It's time for the first Israel/Gaza post

13

Replies

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,043 Senior Member
    Israel refuses to lift the blockade even if Hamas agrees to a cease fire. BTW that blockade works both ways. They cannot export either. They cannot fish beyond 3 miles. This is only sustainable if the goal is the elimination of the Palestinian people.

    Hamas is not "the Palestinian people", about 3/4 of whom do not live in the Gaza strip.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Israel refuses to lift the blockade even if Hamas agrees to a cease fire. BTW that blockade works both ways. They cannot export either. They cannot fish beyond 3 miles. This is only sustainable if the goal is the elimination of the Palestinian people.

    Why in the wide, wide world of sports would you expect or think Israel should lift the blockade if Hamas agrees to a temporary ceasefire? You've already stated that this won't change sh-t with Hamas. Now you're just making it easier for them to get more weapons for when they start the next round.

    When Hamas turns over it's missiles and closes the tunnels, Israel will lift the blockade. Like I said, it will take a weekend.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Yeah so? ....

    Yeah so...who the ef is this guy?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Like I said, Israel is losing the PR war.

    I wonder what would happen if these missiles Hamas is firing were raining down on DC or New York or Atlanta?

    Gaza=golf course. That's what would happen.

    I'm not letting Israel off the hook entirely, since it looks like they were looking for a reason to go on the offensive. And the problem from Israel's perspective is that in a dense urban environment the bulk of the casualties will always be women and children, no matter how carefully the IDF prosecutes the war. That's the nature of war.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Yeah so...who the ef is this guy?

    He is a guy that has a pretty well informed opinion on the situation. Who do you think he is? What was in that Wiki page that was supposed to make me go, "Well Eff him then?"

    Look I get that Netanyahu sees this as an opportunity to eliminate or weaken Hamas. Heck I even support that goal. But long term he has to give the Palestinian people a reason to reject Hamas. The policy of the Likud party towards the occupied territories has to change or you are never going to have peace. Israel is not innocent. There isn't a single American that would live with the injustices that the Palestinian people endure on a daily basis. Imagine if the illegal immigrants coming over our border were to build settlements in Colorado and call them Mexican territory.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • bakerloobakerloo Banned Posts: 980 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Like I said, Israel is losing the PR war.

    I wonder what would happen if these missiles Hamas is firing were raining down on DC or New York or Atlanta?

    Gaza=golf course. That's what would happen.

    I'm not letting Israel off the hook entirely, since it looks like they were looking for a reason to go on the offensive. And the problem from Israel's perspective is that in a dense urban environment the bulk of the casualties will always be women and children, no matter how carefully the IDF prosecutes the war. That's the nature of war.

    The PR war is the only war they can afford to lose.
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory."
    Aldo Leopold
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    That Beinart piece was paywalled. Click on the link in here and you can read it.

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/31/the-myths-of-gaza/
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    Hamas is not the elected government of Gaza, they came into power through the violent overthrow of the elected government of Gaza.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_%282007%29

    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/31/the-myths-of-gaza/

    Myth Number Two: Hamas seized power. Nope, it won an election, fueled in part by widespread opposition to Fatah’s corruption and incompetence. Now think about that: the Arab world held a free and fair election … in Gaza. The US reacted by fomenting a Fatah coup against it – that led to Hamas’ seizing power in response. That’s how the US reacts to Arab democracy if the Israelis don’t like it.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    I don't know how legitimate that coup was. But this ignores the fact that Hamas only won a percentage of the seats, yet refused to form a government with Fatah. It also ignores the fact that they murdered and tortured their opposition.

    This btw was in the piece I linked. But there I think the author ignores these same facts. Though he does admit the torture happened.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I couldn't get past the paywall, but from what little I saw in the Dish, Beinart blasts myths that he says are out there...but they're not. He completely makes them up.

    1) Nobody would argue that Gaza is "free." From the get-go, Israel had control of the borders. Nobody would deny that. You can get semantical if you want about the definition of occupied.

    2) **** does the Saudi initiative have to do with the price of tea in China? Beinart argues that the only reason that Sharon ordered the Gaza pull out was to prevent discussion of the Saudi initiative. The Saudi initiative was dead on arrival as it called for Israel giving up East Jerusalem and allowing for the right of return. No way in hell that Sharon would have ever gone through with that and no way Bush would have made him. Admittely, Sharon didn't remove the settlers in Gaza out of some ode to peace, but because they were a pain in his **** to defend.

    3) That Jewish leaders claim that Hamas seized power is another made up myth. Hamas won an election in Palestine because its huge majority in Gaza actually gave it a majority for all of Palestine. Fatah actually carried the vote in the West Bank and on that basis refused to give up power.

    Two made up myths and some nonsense.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    Crap there was no paywall when I read this yesterday. Andrew Sullivan's report is a summary. There was much more there.

    The point of dredging up this history is not to suggest that Israel deserves all the blame for its long and bitter conflict with Hamas. It does not. Hamas bears the blame for every rocket it fires, and those rockets have not only left Israelis scarred and disillusioned. They have also badly undermined the Palestinian cause.

