There is no military solution to the Israel/Palestine problem

[Thunder]

The Palestinians will never surrender. The Israelis...will never surrender.

This is all clear by now.

The only solution..is a political solution. Why can't they see that?

[Undesired Walrus]

The Palestinians will never surrender. The Israelis...will never surrender.


What's with the dramatic pause in the second sentence?

[Thunder]

I can be a dramatic guy. =)

[WildCat]

Any evidence that the Palestinians in Gaza want a political solution? No doubt Israel does, that's why Gaza is now Jew-free.

The Gazans responded by electing an internationally recognized terrorist group with the stated goal of Israel's destruction to lead them.

It's clear to me that only one side here wants peace, the other side... not so much. I see no reason why they shouldn't get the war they are trying so hard to get.

[Thunder]

Any evidence that the Palestinians in Gaza want a political solution? No doubt Israel does, that's why Gaza is now Jew-free.

The Gazans responded by electing an internationally recognized terrorist group with the stated goal of Israel's destruction to lead them.

It's clear to me that only one side here wants peace, the other side... not so much. I see no reason why they shouldn't get the war they are trying so hard to get.

Electing Hamas was not an act of war. Yet Israel treated it as such.

Should the Palestinians see electing members of Moledet and National Union to the Knesset as an act of war...and react accordingly?

[Undesired Walrus]

Isn't religion part of the problem here?

[WildCat]

Electing Hamas was not an act of war. Yet Israel treated it as such.
No, Hamas, the legitimately elected government of Gaza, firing missiles at civilians in Israel and allowing others to do the same is an act of war. Do you disagree?

Should the Palestinians see electing members of Moledet and National Union to the Knesset as an act of war...and react accordingly?
Any evidence that the government of Israel allows their army or their civilians to attack Palestinian civilians?

Don't take too long parky, it's not a hard question.

[WildCat]

Isn't religion part of the problem here?
Why would you think that? (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html)

[Thunder]

No, Hamas, the legitimately elected government of Gaza, firing missiles at civilians in Israel and allowing others to do the same is an act of war. Do you disagree?

Any evidence that the government of Israel allows their army or their civilians to attack Palestinian civilians?

Don't take too long parky, it's not a hard question.

-Hamas began firing missiles AFTER the Israeli blockade began.

Was it a legitimate reaction? No. Did it have any chance of succeeding? No.

The blockade of Gaza, which prevents food, medicine, and fuel, from reaching 1,000,000 Palestinians, is in itself an act of passive aggression.

[WildCat]

-Hamas began firing missiles AFTER the Israeli blockade began.
Nope.

Was it a legitimate reaction? No. Did it have any chance of succeeding? No.
Which is largely irrelevant.

The blockade of Gaza, which prevents food, medicine, and fuel, from reaching 1,000,000 Palestinians, is in itself an act of passive aggression.
Israel only held up shipments of those items after Hamas started their little war, now they're hoping that the useful idiots of the world will pull their asses from the fire they started.

Wash, rinse, repeat...

[Thunder]

Israel only held up shipments of those items after Hamas started their little war, now they're hoping that the useful idiots of the world will pull their asses from the fire they started.

Absolutely wrong. Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election. They did not wait for any Hamas actions to make such a move.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=1

Go to paragraph 6.

[scissorhands]

The rocket attacks from Gaza started in 2001.
A blockade was kind of inevitable, considering the main perpetrators of the previous rocket attacks had just been elected to power.

[Thunder]

um...how does a land blockade...stop rocket fire?

hmmmm?

[Doctor Evil]

Absolutely wrong. Israel started the inhumane blockade immediately after the Hamas election. They did not wait for any Hamas actions to make such a move.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=1

Go to paragraph 6.


Parky, a recommendation. Actually reading what you link is a good thing! It might save you some embarrassment.

If you had read your link, you would had find that the blockade was imposed after the violent coup in which Hamas took control over all security forces in Gaza, that is, not after the elections. (Until the coup these forces the top of the command chain was the president.)

[Doctor Evil]

um...how does a land blockade...stop rocket fire?

hmmmm?

Maybe it stops you from getting more long range rocket from countries like Iran and Syria.

[Thunder]

Maybe it stops you from getting more long range rocket from countries like Iran and Syria.

