesn't work in general, and it most certainly doesn't work in this specific situation. The last time it failed was only 7 years ago, when Israel pulled out of Gaza. This is a very important point that hasn't really gotten through to everybody in this thread: giving terrorists what they want does not stop them from continuing terror.

And again, it is entirely wrong to assume that Hamas' terrorist, anti-Semitic policies are responses to Israeli policies. They're not. Israeli policy is entirely independent from Hamas' policy unless Israel's policy becomes "kill all the Jews." But even if it were the case that the blockade is hurting relations with Hamas, that still makes it Hamas' responsibility, as the aggressive terrorists, to improve those relations.

Why should we favour Hamas' point of view over Israel's here? If the options are for a terrorist organization to stop committing terrorism (without a guarantee of that ending their troubles), or a country giving terrorists what they want (with almost a guarantee that will amplify their troubles), why is it on Israel's head to change its actions? As the aggressors and the terrorists it is Hamas' responsibility to effect change. In the mean time, Israel has to operate in self-defense. You can't ask Israel to put itself in danger in order to make friends with Hamas when Hamas, an aggressive terrorist organization, would be putting itself in no additional danger by trying to make friends with Israel.

[yedidyak]

yedidyak- the issue that I have with this is that by maintaining Gaza at such a low economic level they are providing justification for Hamas' actions, alienating the populus, and stopping them from reaching a point that they feel in control of their own destiny. Keeping their status as the common enemy of Palestine as policy can't solve anything.

But the Palestinian populace actually voted for Hamas before the blockade, and after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. If anything, the withdrawal showed that violent resistance works, leading to votes for Hamas (along with Fatah corruption). Blockading Gaza shows that violence has consequences, and has lead to Hamas reigning back the violence.

I'm not able to speak to the initial motivation for electing Hamas, but the problem still remains that what can only be described as oppression, whether warranted or not, is not going to suddenly make them see the error of their ways. In that case, they have to behave in a subservient manor with no guarantee that it will result in Israel doing what they want. It's a difficult one to frame politically from the Palestinian perspective.

Its actually pretty easy. You say 'look at us in the West Bank, the economy here is doing pretty well, because we Fatah have cracked down on terror. On the other hand, in Hamastan, no-one gets paid.'

[bentheimmigrant]

But they also see demands in the west bank not being met.