Israel a pariah nation

[Misty]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 195838.stm

It is a great pity Israel was ever permitted to create their own nation without the same privilege being granted to the Palestinians. If the US hadn't supported them over the years maybe they would be so militant. I don't support violence from either side, but Israel seems to be the aggressor in most conflicts.

[thatoneguy]

cnorman, it looks like you have a couple different conversations going on in this thread alone, but I'd appreciate a response to my second post when you get the time.

I agree that there is much Israel could have done differently. I think the simple answer is just that Israel has decided (whether true or false) that they won't be getting any support from the rest of the world one or another, and they're going to take no chances with their safety.

[Solon]

cnorman, it looks like you have a couple different conversations going on in this thread alone, but I'd appreciate a response to my second post when you get the time.

I agree that there is much Israel could have done differently. I think the simple answer is just that Israel has decided (whether true or false) that they won't be getting any support from the rest of the world one or another, and they're going to take no chances with their safety.

That I don't doubt, but I think they are making decisions that are shortsighted and will end up doing more harm than good for them and certainly don't take their allies into account. They will isolate themselves and that could drive them further to the right politically which would be a bad thing for everyone in the region.

[cnorman18]

My apologies. I did indeed forget to get back to you on this.

What was their alternative?

Do it in the blockade zone rather than in international waters, for one. The IDF has no authority on the open seas.

I'll admit that that would have been better, but in the end do you really think that that would have made a difference? If all this had happened within the formal blockade zone, do you think the world press and world opinion would differ? Would the outraged statements prepared beforehand have changed in any significant way? You and I both know the answer to that.

Also they could have sent a force that was specialized in crowd/riot control, and with greater numbers, and not fast roping one at a time onto the deck. It's like sending a squad of Navy Seals to deal with a protest that has the potential to become a riot rather than riot police and swat teams.

First, I don't know that the Israelis didn't send such a force; as it happens, virtually everyone in the Israeli army is trained in crowd/riot control, anyway. In the second place, I don't know that that would have made a difference either. This group fully intended to provoke a violent incident, and I think they would have made sure that happened if the Israelis had sent angels.

Allowing the ship to dock in Israel and have the goods delivered overland was a perfectly reasonable solution; that was rejectedl by the flotilla's organizers in favor of deliberate provocation, which was of course their plan from the beginning. Allowing the ship to run the blockade would have had even worse consequences, as outlined by John Podhoretz in my post.

They want the blockade lifted, Israel doesn't want to lift the blockade. I don't see either side moving an inch on this.

Therefore, the question becomes, which side is right? Do the Arabs have the right to an unobstructed channel by which to ship arms and explosives? Do the Israelis have the right to close such a channel? I think the answers are obviously no and yes.

Notice that I agree that the mission was intended to provoke a violent reaction in my first post. I don't begrudge Israel the right to protect themselves, I do question the means they use to do so.

You haven't explained what other "means" could have been used. If the flotilla had been intercepted by specialized SWAT teams (assuming it wasn't) inside the blockade zone, I don't see the outcome or the contrived outrage differing to any degree whatever.

I think bloodshed could have been avoided while still preventing the flotilla from running the blockade.

Okay. How?

Given that the INTENT here was to provoke a violent incident, how does one prevent that, short of using Captain Piccard's phaser set on "stun"?

I also think they need to consider international opinion because they are being very effectively isolated through PR right now. Israel can't afford that.

When, since 1948, had world opinion ever been on Israel's side?

Should Israel sacrifice its security and safety in order to get better PR? That is the intent of those who organized and planned this debacle.

Tell me what the Israelis should have done.

World opinion matters, but not much. Jews have long since learned that no one on Earth much cares about their security or welfare, and no country on Earth, including the US, can be depended upon for support or alliances. We're on our own, and always have been. Everybody hates the Jews? Nu, this is different how?

Not the Jews, not necessarily even Israel is every case, but the current government and more precisely their actions and policies. I do not equate Jew with Israel. Yes Israel is a predominantly Jewish state, but not all Jews are Israeli or want to be. Let's not get histrionic about everyone hating the Jews here. I don't hate Israel, but I think their current government and their policies are harmful to everyone, including themselves in the long run.

Okay again. Short of surrender and mass emigration, what would you suggest that the Israelis do to make peace that they haven't already done?

Let's be clear here: One side, and one side only, wants war here. There are some unfortunately old Israeli sayings that remain true here:

One is "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no war; if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israel."

That, and "This conflict will continue till the Arabs love their own children more than they hate Jews."

And here's another: "The Israelis use their bombs to protect their children; the Arabs use their children to protect their bombs."