You know, if Israel prevents the Palestinians from breathing, the Hamas militants among them would be unable to launch anymore rockets.

[Doctor Evil]

You know, if Israel prevents the Palestinians from breathing, the Hamas militants among them would be unable to launch anymore rockets.

You know, if your responses are composed only of an appeal to emotion, it may prevent me from treating the points you make seriously.

[scissorhands]

um...how does a land blockade...stop rocket fire?

hmmmm?


If a terrorist organisation near my border was busy firing homemade rockets at my town on a daily basis, I would certainly try to limit their access to better made versions, if I could.
Maybe thats just me.:)

[Thunder]

Maybe it stops you from getting more long range rocket from countries like Iran and Syria.

Hmmm...

The Israeli land blockade, which stops most trade between Israel and Gaza, prevents Hamas from getting long range missiles...from Iran and Syria.

Lets think about that for a moment..shall we?

:confused:

hint: Hamas imports long range rockets from Iran and Syria...through Israel???

lol

[WildCat]

Hmmm...

The Israeli land blockade, which stops most trade between Israel and Gaza, prevents Hamas from getting long range missiles...from Iran and Syria.

Lets think about that for a moment..shall we?

:confused:

hint: Hamas imports long range rockets from Iran and Syria...through Israel???

lol
And thanks to the blockade, they won't be able to ship missiles to Gaza by going around Israel.

You know, it has happened before (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/1/Seizing%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20weapons%20ship% 20Karine%20A-).

[Thunder]

A land blockade, basically stopping all traffic between Israel and Gaza, in order to prevent Iran and Syria from shipping long range missiles to Hamas, through Israel, makes perfect sense.

...in loonyland!!!

If the only real way that Hamas can have missiles shipped in, is through the air or the sea, then Israel should just block the ports and the airport.

Lets be honest, the blockade is there for ONE single purpose: To get the Palestinians to rebel against Hamas.

But, the Israelis forgot one thing: They would rather starve to death, then kneel to the demands of Israel.

[webfusion]

Yes, the blockade includes a maritime embargo, and Israel obviously controls the gaza airspace.

Here, parky76, what do you propose Israel should do about this soon-to-arrive Iranian multi-ton cargo shipment?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050377.html

[Thunder]

check it for weapons. if there are weapons on board, remove them as trophies. if its just food and medicine, let it through.

[webfusion]

Suppose the Iranian ship captain refuses?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7758088.stm

[a_unique_person]

Any evidence that the Palestinians in Gaza want a political solution? No doubt Israel does, that's why Gaza is now Jew-free.



:rolleyes: Removing the settlements from Gaza had little to do with trying to make a statement of peace. Sharon was acknowledging the demographics, which Olmert says are Israel's greatest problem, and the military weakness of the settlements.

The net effect of doing what he did the way he did it was to give legitimacy to Hamas and it's methods.

Hamas has lied to it's people. Taking on Israel as it does won't work, and only weakens the Palestinians. Israel has an overwhelming advantage when it comes to military muscle.

[fuelair]

If a terrorist organisation near my border was busy firing homemade rockets at my town on a daily basis, I would certainly try to limit their access to better made versions, if I could.
Maybe thats just me.:)
at a bare minimum. I would be concerned even more with limiting their access to life.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

at a bare minimum. I would be concerned even more with limiting their access to life.

What if you were displaced from your home and were stuck in a ghetto behind concrete walls because some other people wanted to start a new country and you were in the way?

I suppose that would be OK would it? You'd happily let them get on with it. You wouldn't fight back?

[fuelair]

Asking a question right now, not answering one since the setup ignores a number of things I understand to be settled and, to some, misleading: Do you understand that your statement as made requires that you are either saying/implying that the Palestineans per se are sending rockets/missles at the Israeli civilians or saying/implying that there is no functional distinction between Hamas and other Palestineans(which I believe there is, but..)? If either is actually your position, then you have no grounds for your position on Israel and the blockade since no one (except the terrorists and their apologists) argues that Israel has no right to defend itself from military attack and that defense, by tradition and law, extends to blockades and the striking of civilian areas from which aid to military activities or military activities themselves occur.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with Parky.

