IDF have told The Times they expect to invade Gaza this weekend.

[Alcofribas]

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

 

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

 

if international law worked here you would see israel and palestine side by side in 47 partion plan borders. it's just meaningless here. the reason for two entities instead of one palestinian authority is the hamas' takeover of gaza, not israeli occupation, it left gaza in 2005. the "international law" cannot guarantee that israel will not be attacked if it retreats to pre-67 borders, so israel is not willing to risk it. gaza pullout is a good example, quite simple really.

 

in no way can it be realistically maintained that israel left gaza in 2005. israel first turned the place into a nightmare, then moved a few thousand settlers out of it to newly expanded (illegal) settlements in the westbank with a $870 million compensation package (which btw the shitty government completely fucked up iirc). that's hardly a withdrawal in itself, it's just an upgrade to better settlements. but what is more israel continued to severely restrict access in and out of gaza and maintained completel control over borders and airspace. how is that a withdrawal exactly? then the palestinians had a free election there...and how did israel react to that shit? and just look at the aftermath of summer rains man... yeah, so it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that israel "left" gaza and the palestinians responded with rockets, endangering the safety of israelis. basically, israel got its settlers outta gaza and then pummeled the shit out of it.

 

i mean, look what's missing from your post: there's no mention of palestinian safety whatsoever. if the safety of innocent civilians is top priority and is a key component to the law being applicable in the region, you can't simply ignore the conditions israel inflicts on the palestinians and talk about rockets from gaza. and once you take a real look at what is being done to the palestinians...well, it kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

[Alcofribas]

also, eugene, i totally hate that whenever this comes up you become like watmm's israel ambassador. it always feels like people are ganging up on you so i just want to say i appreciate a rigorous back and forth and i'll try to be a little more lush with my posts on this subject.

 

[syd syside]

<3 rigorous lush

[Alcofribas]

*alcofribas lush emoticon*

[eugene]

the palestinians often like to present palestine as a whole, west bank and gaza, but on the ground it's two different entities and that's how israel sees it. west bank settlements have no effect on life in gaza (there are none in gaza in case you might not know it), though they can always be brought up as an excuse for something by hamas or other groups. hamas and other groups in gaza consider the whole of israel as occupied palestine, the concept of pre-67 borders doesn't really exists for them, you can often see them referring to israeli cities (within the green line) as occupied ashdod or the settlement of ashdod, for example. there were some overtures about long term cease fire but it was conditioned with full right of return which is unrealistic.

 

the palestinians don't just "like" to see the west bank and gaza as a whole, so does international law (cough, oslo accords). i agree they are now "two different entities" but this is the direct result of israeli occupation. the pre-67 borders "don't exist" in any meaningful way at all but not because hamas says they don't see them...i mean, just look at any UN consensus on the occupied territories; it's not hamas fucking it up, it's israel occupying the land with complete disregard for international law.

 

edit: *backflips out of israeli/palestine thread*

 

if international law worked here you would see israel and palestine side by side in 47 partion plan borders. it's just meaningless here. the reason for two entities instead of one palestinian authority is the hamas' takeover of gaza, not israeli occupation, it left gaza in 2005. the "international law" cannot guarantee that israel will not be attacked if it retreats to pre-67 borders, so israel is not willing to risk it. gaza pullout is a good example, quite simple really.

 

in no way can it be realistically maintained that israel left gaza in 2005. israel first turned the place into a nightmare, then moved a few thousand settlers out of it to newly expanded (illegal) settlements in the westbank with a $870 million compensation package (which btw the shitty government completely fucked up iirc). that's hardly a withdrawal in itself, it's just an upgrade to better settlements. but what is more israel continued to severely restrict access in and out of gaza and maintained completel control over borders and airspace. how is that a withdrawal exactly? then the palestinians had a free election there...and how did israel react to that shit? and just look at the aftermath of summer rains man... yeah, so it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that israel "left" gaza and the palestinians responded with rockets, endangering the safety of israelis. basically, israel got its settlers outta gaza and then pummeled the shit out of it.

 

i mean, look what's missing from your post: there's no mention of palestinian safety whatsoever. if the safety of innocent civilians is top priority and is a key component to the law being applicable in the region, you can't simply ignore the conditions israel inflicts on the palestinians and talk about rockets from gaza. and once you take a real look at what is being done to the palestinians...well, it kind of speaks for itself doesn't it?

 

you jumble up a lot of facts. first of all even if all of the gaza settlers moved from gaza to west bank it would still improve the situation for palestinians as west bank is not as densely populated as gaza (all of israeli settlements sit on less than 3% of west bank). but you really have no way of knowing where they were relocated, most of the still haven't relocated from temporary homes inside israel proper.

 

the israeli blockade started after the hamas came to power, not straight after disengagement as you claim, hamas made clear that it will not abide by the abligations palestinian authority made to israel. i mean the cause and effect should be pretty obvious when you compare the hamas ruled gaza and pa ruled west bank. the palestinians rockets continued before and after the disengagement.

 

if you really want i can pretty much link every "look at what's been done to palestinians" to the things the palestinians did to israelis pretty much up to the beginning of 20's century. israel is simply more sophisticated and powerful so it has means to prevent the palestinains from fully realizing the plans of the more radical groups.

[dr lopez]

I'm at the Gaza Strip / I'm at the prison state / I'm at the combination Gaza Strip and prison state

[syd syside]

[brian trageskin]

if you really want i can pretty much link every "look at what's been done to palestinians" to the things the palestinians did to israelis pretty much up to the beginning of 20's century. israel is simply more sophisticated and powerful so it has means to prevent the palestinains from fully realizing the plans of the more radical groups.