I would also like to see Israel called to account for a few things like the Lavon Affair and not signing onto the IAEA or agreements not to use chemical and biological warfare.

The Lavon Affair was a screwup; show me a country that has had none. I don't think Israel has to be perfect in order to have a right to exist. The Lavon Affair was a wrongful act, and unless I'm mistaken, the Israeli government has long since admitted its guilt.

Now, that happened in 1954. Can you think of nothing for which Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, and the Al-Aqsa Brigade have done since then for which THEY should be "called to account"? I'll bet you have a very clear idea of how you'd like to see Israel "called to account." Have you even thought about the other side's responsibilities here and how THEY might be "called to account"? Any interest there at all?

If I were in charge of the Israeli government, I would veto agreeing to ANY treaty or agreement that limited its right to use any weapon in self-defense whatever. Israel is NOT a dangerous rogue nation bent on conquest, in spite of its being smeared as such by the Arabs and by the world's press.

They have had nukes for decades, and everyone knows it. If their intent was to dominate (or incinerate) the Middle East, they could have done it by now, and without breaking a sweat. In any of Israel's previous wars, it could have quite literally flattened the capitals of the nations that attacked it and totally eliminated any possibility of repeat attacks, and it wouldn't even have needed nukes to do it.

Israel is not out for conquest. What the Israelis want is to be left alone, and even to help its neighbors prosper. Why is that such an outrageously unjust desire?

Want my one-step solution to the crisis? Here it is: STOP THE TERROR CAMPAIGN. Israeli security measures would almost immediately be relaxed. Support for a Palestinian state, already strong in Israel, would become overwhelming; a peaceful, cooperative neighbor would be welcomed and assisted. From there, the path to a Palestinian state and a stable, peaceful Mideast is all downhill.

Everything else is negotiable, and can be negotiated; but till the mass murder campaign ends, NOTHING is going to change, and it SHOULDN'T. If the terror campaign does NOT stop, the Israelis have no motivation nor rational reason whatever to ease their vigilance, to loosen security, or to allow shipments into Gaza of any kind at all. If someone has consistently tried to kill you, you don't turn your back. Not ever.

That's my solution: Just stop the murders. It's a place to start, and in my opinion, the ONLY place to start. Not difficult or complicated at all; just stop murdering civilians. Why is that so hard? Why is it so easy for others, whose people AREN'T being attacked and killed, to ignore that approach? I don't see anyone here, or anywhere, putting any pressure whatever on any of these terrorist groups to clean up their act - no one, that is, but ISRAEL in the VERY BLOCKADE WE'RE DISCUSSING. I don't even see anyone considering the responsibility for THIS INCIDENT on the part of anyone but the Israelis, or discussing what the other parties might have done differently.

You know what gets MY blood pressure up? When no one asks anything of anyone but the Israelis, and when they can't even see the enormous, egregious and evil unfairness of that attitude.

[Solon]

My apologies. I did indeed forget to get back to you on this.

No worries, I know you had other conversations going as well as moderator duties and your personal life away from the forum. I just wanted to be sure I hadn't been lost in the mix.

That said, I think there's quite a bit to respond to in your last post. I'm going to take some time before I respond in full because I need to check some sources and find a few links. I hope you'll permit me until tomorrow to respond in full.

Also, please don't assume I don't expect anything of people other than Israelis. I am specifically addressing actions taken by Israel here, but I do expect quite a bit from pretty much everyone. As I am a cynic I tend to expect to be and am let down on a regular basis. That I haven't criticized Palestinian actions or US foreign policy or Egyptian foreign policy is because I didn't want to take the thread to far afield, but to properly address the issues you raise I will have to do so in my full response.
Also please do not assume that I share Misty's views on the subject, especially about the founding of Israel. I think things are far from as pat and simple as she has expressed. Israel's founding is steeped in tragedy and the imperfect actions of nations who felt sympathy for the victims of heinous crimes.

[cnorman18]

My apologies. I did indeed forget to get back to you on this.

No worries, I know you had other conversations going as well as moderator duties and your personal life away from the forum. I just wanted to be sure I hadn't been lost in the mix.

That said, I think there's quite a bit to respond to in your last post. I'm going to take some time before I respond in full because I need to check some sources and find a few links. I hope you'll permit me until tomorrow to respond in full.

No worries here either. I normally don't get involved in Israel threads, and have said about all I have to say; but I promise to respond to whatever you have to say.

If I may recommend a source: Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel. Dershowitz has been criticized as biased, having a pro-Israel agenda, etc., which of course is all true: but no one has ever refuted his facts. The book is heavily sourced and footnoted, and it's rock-solid. Give it a look. Anti-Israel books are easy to find; you can of course find and consider those on your own.