Both sides have this strange way of thinking: "Those other people don't understand anything except force. If we do enough violence, they will eventually start behaving properly. We, on the other hand, are completely different. When someone uses force against us, we will retaliate--as is our right--out of a sense of justice and in the name of 'defense'!"

[Darth Rotor]

um...how does a land blockade...stop rocket fire?

hmmmm?
The answer is either

"it doesn't" (see reports of rocket attacks in the past week) or

"one element of a blockade is to cut off tine supply of weapons."

Any weapons already on hand are not going to be influenced by a blockade, unless they need parts/maintenance that is dependent on imports.

Is it really that hard to understand, parky? Let me put it another way. Stockpiling small arms, RPG's, mortars, and rockets and hiding them isn't as hard as you might think. Various Iraqis were (are) very good at it.

DR

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It must work for Fox news!!!

And don't forget the victims of racism!!! :)

[Thunder]

The fact remains that Hamas has not been importing rockets through Israel. Such a suggestion is insanely stupid. I would love to see an Israeli suggestion that such things have happened.

The blockade sought one single goal: the suffering of the Palestinian people and a rebellion against Hamas.

[kerikiwi]

If a terrorist organisation near my border

Spot the redundancy!

[Tin Foil Timothy]

T

The blockade sought one single goal: the suffering of the Palestinian people and a rebellion against Hamas.

That's two goals.

You've been taking lessons off Bush haven't you? :D:D

[KoihimeNakamura]

It did not. Also, I note the /sea/ blockade stops weapons too.

[BirdStrike]

The fact remains that Hamas has not been importing rockets through Israel. Such a suggestion is insanely stupid. I would love to see an Israeli suggestion that such things have happened.

I guess I am "insanely stupid." :D

Army finds explosive chemicals in EU aid bags (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3488023,00.html)

6.5 tons of potassium nitrate hidden in sacks marked as sugar from the European Union for needy Palestinians in Gaza.

EU declines comment.




2 tons of explosives found amongst humanitarian aid en route to Gaza (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3494131,00.html)

Security workers employed by the Israel Airport Authority uncovered two tons of fertilizer used in the manufacturing of Qassam rockets on Monday afternoon, the substantial amount of explosive material was concealed in a truck allegedly transporting humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.

This is the second such incident to occur this week.

edited to add:

Now before my links are dismissed as "propoganda...."

Monday, December 31, 2007 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-147646098.html) -- The EU on Sunday condemned attempts to smuggle chemicals used to make explosives into the Gaza Strip in bags marked as humanitarian aid from the European Commission.

"We condemn any abuse of any humanitarian aid for non- humanitarian purposes, and those who commit such acts do such to the detriment of the Palestinians," an EU diplomatic official said.


So the answer is "yes", Parky76. Explosive materials used to make Qassam rockets have been smuggled in with the humanitarian aid.

[Ziggurat]

The Palestinians will never surrender. The Israelis...will never surrender.

This is all clear by now.

The Palestinian terrorists will never surrender as long as they think they do not need to surrender in order to survive. And they haven't needed to, and much of the world (you included) is trying to make sure that they don't need to. You do not want to see a military solution because it would be bloodier than you are comfortable with. But that does not mean it doesn't exist.

The only solution..is a political solution. Why can't they see that?

Who is "they"? And considering that so many have been in search of a political solution for so long, with military solutions basically ruled out from the beginning (what's going on now is not an attempt at a military solution, but only a military treatment of one symptom), why do you have such faith in what has consistently failed, and dismiss without analysis what has not been tried?

[webfusion]

The Palestinian terrorists will never surrender as long as they think they do not need to surrender in order to survive. And they haven't needed to, and much of the world (you included) is trying to make sure that they don't need to. You do not want to see a military solution because it would be bloodier than you are comfortable with. But that does not mean it doesn't exist.
Who is "they"? And considering that so many have been in search of a political solution for so long, with military solutions basically ruled out from the beginning (what's going on now is not an attempt at a military solution, but only a military treatment of one symptom), why do you have such faith in what has consistently failed, and dismiss without analysis what has not been tried?


A well-designed skeptical and logical reply to the OP. Thank you.

Nominated.
"why do you have such faith in what has consistently failed, and dismiss without analysis what has not been tried?"