    The point is to show—contrary to the establishment American Jewish narrative—that Israel has repeatedly played into Hamas’ hands by not strengthening those Palestinians willing to pursue statehood through nonviolence and mutual recognition. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when Sharon refused to seriously entertain the Arab and Geneva peace plans. Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it refused to support a Palestinian unity government that could have given Abbas the democratic legitimacy that would have strengthened his ability to cut a two state deal. And Israel played into Hamas’ hands when it responded to the group’s takeover of Gaza with a blockade that—although it has some legitimate security features—has destroyed Gaza’s economy, breeding the hatred and despair on which Hamas thrives.

    In the ten years since Jewish settlers left, Israeli policy toward Gaza has been as militarily resourceful as it has been politically blind. Tragically, that remains the case during this war. Yet tragically, the American Jewish establishment keeps cheering Israel on.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    sherb wrote: »
    Like I said, Israel is losing the PR war.

    Israel always loses the PR war. It's the nature of this thing.

    But......

    I'd suggest that Israel is losing the PR war at lot less worse than it has in the past. I think

    1) it's in part the tunnels into Israel that are clearly there for terrorists to target civilians. The bus bombings back in the 80s and 90s didn't help either.
    2) Ukraine - the west has other things to worry about.
    3) AQ, ISIL etc. etc. - the Arab nations have way more other things to worry, are in the midst of upheaval themselves, or like in Egypt, really have no love anymore for Hamas/Muslim Bros types.
    4) The three Israeli teens
    5) SSDD. The real world doesn't care anymore.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    Israel Left Gaza

    It’s true that in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel’s more than 8,000 settlers from Gaza. (At America’s urging, he also dismantled four small settlements in the West Bank). But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. As the Israeli human rights group Gisha has detailed, even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (In conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland).

    “Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government — has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.

    To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state. By 2004, when Sharon announced the Gaza withdrawal, the Road Map for Peace that he had signed with Mahmoud Abbas was going nowhere. Into the void came two international proposals for a two state solution. The first was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, in which every member of the Arab League offered to recognize Israel if it returned to the 1967 lines and found a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. The second was the 2003 Geneva Initiative, in which former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators publicly agreed upon the details of a two state plan. As the political scientists Jonathan Rynhold and Dov Waxman have detailed, Sharon feared the United States would get behind one or both plans, and pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state near the 1967 lines. “Only an Israeli initiative,” Sharon argued, “will keep us from being dragged into dangerous initiatives like the Geneva and Saudi initiatives.”

    Sharon saw several advantages to withdrawing settlers from Gaza. First, it would save money, since in Gaza Israel was deploying a disproportionately high number of soldiers to protect a relatively small number of settlers. Second, by (supposedly) ridding Israel of its responsibility for millions of Palestinians, the withdrawal would leave Israel and the West Bank with a larger Jewish majority. Third, the withdrawal would prevent the administration of George W. Bush from embracing the Saudi or Geneva plans, and pushing hard—as Bill Clinton had done—for a Palestinian state. Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, put it bluntly: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

    It’s no surprise, therefore, that the Gaza withdrawal did not meet minimal Palestinian demands. Not even the most moderate Palestinian leader would have accepted a long-term arrangement in which Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza while maintaining control of the Strip’s borders and deepening Israeli control of the West Bank. (Even in the 2005, the year Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the overall settler population rose, in part because some Gazan settlers relocated to the West Bank).

    In fact, Sharon’s advisors did not expect withdrawing Gaza’s settlers to satisfy the Palestinians. Nor did not they expect it to end Palestinian terrorism. Ehud Olmert, a key figure in the disengagement plan (and someone who himself later embraced Palestinian statehood), acknowledged that “terror will continue” after the removal of Gaza’s settlers. The key word is “continue.” Contrary to the American Jewish narrative, militants in Gaza didn’t start launching rockets at Israel after the settlers left. They began a half-decade earlier, at the start of the second intifada. The Gaza disengagement did not stop this rocket fire. But it did not cause it either.
    ..........
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    He is a guy that has a pretty well informed opinion on the situation. Who do you think he is? What was in that Wiki page that was supposed to make me go, "Well Eff him then?"

    Look I get that Netanyahu sees this as an opportunity to eliminate or weaken Hamas. Heck I even support that goal. But long term he has to give the Palestinian people a reason to reject Hamas. The policy of the Likud party towards the occupied territories has to change or you are never going to have peace. Israel is not innocent. There isn't a single American that would live with the injustices that the Palestinian people endure on a daily basis. Imagine if the illegal immigrants coming over our border were to build settlements in Colorado and call them Mexican territory.

    There was nothing in that Wiki to suggest why he should be considered an expert any more than anybody else. He's a guy with an opinion who suddenly started to actually even think politically in 2006 based on what he thought were injustices in Gitmo. I think we can all agree that a former secretary of state has a better view on the issue.

    The Gazans have to reject Hamas because they'll never get anywhere with them. At some point, somebody there is going to say, this isn't working and it's not going to work. Let's check out what these guys, King, Gandhi and Mandela did.