Also, please don't assume I don't expect anything of people other than Israelis. I am specifically addressing actions taken by Israel here, but I do expect quite a bit from pretty much everyone. As I am a cynic I tend to expect to be and am let down on a regular basis. That I haven't criticized Palestinian actions or US foreign policy or Egyptian foreign policy is because I didn't want to take the thread to far afield, but to properly address the issues you raise I will have to do so in my full response.

Sounds fair to me.

Also please do not assume that I share Misty's views on the subject, especially about the founding of Israel. I think things are far from as pat and simple as she has expressed. Israel's founding is steeped in tragedy and the imperfect actions of nations who felt sympathy for the victims of heinous crimes.

Never assumed that; for starters, you acknowledged that the Gaza incident was planned and intended to give Israel a PR disaster. It worked, but that doesn't, obviously, make it right.

Israel is a nation like any other; imperfect, occasionally corrupt, occasionally unjust. It has faults, like any other nation on Earth. What annoys and occasionally enrages me is that Israel is held to a higher standard than any other nation, while its enemies are held to no standard whatever.

What other nation is, and has been for decades, under more constant, unrelenting, vicious, and inarguably illegal and unethical attack?

Why is that FACT never - and I mean NEVER - taken into account when Israel is being judged? Stopping and searching pregnant women in labor on their way to the hospital is an atrocity - except that Palestinian terrorists have disguised suicide bombers as pregnant women in labor. Given that, who is responsible for those women having to be searched?

These questions are never asked. They should be, and answered, and answered honestly. I've never seen much of that, here or anywhere.

Israel cannot solve this problem. The only people with the power to make peace are those who insist on making war, through any means, fair, foul, or contemptible. When the Arabs stop teaching their children that Jews drink Arab children's blood as a sacred religious ritual, among other such vicious, deliberate hate-promoting falsehoods, there will be some hope. That process has not even begun.

In my opinion, the Israelis have one obligation, and one only: to defend their people and their land as long as they under attack. Period, full stop. Responsibility for ending the conflict MUST begin with those who are keeping it going.

[Solon]

First let me say that this is specifically in reply to your post #41 and that further points and recommendation in post #43 will have to be dealt with in another post of my own or as PMs if you would prefer. Also I would be interested in any comments or thoughts you had on the Stratfor article I linked to in my first post in the thread, though a PM on that subject might be better than starting a new sub-thread within this one. If you don't have time I understand, my response is long as it is.

Do it in the blockade zone rather than in international waters, for one. The IDF has no authority on the open seas.

I'll admit that that would have been better, but in the end do you really think that that would have made a difference? If all this had happened within the formal blockade zone, do you think the world press and world opinion would differ? Would the outraged statements prepared beforehand have changed in any significant way? You and I both know the answer to that.

Well they couldn't claim piracy on the Israeli part. There was going to be an outcry that they blocked aid from Gaza no matter what, and if violence occurred they would still have been criticized for that, but in doing this in international waters they arm their enemies. It is short sighted and not in their long term interests. Israel has become short sighted in its policies. This article in Haaretz (an admittedly liberal Israeli paper as opposed to the conservative Jerusalem Post) was published before the raid and called out the overreaction and propaganda efforts by the government. They knew it was a trap, they knew what it was designed to do and they still fell into it.

Also they could have sent a force that was specialized in crowd/riot control, and with greater numbers, and not fast roping one at a time onto the deck. It's like sending a squad of Navy Seals to deal with a protest that has the potential to become a riot rather than riot police and swat teams.

First, I don't know that the Israelis didn't send such a force; as it happens, virtually everyone in the Israeli army is trained in crowd/riot control, anyway. In the second place, I don't know that that would have made a difference either. This group fully intended to provoke a violent incident, and I think they would have made sure that happened if the Israelis had sent angels.

This story on NPR mentions that the group sent was not specialized in crowd control as the military correspondant for the Jerusalem Post notes in the exchange below:

FRENKEL: The violence here caught everyone off guard. For several weeks, the Israeli military has been on alert for the flotilla, whose organizers said they intended to deliver relief supplies to the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, who have been under an Israeli blockade for the past three years. The six vessels were loaded with some 10,000 tons of aid, including cement and other building materials.
Israeli defense experts have questioned why Shayetet 13, the Israeli equivalent of Navy Seals, was sent to confront the Marmara.
Yaakov Katz, a military correspondent for the Jerusalem Post paper, explained that this unit is more commonly used for covert operations behind enemy lines.
Mr. YAAKOV KATZ (Military Correspondent, Jerusalem Post): Their expertise is in sabotaging enemy ports and being able to board enemy ships or come by sea to enemy territory. Their expertise is not in crowd control.
FRENKEL: Israeli journalist Ron Banishy(ph) was on board one of the Israeli naval ships. In a written account, he describes how the commandos were ill prepared to meet the violent resistance they faced. He said that Israeli soldiers were initially armed with paintball guns, but later returned with firearms. At least two guns were wrested away from Israeli soldiers according to the IDF.
Amir Buhbut, a military analyst for the Hebrew-language daily Maariv, said that the Israeli military could have taken a number of steps to prevent the violence.
Mr. AMIR BUHBUT (Military Analyst, Maariv): (Through Translator) They could have used the security force that is more accustomed to dealing with civilian protests. They could have used other deterrent methods. There were all sorts of things they could have done to prevent this violence and damage to both sides. Israel clearly didn't want this level of provocation.