==================


UPDATED:
** Israel is progressing to call up 6500 more reservists, in preparation for a ground assault, backed by IAF cover.
** Gazans are reportedly now streaming out of Gaza into Sinai, having breached the Egyptian border. Egyptian border guards are shooting at them.

[Thunder]

That's two goals.

You've been taking lessons off Bush haven't you? :D:D

You know, I suggest you go %&#$ yourself and learn to attack the message...not the messenger.

[fuelair]

You know, I suggest you go %&#$ yourself and learn to attack the message...not the messenger.
I agree with you on this, but timmy is practiced at it and this series will probably get transferred/deep-sixed. :) I do believe there is a military solution.
There is always a military solution - they just aren't always liked by all involved.

[Thunder]

The only military "solution"...is killing all 4 million Palestinians...or shipping them off in railcars to Jordan. But this is not going to happen nor should it.

The other military solution, is a comprehensive and coordinated conventional attack by every Arab army upon Israel. They could win a conventional war, but Israel, if faced with annihiliation, would threaten to use its entire nuclear arsenal on the Arab states. Therefore, this is not going to happen either.

Hence, there is no military solution.

[ddt]

** Israel is progressing to call up 6500 more reservists, in preparation for a ground assault, backed by IAF cover.
** Gazans are reportedly now streaming out of Gaza into Sinai, having breached the Egyptian border. Egyptian border guards are shooting at them.
Haaretz article (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050618.html).

There's more to update:

Rockets get as far as Ashdod (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050633.html), over 30 km from the Gaza strip

IAF flights over South Lebanon (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050642.html) set off sonic booms. What's this - what kind of operation does Israel want to do in Lebanon - while the world looks at Gaza? The reverse from what happened during the 2006 Lebanon war? At least, Nasrallah thinks so (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050666.html).

[Thunder]

Haaretz article (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050618.html).

There's more to update:

Rockets get as far as Ashdod (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050633.html), over 30 km from the Gaza strip

IAF flights over South Lebanon (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050642.html) set off sonic booms. What's this - what kind of operation does Israel want to do in Lebanon - while the world looks at Gaza? The reverse from what happened during the 2006 Lebanon war? At least, Nasrallah thinks so (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050666.html).

Egyptians shooting innocent Palestinian civilians fleeing the war. Nice.

So much for the United Arab Republic.

[scissorhands]

The other military solution, is a comprehensive and coordinated conventional attack by every Arab army upon Israel. They could win a conventional war

I doubt it.

[Thunder]

I doubt it.

If both parties new the time and date of the war, and neither party recieved any help or supplies from outside forces (the USA, Russia, Iran, Britain, etc)

I think the Arabs would win by attrition.

[a_unique_person]

Egyptians shooting innocent Palestinian civilians fleeing the war. Nice.

So much for the United Arab Republic.

The idea that there is a "United Arab" alignment in favour of the Palestinians against Israel is just fantasy.

[a_unique_person]

If both parties new the time and date of the war, and neither party recieved any help or supplies from outside forces (the USA, Russia, Iran, Britain, etc)

I think the Arabs would win by attrition.

Israel has nukes, it would never given in without using them. The concept is purely hypothetical anyway, there is no united arab front against Israel.

[Ziggurat]

The only military "solution"...is killing all 4 million Palestinians...or shipping them off in railcars to Jordan. But this is not going to happen nor should it.

The other military solution, is a comprehensive and coordinated conventional attack by every Arab army upon Israel. They could win a conventional war, but Israel, if faced with annihiliation, would threaten to use its entire nuclear arsenal on the Arab states. Therefore, this is not going to happen either.

Hence, there is no military solution.

So military solutions don't exist because you see the parties to the conflict capable of imposing such a solution as being unwilling to do so. And yet, you claim that a political solution exists. Even though many of those on whom it would depend have shown repeatedly that they are unwilling to accept any such solution. By your standards, it appears that political solutions do not exist either. The only difference is that you want a political solution, and you do not want a military solution. Deciding on the existence or non-existence of a thing based upon your desires for it is magical thinking. Good luck with it.

[WildCat]

IAF flights over South Lebanon (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050642.html) set off sonic booms. What's this - what kind of operation does Israel want to do in Lebanon - while the world looks at Gaza? The reverse from what happened during the 2006 Lebanon war? At least, Nasrallah thinks so (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050666.html).
Nah, likley just reminding Hezbollah they're still in the thoughts of Israel in case they were thinking of trying something stupid thinking Israel was distracted in Gaza.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hence, there is no military solution.