    As for what Americans would or would not do, there isn't a single American that wouldn't turn Gaza into a parking lot if they ever did something here like they do there.
    Israel isn't an innocent. But you don't have to be innocent to be morally justified. The Palestinians in general and the Gazans in particular brought into power an entity considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the EU, Jordan, Egypt and Japan. Now, I understand that Hamas won because Fatah was seen as corrupt, but that's not Israel's problem.

    Gaza has reaped what it has sown.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    There was nothing in that Wiki to suggest why he should be considered an expert any more than anybody else. He's a guy with an opinion who suddenly started to actually even think politically in 2006 based on what he thought were injustices in Gitmo. I think we can all agree that a former secretary of state has a better view on the issue.

    You mean the former secretary of state that was the first American politician to use the words two state solution? How does any of this make his point invalid?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    they left a lot of their businesses–there was a really very valuable horticultural business that was set up by the Israelis who had lived in Gaza. And the idea was that this would be literally turned over–money was provided, there would be a fund that would train Palestinians in Gaza to do this work. And basically the leadership said ‘we don’t want anything left from Israel’ [and] destroyed it all. That mentality to me is hard to deal with.”
    But one person who does not endorse that narrative is the prime mover behind the greenhouse deal, Australian-Jewish businessman James Wolfensohn, who served as the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In his memoir, Wolfensohn notes that “some damage was done to the greenhouses [as the result of post-disengagement looting] but they came through essentially intact” and were subsequently guarded by Palestinian Authority police. What really doomed the greenhouse initiative, Wolfensohn argues, were Israeli restrictions on Gazan exports. “In early December [2005], he writes, “the much-awaited first harvest of quality cash crops—strawberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and flowers—began. These crops were intended for export via Israel for Europe. But their success relied upon the Karni crossing [between Gaza and Israel], which, beginning in mid-January 2006, was closed more than not. The Palestine Economic Development Corporation, which was managing the greenhouses taken over from the settlers, said that it was experiencing losses in excess of $120,000 per day…It was excruciating. This lost harvest was the most recognizable sign of Gaza’s declining fortunes and the biggest personal disappointment during my mandate.”
    ...........
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    You mean the former secretary of state that was the first American politician to use the words two state solution? How does any of this make his point invalid?

    If you're thinking Hillary was the first American politician to say two-state solution, I think you're wrong.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    First one I ever heard. Even Bill hedged on that one.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Wolfensohn is entitled to his opinion, but even the very left leaning Haaretz has said that the Gazans caused considerable destruction to the greenhouses.

    But even if he was right about the greenhouse conditions, you're quote leaves out the fact, that as Wolfensohn has acknowledged elsewhere:

    KERRY O’BRIEN: … you were breaking down Israeli barriers to the flow of trade in and out of Gaza on the West Bank. You had built a rapport with both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. But at a critical point when you ask asked for backup from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice you felt that you were essentially cut of at the knees. Now what happened?

    JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Well I think several things happened. The first thing was that shortly after the withdrawal Arik Sharon, shortly after the withdrawal, got sick for a first time, and then as you know became permanently incapacitated. So that took away the leader on the Israeli side. The second thing was that I don’t think the Americans ever were totally committed or convinced that the opening of Gaza would be a peaceful activity, and unfortunately they were assisted in coming to a contrary view by the fact that you had an outbreak of violence in Gaza towards Israel.


    Here's another interesting quote by Wolfensohn:

    JAMES WOLFENSOHN: Very significantly, but it is possible to contemplate having economic advances, as there are very significantly today in the West Bank. In the West Bank there is very close co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian companies. What is being left out is of course Gaza, for a variety of reasons, the most obvious of which is the political and the threat that Gaza poses, not just to the Israelis, but also to a united Palestine.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    Still does not dispute the fact that it was the Israelis that prevented that produce from getting to market. What dangers were there in allowing the Gazans to ship strawberries?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Looks like Hamas just upped the ante.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/01/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html

    Boy that was a hell of a ceasefire. two hours? Three?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,398 Senior Member
    It gave people enough time to take a dump safely.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    Not worthy of discussion.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    " If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?"

    Here, have a blanket.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    " If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?"

    The answer is to let the enemy go fishing.

    This was a strong point:
    But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you’ll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave – well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy

    But then he veered off into coo-coo land.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    " If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?"

    Here, have a blanket.

    Is it bad that I laughed at a smallpox joke?
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,334 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Is it bad that I laughed at a smallpox joke?

    Yes. Go lick someone with Ebola to repent.
  • EdBEdB Senior Member Posts: 2,941 Senior Member
    http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Israeli-newspaper-sparks-outrage-with-Genocide-is-Permissible-blog-369774

    A blog post about the Israel-Gaza conflict that was published by an Israeli online newspaper on Friday provoked an avalanche of criticism and outrage on social media, prompting the news outlet to dismiss its author.

    The Times of Israel announced on Friday that it ended its association with Yochanan Gordon, a writer who authored a post entitled "When Genocide Is Permissible."

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.