Israel did not take actions that minimized the threat of violence, they sent a covert operations group in a manner (fast-roping one at a time into a hostile crowd) almost designed to guarantee that the designs of the part of the group bent on violence (I don't for a minute believe the Knesset member or Peace Prize winners or German Bundestag MPs on board were looking to provoke violence) would succeed.

Therefore, the question becomes, which side is right? Do the Arabs have the right to an unobstructed channel by which to ship arms and explosives? Do the Israelis have the right to close such a channel? I think the answers are obviously no and yes.

This article gives an example of what items are permitted into Gaza and which ones are banned. This is only a partial list, but it looks like something out of the movie Brazil; cartons for transporting chicks are ok, but not chickens or hatcheries. Animal feed and hay are ok, but not animals? And I'm not sure what offensive power Israel thinks Hamas or the non-Hamas Palestinians in Gaza could derive from ginger or coriander, unless these are secretly like kryptonite to Israeli Jews. Here is a more extensive, but still incomplete list. On it you'll note that “size A4 paper� is banned. That is more commonly known in the US as 8.5x11 paper or simply notebook paper. They're allow ropes and nets for fishing, but they aren't permitted far enough from the coast to effectively fish.

They aren't permitted building materials to repair or rebuild homes because Hamas might use it for military purposes. Guess what, Hamas is using the food they let in for that too. Anything can be turned to military purposes, but the need for building materials was created by Israel itself. Yes they had a right to stop rocket attacks into Israel that killed civilians, but the destruction wrought was far beyond the necessary and amounted to collective punishment which is illegal under treaties which Israel has signed and ratified. The blockade and restrictions on amount of aid are also considered collective punishment as is the policy of house demolition.

The IDF has even said that one of the reasons they use house demolition is as a deterrent “by harming the relatives of those who carry out, or are suspected of involvement in carrying out, attacks�. This would seem to be a direct admission of using collective punishment as the children and spouses and parents and siblings of these people have not committed crimes, nor indeed necessarily the people suspected of involvement. If they cannot strike directly at their enemies they go after their families, defenseless relatives. That is the tactic of their enemies isn't it? That is the act of a terrorist. No less than waterboarding by the US is an act of torture and a war crime, whatever government lawyers may claim.

As it turns out, house demolition is an ineffective deterrent, it just seemed to make people angrier and more likely to attack Israel. Go figure. The irony is actually that Hamas has used this hated tactic itself to clear space for a religious center and to punish supporters of rival factions in Gaza. They turned the tactic of their enemy against themselves. There are no clean hands in this mess. Not Israeli, not Palestinian, not American, not Egyptian, not Iranian. No one is without sin here. But I'm not a “don't cast the first stone type.� I prefer the axiom that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

What the Gazans need is a channel to import materials to rebuild houses and no restriction on food and medical supplies. Put the construction materials strictly under the control of international aid agencies, but let civilians have houses. Inspect everything and don't let weapons in. As it is they can and do get them through tunnels, tunnels that didn't exist before the siege on Gaza. Tunnels that needn't have existed if there hadn't been such ludicrous restrictions on what could be imported into Gaza. That life necessities were lacking is why there was enough will and labor to build the tunnels.

You haven't explained what other "means" could have been used. If the flotilla had been intercepted by specialized SWAT teams (assuming it wasn't) inside the blockade zone, I don't see the outcome or the contrived outrage differing to any degree whatever.

We simply disagree on what a proper number of riot police can do. I think the ship could have been taken with no loss of life.

I think bloodshed could have been avoided while still preventing the flotilla from running the blockade.

Okay. How?

Given that the INTENT here was to provoke a violent incident, how does one prevent that, short of using Captain Piccard's phaser set on "stun"?

How about stun guns? We do have those. We even have them in arrays meant for crowd control.

When, since 1948, had world opinion ever been on Israel's side?