The trouble is, neither side is thinking of their military actions as any kind of solution.

From the CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.israel.strikes/index.html) on the recent goings on:
Israel's ambassador to the U.N., Gabriela Shalev, responded that her country was only defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks.

"The last days were so bad that we had to say, and did say, 'Enough is enough,' " Shalev said. "The only party to blame is the Hamas."

Hamas, however, vowed to retaliate, saying Israel had violated an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire intended to stem violence in the region.

"We will stand up, we will defend our own people, we will defend our land and we will not give up," senior spokesman Osama Hamdan said.

So ALL the killing and bombing is just "defense" and an endless cycle of retaliation.

[WildCat]

So ALL the killing and bombing is just "defense" and an endless cycle of retaliation.
Only one side in this fight has as its stated goal the destruction of the other side.

Can you guess which one that is?

Do you think it is wise to stop retaliating against an enemy which has your destruction as its goal?

[gumboot]

I don't know what the big deal is about the blockade. Blockade is a very common and traditional soft military response to attacks by another entity. It's the gentle way of dealing with such a problem.

Would those complaining about the blockade rather that Israel instead tried the less gentle traditional response to attacks? (Just to be clear, that traditional solution is invasion and conquest).

Or could it be, rather, that those complaining actually don't think Israel has a right to defend its territory from attack?

The simple fact remains, independent of the politics, independent of religion, independent of the history, Israel is a recognised sovereign state, and under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Israel has a fundamental right to protect itself from attacks using what ever methods it considers appropriate until such time as the United Nations Security Council reestablishes peace and security.

If you want the blockade to end, petition the United Nations Security Council to get off their collective yellow-bellied behinds and do something to stop the rocket attacks.

It is as simple as that.

[a_unique_person]

Only one side in this fight has as its stated goal the destruction of the other side.

Can you guess which one that is?

Do you think it is wise to stop retaliating against an enemy which has your destruction as its goal?

Olmert has made it clear, Eretz Israel was alive and kicking after Oslo was signed. The proposal being handed down from the 'iron wall' at present is the bantustaan, with small groups of people isolated from each other in a state that is nothing more than the local council. Olmert has also made it clear that the military capability of Hamas is of not his greatest concern, his real problem is Palestinian women having babies.

[Darth Rotor]

Egyptians shooting innocent Palestinian civilians fleeing the war. Nice.

So much for the United Arab Republic.
That vision went down the tube about when Nasser left the picture. Sadat was and Mubarak is more practically minded: trying to manage the dificulty that is running Egypt.

Is there some reason the Egyptian border is invalid in your eye, parky? Is there some reason Egyptians should not maintain their borders?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

The only military "solution"...is killing all 4 million Palestinians
Nope. That is the only one you can envision. You built a strawman to set fire to. Here, have some marshmellows.
...or shipping them off in railcars to Jordan.
That's all your inadequate imagination can arrive at. Quelle surprise.
But this is not going to happen nor should it.
Perhaps. The odds are you estimate of the two above is correct. I'd bet that way.

The other military solution, is a comprehensive and coordinated conventional attack by every Arab army upon Israel.
Another straw man, as if there is only one or the other. We also now have a false dichotomy, or a false dilemma, an excluded middle, and more, but mostly evidence of muddled thinking by parky.

Quelle surprise.

There are other options involving armed force. Hezbollah played one a few years back. It achieved some political success for Hezbollah, at the expense of some other Lebanese.
They could win a conventional war, but Israel, if faced with annihiliation, would threaten to use its entire nuclear arsenal on the Arab states. Therefore, this is not going to happen either.
There are other forms of war. Check the news. One is going on. Has been for a while.
Hence, there is no military solution.
Foolishly wrong.

Watch very carefully: military action is a subset of political action, you suggest a political solution is the only outcome (which is correct) thus you inherently conclude that a miliary solution is an available subset It can be part of a solution set that you call a political solution.

You may have meant a diplomatic solution, but that isn't what you said. Negotiations need something to back them up.