 

so you're saying that the current events in gaza are to be understood as preventive war against the islamic threat, in order to insure stability in israel, am i right?

[eugene]

no, i already said that the current israeli actions in gaza are meant to stop the rocket fire into israel cities.

[brian trageskin]

no, i already said that the current israeli actions in gaza are meant to stop the rocket fire into israel cities.

 

so israel is only defending itself against hamas strikes according to you, right?

[eugene]

i think that the current government believes that.

[brian trageskin]

i think that the current government believes that.

 

OK

[Guest chunky]

cue Eugene in 3, 2, 1...

 

cheap. moderator!

[awepittance]

if they actually believe that then i think it's safe to say whoever runs the IDF needs to be committed

[eugene]

really ? military victory isn't regarded as some otherworldly insane concept as far as i know.

[Alcofribas]

it is when the fourth largest military power in the world, backed by the united states and operating with complete legal impunity is fighting...gaza.

[Guest sirch]

[Guest sirch]

[brian trageskin]

this belgian guy says that israel isn't defending itself and that some western media, under US-israel control, are manipulating public opinion. it's in french:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WxoPxZiNrk&feature=share

 

he says that the war in iran being canceled for now, israel is going back to routine by bombing gaza. according to him, again, the real terrorists are not hamas, but the IDF.

[awepittance]

really ? military victory isn't regarded as some otherworldly insane concept as far as i know.

 

military "victory" against a population of people residing in the borders of your own country is sort of insane to put it mildly. Who in their right mind would do that unless actively already in the depths of an actual civil war? It makes no logical sense to me unless your goal is to escalate a something less than a civil war into a full on civil war inside the borders of your own nation state

[brian trageskin]

this belgian guy says that israel isn't defending itself and that some western media, under US-israel control, are manipulating public opinion. it's in french:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WxoPxZiNrk&feature=share

 

he says that the war in iran being canceled for now, israel is going back to routine by bombing gaza. according to him, again, the real terrorists are not hamas, but the IDF.

 

i forgot to add that he says that the goal of what's happening in gaza is for netanyahu to be re-elected in january

[joshuatxuk]

from what i've heard, the two-state solution is impossible. zionists want to build their zionist empire in israel, no matter what. what they're doing right now, i personnally don't get it. what's coming in the next months, or years, that's a big question mark.

 

On the flipside entities like Hamas and Hezbollah want to expel every Jew from the region. It's extreme Zionists versus extreme Islamists. The two-state solution is being derailed by both Arabs and Israelis, and their staunchly arrogant allies (Islamic governments and political parties, American and European Christians and Jewish lobbying groups). There's potential when their governments alone try to workout statehood for Palestinians and maintaining the statehood of Israel. It really is just religion that fucks up any chance at peace and compromise.

 

the problem isn't religion, the problem is what some people who claim to represent a religion do. the state of israel is illegitimate and has always been, that's the real problem. now, zionists are not trying to find a peaceful solution, they're in war. the nature of palestinian institutions seems complex. if anyone cares to bring light to this subject, it's appreciated.

 

fair enough, to claim it's religion so broadly is a stretch. I will say fundamentalism is the core of the problem on both sides - whether it be ultra-zionist settlers or Islamic zealot militants. and as eugene pointed out, zionism is a complicated and debated ideology itself, with many factions and very different scopes depending on who is defining it. Israeli politics and overall public opinion is just as varied as the makeup in Palestine, far more than their respective leaders and governments portray.

[eugene]

really ? military victory isn't regarded as some otherworldly insane concept as far as i know.

 

military "victory" against a population of people residing in the borders of your own country is sort of insane to put it mildly. Who in their right mind would do that unless actively already in the depths of an actual civil war? It makes no logical sense to me unless your goal is to escalate a something less than a civil war into a full on civil war inside the borders of your own nation state

you don't really get it, do you ? no one in israel consider gaza a part of israeli or gazans israeli. calling it a civli war will is just way off. there are no israelis in gaza and no gazans in israel. it's an enemy entity in the eyes of most people.

[eugene]

it is when the fourth largest military power in the world, backed by the united states and operating with complete legal impunity is fighting...gaza.

it's not like all of israeli airforce and tanks are currently mashing gaza, this operation is very limited, you also have to take in mind that this seemingly powerless entity is able to make life hell for like quarter of israel for the last week, asymmetrical warfare bro. i also don't think there's any legal impunity, see post-"cast lead" legal shitstorm.

[awepittance]

really ? military victory isn't regarded as some otherworldly insane concept as far as i know.

 

military "victory" against a population of people residing in the borders of your own country is sort of insane to put it mildly. Who in their right mind would do that unless actively already in the depths of an actual civil war? It makes no logical sense to me unless your goal is to escalate a something less than a civil war into a full on civil war inside the borders of your own nation state

you don't really get it, do you ? no one in israel consider gaza a part of israeli or gazans israeli. calling it a civli war will is just way off. there are no israelis in gaza and no gazans in israel. it's an enemy entity in the eyes of most people.

 

i don't get that people in Israel pretend that gaza is not contained within the borders of it's nation? maybe using the phrase civil war is over simplying but do you think i'm supposed to give a shit that no one in israel considers gaza a part of israel? So what country is gaza in exactly, did i miss the part when gaza was allowed to succeed from Israel? And what in the hell is your last sentence supposed to mean?

take away the phrase civil war and replace with 'escalating conflict between two factions inside the same country' and my point still stands unaddressed.