Like it or not Israel exists under the aegis of a US veto in the UN and immense amount of foreign aid, specifically military and some bribe aid to Egypt and Jordan to “play nice.� They don't need the world, but the do need the US, and frankly they need Turkey too. They also need not to ruin efforts at building a coalition to get stronger sanctions against Iran, which is in their best interests.

Okay again. Short of surrender and mass emigration, what would you suggest that the Israelis do to make peace that they haven't already done?

]Let's be clear here: One side, and one side only, wants war here. There are some unfortunately old Israeli sayings that remain true here:

One is "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be no war; if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israel."

That, and "This conflict will continue till the Arabs love their own children more than they hate Jews."

And here's another: "The Israelis use their bombs to protect their children; the Arabs use their children to protect their bombs."

Frankly these sayings are a bit racist as there are plenty of Arabs who are Israeli, even ones in the Knesset. Sayings like these alienate any Arabs who might try to convince their friends and families that Israel isn't so bad and give ammo to actual anti-semites who wish to convince others that Israel hates them no matter what they say or do. They are counterproductive to peace.

Gaza is isolated, the leadership which has experience with the outside world and wasn't raised under siege is aging or dying. The number of Gazans who were education abroad is shrinking. The median age there is under 18. There is a whole generation of Palestinians there who will have spent their youth under siege by Israel for things they didn't do. They will be adults soon and are future leaders of their people/ Ones who will have a legitimate hate for Israel and will be far less willing to consider peace than the generation before them, which is to say, at all. They are an enemy that Israel is as much the father of as Hamas. Israel is creating more long term problems for itself, the same way the US has with foreign policy for years. (We did set the stage for the Iranian revolution and then back Saddam Hussien after all.) The world is full of short-sighted policies. Israel's position is far more precarious than that of the US, and they can less afford to make the types of mistakes we have. Fair or not, that is reality.

The Lavon Affair was a screwup; show me a country that has had none. I don't think Israel has to be perfect in order to have a right to exist. The Lavon Affair was a wrongful act, and unless I'm mistaken, the Israeli government has long since admitted its guilt.

They only admitted it happened at all a few years ago, and then only to honor the surviving agents in the plot, calling them “heroes.� Pardon me if I think that's a little less than an apology. It's more that this along with other activities and policies point to a pattern of behavior that makes them more of a liability than an asset to the US. I pretty sure Israel ios onl;y sorry it didn't work and that they got caught rather than the fact they were using false flag operations against allies to provoke them into a war. I don't want to get too far into this in this thread as you don't seem keen to drag this on much further here.

Now, that happened in 1954. Can you think of nothing for which Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, and the Al-Aqsa Brigade have done since then for which THEY should be "called to account"? I'll bet you have a very clear idea of how you'd like to see Israel "called to account." Have you even thought about the other side's responsibilities here and how THEY might be "called to account"? Any interest there at all?

Oh yes actually. There is a certain IDF soldier they need to release. Hamas needs to be called to account for targeting civilian targets, buses, homes, etc. Attacking from civilian areas, using false flag operation to attack while dressed as doctors or medics, etc. They need to be called to account for what they are doing to their own people in Gaza under this siege. As I said before there are no clean hands here, but because one side has done wrong does not mean another should take that as a go ahead to do so. I would like to see everyone called to account for their wrongs, all of them. We can discuss Hamas' many failings in a thread about them if you'd like to start it. We would have a lot of material to prosecute them with.

If I were in charge of the Israeli government, I would veto agreeing to ANY treaty or agreement that limited its right to use any weapon in self-defense whatever. Israel is NOT a dangerous rogue nation bent on conquest, in spite of its being smeared as such by the Arabs and by the world's press.

Even treaties banning the use of indiscriminate weapons and tactics that cannot be calibrated to avoid civilian casualties? Clusterbombs in populated areas, mining roads and fields, poison gas against urban targets surrounded by innocents, collective punishment? Pardon me if I consider those actions monstrous. Don't worry I do think Hamas' attacks are monstrous, but:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Israel is not out for conquest. What the Israelis want is to be left alone, and even to help its neighbors prosper. Why is that such an outrageously unjust desire?

Want my one-step solution to the crisis? Here it is: STOP THE TERROR CAMPAIGN. Israeli security measures would almost immediately be relaxed. Support for a Palestinian state, already strong in Israel, would become overwhelming; a peaceful, cooperative neighbor would be welcomed and assisted. From there, the path to a Palestinian state and a stable, peaceful Mideast is all downhill.