Remember, parky, the war/military option is a child of the political process. It is an option, one we hope is rarely exercised. But it is very much political in nature.

DR

[egslim]

If you want the blockade to end, petition the United Nations Security Council to get off their collective yellow-bellied behinds and do something to stop the rocket attacks.

It is as simple as that.
And what, specifically, would this "something" be?

[WildCat]

And what, specifically, would this "something" be?
Exactly. If the UN or the security council has no solutions, they should get off their high horses and let Israel take care of that which the UN will not.

One would hope that the UN was something more than a formal Monday morning quarterback, but apparently that is indeed all it is.

[Darth Rotor]

And what, specifically, would this "something" be?
I too am interested. The UN's somethings often run awry.

Gumboot: how do you intend to stop 4GW in Gaza from a burceaucracy on New York's East River?

DR

[Bad_Doggie]

The Palestinians will never surrender. The Israelis...will never surrender.

This is all clear by now.

The only solution..is a political solution. Why can't they see that?

To paraphrase Golda Mier...


When they love their children more than they hate us, then we'll all be better off...

Woof!

[egslim]

Exactly. If the UN or the security council has no solutions, they should get off their high horses and let Israel take care of that which the UN will not.
And how, specifically, do you propose Israel "takes care" of this?

ETA: Platitudes are easy, but meaningless. Only specific measures matter.

[WildCat]

And how, specifically, do you propose Israel "takes care" of this?

ETA: Platitudes are easy, but meaningless. Only specific measures matter.
Israel is taking care of it right now.

[Darth Rotor]

Israel is taking care of it right now.
No, they are not. They are continuing the war. Nothing is being "taken care of" beyond an attempt at destroying what is thought to be Hamas C2 capability, from the reports, and along with that people are dying who had the bad luck to be too close to them.

Same old stuff, different day.

DR

[WildCat]

No, they are not. They are continuing the war. Nothing is being "taken care of" beyond an attempt at destroying what is thought to be Hamas C2 capability, from the reports, and along with that people are dying who had the bad luck to be too close to them.

Same old stuff, different day.

DR
They're taking care of it as they see fit.

I don't see anyone else offering to help, certainly not the UN.

[Darth Rotor]

They're taking care of it as they see fit.

I don't see anyone else offering to help, certainly not the UN.
My prediction: in four months time, nothing substantial will have changed. The forever war will still be on a slow burn.

DR

[egslim]

My prediction: in four months time, nothing substantial will have changed. The forever war will still be on a slow burn.

DR
Exactly. Airstrikes on or an invasion of Gaza will have no long term effect.

Such operations can't be continued indefinately for obvious reasons, and soon after they end the missile attacks will resume. Assuming they even pause in the first place.

Which is probably one reason why nobody else is offering to help in an effort that will be both expensive and long term futile.

[webfusion]

Nah, likley just reminding Hezbollah they're still in the thoughts of Israel in case they were thinking of trying something stupid thinking Israel was distracted in Gaza.

Hmmmmmmm, people sure have short memories.

June 2006.
Israeli forces were dragged into Gaza combat (as a result of a tunnel-attack; exactly the same type of operation that Israel foiled on Nov 10th, 2008, which set off the chain-reaction of rocketing that has culminated in this current war).

July 2006.
While IDF was engaged in Gaza, the Hezbollah attacked Israeli northern communities with mortar and rocket fire.

I would actually wager that this same scenario will repeat itself in this round of actions.
At some point, the Hezbollah will feel that enough anger and resentment has built up across Lebanon and the Arab world, and they can justify launching attacks as "doing their part" to help the Gazans.

[BirdStrike]

At some point, the Hezbollah will feel that enough anger and resentment has built up across Lebanon and the Arab world, and they can justify launching attacks as "doing their part" to help the Gazans.


Already underway.



"They have practically declared war on Egypt via several satellite stations. The Egyptian people reject and opposes this declaration," Aboul Gheit said during a press conference in Turkey, following talks with his Turkish counterpart. "They want for there to be chaos in Egypt as there is in their country," Aboul Gheit said of Hizbullah.

jpost.com (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456503819&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)




Nasrallah is whipping the Arab world into a frenzy on Al Manar.

[moon1969]

I think that the problem is that jews and the palestinians both have very strong national identity. So nationalism is the problem. Both sides can"t see the other side as humans since we all are part of the human race and there is no such thing as the jewish race or the arab race.