Of cource the people hurt most don't have the power to change policy. What about the million or more people who have never launched a rocket at Israel? What about the 700,000 children and teenagers who have never done more than throw a rock at a bulldozer coming to demolish the building they live in for the crimes of other men? What of them? Why are they punished for Hamas' crimes? Or are they acceptable collateral damage for Israeli security? What is the line, in your mind, that Israel shouldn't cross? How much collateral suffering should they cause in seeking security?
Security is their watchword after all. Haaretz wrote an article about it recently. Israel seems to be willing to do a lot of questionable things in the name of security at the cost of civil liberty. Haaretz wrote another article in that same series about their concerns about where the policies of Israel are heading. I think it's hyperbolic in its conclusions, but the facts they present are still worrying.

Everything else is negotiable, and can be negotiated; but till the mass murder campaign ends, NOTHING is going to change, and it SHOULDN'T. If the terror campaign does NOT stop, the Israelis have no motivation nor rational reason whatever to ease their vigilance, to loosen security, or to allow shipments into Gaza of any kind at all. If someone has consistently tried to kill you, you don't turn your back. Not ever.

That's my solution: Just stop the murders. It's a place to start, and in my opinion, the ONLY place to start. Not difficult or complicated at all; just stop murdering civilians. Why is that so hard? Why is it so easy for others, whose people AREN'T being attacked and killed, to ignore that approach? I don't see anyone here, or anywhere, putting any pressure whatever on any of these terrorist groups to clean up their act - no one, that is, but ISRAEL in the VERY BLOCKADE WE'RE DISCUSSING. I don't even see anyone considering the responsibility for THIS INCIDENT on the part of anyone but the Israelis, or discussing what the other parties might have done differently.

It seems that Hamas isn't firing rockets into Israel and they are cracking down on the individuals who do so. So when are the security measures going to be lifted? I think the current government feels besieged beyond what is actually happening, especially with the international reaction to the flotilla raid. I think they are locked on to the Gaza siege beyond reason. They think it will do things that it cannot. It is hurting them by consolidating Hamas' power in Gaza, slowly eroding what support they have in other nations, and bringing more and more humanitarian organizations together against them. I'm not even certain the blockade isn't a violation of international law, at least in the way it's being implemented.

You know what gets MY blood pressure up? When no one asks anything of anyone but the Israelis, and when they can't even see the enormous, egregious and evil unfairness of that attitude.

I ask a lot of things of a lot of people. I'm usually let down, but I wasn't discussing their failings in this thread, just a specific Israeli one. It may seem like I'm just picking on Israel, but that's because they are the topic of this thread. Start one on US foreign policy and I'll unleash the fury there as well. Like I said above we could start a thread to talk about the wrongs of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and have plenty to call them to account for.
I wish we could speak in person because in an hour we could cover everything we've talked about here and I could better, or at least more quickly, articulate a more complete picture of my views on world politics. I understand your frustration; I really do. I can see where it comes from and when I look to this region I tend to end up feeling helpless and angry myself, though perhaps for only some of the reasons that make you upset and a lot of others that don't.

[cnorman18]

First let me say that this is specifically in reply to your post #41 and that further points and recommendation in post #43 will have to be dealt with in another post of my own or as PMs if you would prefer. Also I would be interested in any comments or thoughts you had on the Stratfor article I linked to in my first post in the thread, though a PM on that subject might be better than starting a new sub-thread within this one. If you don't have time I understand, my response is long as it is.

In the interest of brevity:

I would concede that you've made a number of good points here. Israel, as I have said often, is not perfect; but they are struggling to survive when surrounded by vicious and intractable enemies. If you want to justify Arab terrorist atrocities by saying they are provoked and made necessary by Israeli actions, how about applying that same standard to the Israelis? You seem to be saying that egregious wrongs don't justify other wrongs - but that only seems to apply to Israel.

Yes, the term "Arab" was inaccurate and offensive. I have very often here spoken out about anti -Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, and I regret that I didn't amend those sayings to read "Arab terrorists." That said, so amended, those statements are absolutely factual. Further, the fact that surveys show that support for suicide bombing and terrorism against Israel is overwhelming among Arabs all over the world rather indicates that, though still an unfair generalization, the sayings are largely true even as stated.

"The Arabs," in this context, has no more racist significance than "the Germans" did in World War II. There were Germans who opposed Hitler too, and everyone knew that, but everyone knew what it meant, including Germans opposed to Hitler. "The Arabs" is likewise just shorthand for "the enemy," and in the context of this conflict, it seems perfectly acceptable to me, and I suspect clear to everyone.

More to the point: I asked you to state specifically what Israel can DO to solve these problems. From what I can see here, your only concrete suggestion is for Israel to relax its security restrictions. Since that has consistently and invariably resulted in more, and more vicious and murderous, attacks, that makes no sense whatever.