[Thunder]

Many Palestinians fail to see the value in Israeli human beings. Many Israelis fail to see the value in Palestinian human beings.

We need an alien invasion to unify the human race.

Oh, Martians, please get here now!!

[egslim]

Many Palestinians fail to see the value in Israeli human beings. Many Israelis fail to see the value in Palestinian human beings.
Palestines will never accept Israel taking all the best land and leaving only scraps for them. Israelis will never accept giving up what's theirs now.

And so the struggle continues, until demographic changes force Israel to accept a one-state solution. At which point they had better have made friends with the Palestines, or they'll become an oppressed minority themselves.

Of course, that'll take some 100 years, but neither side seems to be going anywhere anyway.

[DC]

Many Palestinians fail to see the value in Israeli human beings. Many Israelis fail to see the value in Palestinian human beings.

sad but true.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, Martians, please get here now!!
Best idea you've had in a while, Parky, with the caveat that they need to show up with good beer, to show that they are good guests. :)

(Are Martian babes hot? Are they easy, like Earth Girls (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097257/)?)
DR

[The Fool]

Many Palestinians fail to see the value in Israeli human beings. Many Israelis fail to see the value in Palestinian human beings.

We need an alien invasion to unify the human race.

Oh, Martians, please get here now!!

Its not going to change in a hurry. One of Saddam Husseins more memorable statements was that God only ever made 3 serious mistakes. It was when he created Persians, Jews and Flies.

It may take a generation to change attitudes but behaviors can be changed sooner. Which is why I think its time for outside forces to impose a few things.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Exactly. If the UN or the security council has no solutions, they should get off their high horses and let Israel take care of that which the UN will not.

One would hope that the UN was something more than a formal Monday morning quarterback, but apparently that is indeed all it is.

"let Israel" :confused::confused:

Israel takes no notice of the UN anyway .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Isra el

[Tin Foil Timothy]

My prediction: in four months time, nothing substantial will have changed. The forever war will still be on a slow burn.

DR

That's exactly what will happen. One of the safest predictions one could ever make

[Sunni Man]

Only one side in this fight has as its stated goal the destruction of the other side.

Can you guess which one that is?


That would be Israel

[Texas]

And so the struggle continues, until demographic changes force Israel to accept a one-state solution. At which point they had better have made friends with the Palestines, or they'll become an oppressed minority themselves.

. There will be total annihilation of Palestinians before a one state solution is put into place.

[a_unique_person]

There will be total annihilation of Palestinians before a one state solution is put into place.

Interesting. No on here that has said Israel is wrong in this matter has ever asked for a total annihilation of the Israeli's. (I certainly never have, and never will). Yet you are quite clearly stating you would be prepared to see a total annihilation of the Palestinians.

IMHO, a 'virtual' one state solution is inevitable. Israel and Palestine as seperate entities are too small to be viable in the long run, and a 'one state' along the lines of the EU is inevitable. No need to 'annihilate' anyone.

[Texas]

Interesting. No on here that has said Israel is wrong in this matter has ever asked for a total annihilation of the Israeli's. (I certainly never have, and never will). Yet you are quite clearly stating you would be prepared to see a total annihilation of the Palestinians.

IMHO, a 'virtual' one state solution is inevitable. Israel and Palestine as seperate entities are too small to be viable in the long run, and a 'one state' along the lines of the EU is inevitable. No need to 'annihilate' anyone. Palestinians would "annihilate" Isreal by demographics alone and that is why Israel will never allow it to happen. There is a reason that IDF soldiers take their oath at Masada.

[-Axiom-]

We all know that this conflict isn't going away until one side is eliminated.
There is no Diplomatic or Political solution to this.

[Sunni Man]

Palestinians would "annihilate" Isreal by demographics alone and that is why Israel will never allow it to happen. There is a reason that IDF soldiers take their oath at Masada.Hopefully, the IDF will meet the same fate as their ancestors did at Masada!!

[Texas]

Hopefully, the IDF will meet the same fate as their ancestors did at Masada!! Except Israel has more than rocks to fight with this time. the only thing stopping Israel from finally ending this decades old war of attrition decisively is Israel itself.