Israel sanctioned and ARMED the PLO on the assurance that those weapons would be used to combat terrorism; they were used to murder Israeli civilians, and Arafat got caught trying to smuggle in more guns and bombs in by ship. The Israelis evacuated and dismantled every "settlement" in Gaza, by force when necessary, and the Gazans took the opportunity - not to establish a successful independent autonomous government and feed their owh people, but to ratchet up attacks on Israeli civilians.

When, exactly, have the ARABS, in the person of their spokesmen and leaders, ever kept a single ageement? When have they ever showed the least willingness to stop murdering Jews?

Yes, there are Arabs (and Iranians) who do not hate Israel and want peace and peaceful coexistence with it. Those who speak publicly about that tend to live outside the ME; they tend to get murdered otherwise. Many private citizens in Israel, both Arabs and Jews, are active in promoting activities and programs that teach and model tolerance and understanding, including Arab/Jewish camps for children where many personal friendships are forged, among the children and adults alike.

These are all good things, and should continue and expand; but they don't stop the suicide bomber who's attempting to murder dozens of innocents TODAY. I have seen nothing from you in terms of suggestions about how to deal with THAT. Do you have any, or not?

How SHOULD Israel defend itself? How is it to remain in existence and its people unmurdered when its enemies will only be satisfied when they are all dead or in exile? How is Israel to make peace with people who are still obsessed, after 60+ years, that it ought not exist and should be eliminated and erased from the map?

Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted in a Supreme Court decision that detached and objective reasoning cannot be expected in the presence of an upraised knife. Israel, under unimaginable pressure from all sides, is going to make mistakes. That will probably continue as long as the vicious and murderous attacks against its citizens continue.

Do you have any concrete, practical suggestions on how to stop the murders and finally get started on a real "peace process"?

I said you made a lot of good points, but not all of them were. Two corrections of fact:

First, the Gaza-Egypt tunnels have been around for at least twenty-five years. They have been used to smuggle arms since at least 2001.

Second, the article you linked said nothing about Hamas stopping the rocket attacks; it seem clear that their concern is that they be in charge of them. It's hard to see that the attacks have stopped, since you can read here, here, and here about rocket attacks from Gaza taking place this week. In the past, a cessation of rocket attacks that lasted as little as 24 hours has resulting in shipments of supplies and the relaxing of security; but that hasn't happened here.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 45:

Yes, the term "Arab" was inaccurate and offensive...
..."The Arabs," in this context, has no more racist significance than "the Germans" did in World War II....

I'm sure we're all guilty of not putting in proper modifiers such as "some", "a few", "most", etc. I see nothing in cnorman18's referenced remarks to suggest a "blanket" term applied to all Arabs, but note his willingness to concede the possible or real misunderstanding.

When, exactly, have the ARABS, in the person of their spokesmen and leaders, ever kept a single ageement? When have they ever showed the least willingness to stop murdering Jews?

That is indeed the whole point, and history indicates it will continue to be the case.

How SHOULD Israel defend itself?...

I propose by any legitimate means at its disposal.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once noted in a Supreme Court decision that detached and objective reasoning cannot be expected in the presence of an upraised knife. Israel, under unimaginable pressure from all sides, is going to make mistakes. That will probably continue as long as the vicious and murderous attacks against its citizens continue.

Even in the face of provocative acts under the guise of "humanitarian aid". Israel's enemies find newer and more subtle means to seek its destruction with each news cycle.

Do you have any concrete, practical suggestions on how to stop the murders and finally get started on a real "peace process"?

Concrete and practical I can't comment on, but "STOP LOBBING OR TOTING BOMBS INTO ISRAEL" needs to be said, apparently loudly and often.

Israel has repeatedly shown it is willing to cease their attacks, cede land for peace, and work towards stability in the region, if only folks'd quit trying to annihilate them. I propose that time has long passed.

[Solon]

In the interest of brevity:

I would concede that you've made a number of good points here. Israel, as I have said often, is not perfect; but they are struggling to survive when surrounded by vicious and intractable enemies. If you want to justify Arab terrorist atrocities by saying they are provoked and made necessary by Israeli actions, how about applying that same standard to the Israelis? You seem to be saying that egregious wrongs don't justify other wrongs - but that only seems to apply to Israel.

No not at all. It applies to everyone, but my first post was mainly concerned with a specific action I thought was short-sighted and cost Israel more than it gained them. The flotilla raid. I think I've said as much I I'd like about what I think could have been done differently. As I have stated before, if you want to start a thread on other nations actions and policies I will hold forth on their failings as well there.

Yes, the term "Arab" was inaccurate and offensive. I have very often here spoken out about anti -Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, and I regret that I didn't amend those sayings to read "Arab terrorists." That said, so amended, those statements are absolutely factual. Further, the fact that surveys show that support for suicide bombing and terrorism against Israel is overwhelming among Arabs all over the world rather indicates that, though still an unfair generalization, the sayings are largely true even as stated.