[The Fool]

Palestinians would "annihilate" Isreal by demographics alone and that is why Israel will never allow it to happen. There is a reason that IDF soldiers take their oath at Masada.
so how would they annihilate Israel demographically? By breeding? If you believe Israel would never let that happen what if the existing Israeli citizens that are a "demographic problem" start breesing like rabbits? What do you think israel would do with all those "equal citizens" that are not "demographically suitable"?

[gumboot]

And what, specifically, would this "something" be?

Exactly. If the UN or the security council has no solutions, they should get off their high horses and let Israel take care of that which the UN will not.

One would hope that the UN was something more than a formal Monday morning quarterback, but apparently that is indeed all it is.

I too am interested. The UN's somethings often run awry.

Gumboot: how do you intend to stop 4GW in Gaza from a burceaucracy on New York's East River?

DR


That "something" is outlined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter:

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

My suggestion would be, in this order:

1) Sanctions imposed on Palestine
2) Blockade of Palestinian waters, Palestinian land borders, and Palestinian airspace
3) Deployment of UN peace enforcement forces inside Palestine to disarm Hamas and establish peace and security
4) Deployment of UN peace keeping forces inside Palestine to maintain peace and security
5) Deployment of assets to rebuild Palestinian infrastructure and establish a new democratic government

During all of this Israel will be expected to comply with borders and refrain from military action, or else face a similar sequence of actions from the UN.

Step 5) could be initiated at any time in the process, and step 3) should be initiated immediately in the event of international forces being attacked by Palestinian militants.

[WildCat]

The Security Council may decide
This is where fantasy strikes reality.

[gumboot]

This is where fantasy strikes reality.

You must have missed the bit where I said:

If you want the blockade to end, petition the United Nations Security Council to get off their collective yellow-bellied behinds and do something to stop the rocket attacks.

To argue that the UN won't do anything is a cop out. The UN is the collective will of its members, and its members have the collective will of their citizens.

The reason the UN won't do anything?

Because you and I aren't making them.

If we really wanted a solution to the problem we could have one. The reality is we don't. The UN cannot be blamed for its lack of action. It is the apathy of the citizens of its member states that is to blame.

[WildCat]

You must have missed the bit where I said:



To argue that the UN won't do anything is a cop out. The UN is the collective will of its members, and its members have the collective will of their citizens.

The reason the UN won't do anything?

Because you and I aren't making them.

If we really wanted a solution to the problem we could have one. The reality is we don't. The UN cannot be blamed for its lack of action. It is the apathy of the citizens of its member states that is to blame.
Russia will neve agree, doubtful China will either. And neither one gives a damn what you or I think.

eta: and as far as France goes their population may well demand a blockade of Israel instead.

[gumboot]

Russia will neve agree, doubtful China will either. And neither one gives a damn what you or I think.

eta: and as far as France goes their population may well demand a blockade of Israel instead.


Exactly my point. The world doesn't want a solution. If it did, it would have one.

[interwaff]

Cat person, you don't need to surrender to lose. There are infinite ways to lose without ever surrendering.

[Darth Rotor]

Exactly my point. The world doesn't want a solution. If it did, it would have one.
Gumboot, "the world" is too large an aggregation to characterize here. What you offer is sorta like "what the American public wants" when the American public is a fractious, discontinuous collection of interests.

What do the Powers want? Start with the five majors on the UNSC, and work your way down. If you can't identify a collective interest for those five, you may as well stop right there.

And of course, that titration supports your point.

DR

[gumboot]

Gumboot, "the world" is too large an aggregation to characterize here. What you offer is sorta like "what the American public wants" when the American public is a fractious, discontinuous collection of interests.

What do the Powers want? Start with the five majors on the UNSC, and work your way down. If you can't identify a collective interest for those five, you may as well stop right there.

And of course, that titration supports your point.

DR


Ya, generalisations always have that down side. But on some things large groups see eye to eye, and they get what they want in those cases, if they really want it. The larger the group, the less chance of seeing eye to eye.

The UN is actually a fairly small group - less than 200. It should be able to see eye to eye on all sorts of matters. It's sad how seldom it can. Unless it's on writing grand-sounding and ultimately useless declarations - the nations of the world are one voice as far as their adoration of these hollow missives.