"The Arabs," in this context, has no more racist significance than "the Germans" did in World War II. There were Germans who opposed Hitler too, and everyone knew that, but everyone knew what it meant, including Germans opposed to Hitler. "The Arabs" is likewise just shorthand for "the enemy," and in the context of this conflict, it seems perfectly acceptable to me, and I suspect clear to everyone.

Except German is not just an ethnic identity, but a national one, the proper term for a citizen of Germany, even if they are an immigrant citizen from Japan is German. Not so with Arab. It is mild, but the prejudice is there in those sayings. They are too glib and don't help. It certainly won't help Israel to alienate Israeli Arabs with such sayings.

Also, what percentage of the people in Gaza are "the enemy"? How many of the 680,000 children 14 and under living there are the enemy? Are they "the Arabs" you speak of? What about the people who are Hamas police officers because there is no one else hiring in Gaza since they aren't allowed raw materials to have any kind of industry. No cloth for clothing, no animals or seeds to maintain farms, but a need to work for a living.

More to the point: I asked you to state specifically what Israel can DO to solve these problems. From what I can see here, your only concrete suggestion is for Israel to relax its security restrictions. Since that has consistently and invariably resulted in more, and more vicious and murderous, attacks, that makes no sense whatever.

You want a concrete solution with immediate results? There are none. This isn't a puzzle we're putting together, there may be no "solution". It is entirely possible that the only end will be fire and death. I tend to think that is likelier than other outcomes actually.

One major problem is waiting for all attacks to stop. If I were a lone discontent, or even a minority in a group that otherwise is willing to agree to an official cease-fire I could ruin it all through one rocket sent over the border. So how will Israel ever know if Hamas really isn't sending the rockets? They can't. So long as one malcontent exis5ts in Gaza he or she can hold up any forward motion.

Absolute security is impossible in the presence of others. The only way Israel can ever be certain that no attacks will come from an enemy in Gaza that looks just like the civilians there is to do something monstrous, depopulate Gaza entirely. Barring that, there is no guarantee. And doing so will lead to the end of Israel.

I don't know what will definitively lead to peace, no one does. Calling to stop the attacks is well and good, but Israel can't make that decision. Nothing it has tried so far has worked. I think the situation will only get worse for the demographic reasons I mentioned before. Demographics is the key I think. Gaza needs educated leaders who have seen the world and interacted with other cultures, and who remember something of Israel other than the IDF bulldozing their home or disallowing paper and pens for even schoolchildren. It will take generations maybe, but contact with outside will tend to make Gazans more liberal. Why else do totalitarian and authoritarian regimes control movement and isolate their people so much? It creates an echo chamber where theirs is the only message heard clearly. Gaza is largely a Hamas echo chamber.

Work with international aid agencies to control building materials for homes and hospitals and schools. Get faster responses for Gazans who need medical evacuations. Put out an actual list of banned materials for the blockade instead of deciding on a case by case basis. Something which is required by law anyway I might add.

The next thing is to get opportunities for some kind of self-sustaining industruy in Gaza that provides employment opportunities other than Hamas, who is the largest employer in an area with massive unemployment. Let cloth and sewing machines in so that some kind of textile industry can get going. Allow animals and seeds so that farms can expand and hire more workers. Find as many opportunities for Gazan children to get out and see Israel as possible. Get them to schools in other countries, allow them opportunities to become educated and exposed to other cultures when they are younger. Stop using house destruction as a tactic. It doesn't work as a deterrent and it only compounds tragedy.
Work with Egypt, they might be willing to have Gazan children attend Egyptian schools and universities, and they are no friend to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Do all this and give it one generation. You may not like that it doesn't stop attacks today, but that might not be possible. I want to think long term. There is too much resentment and too many entrenched positions in the current generation on both sides. Big social changes require a generational turnover, they need fresh young open minds to be changed before age sets them in their ways.

I don't think these things are too likely. I think, before I am dead I will see nothing but more suffering all around. Israelis killed by rockets and bombs, Gazans without homes and hope. I really wish my cynicism didn't serve me so well.

How SHOULD Israel defend itself? How is it to remain in existence and its people unmurdered when its enemies will only be satisfied when they are all dead or in exile? How is Israel to make peace with people who are still obsessed, after 60+ years, that it ought not exist and should be eliminated and erased from the map?

I said before that this situation is right or fair. Would you or I be any different? You who wish to bar no weapon or tactic from Israel to preserve itself? Would that include terrorist tactics if it were conquered by an outside force and the Israelis penned up in Gaza and the West Bank, unable to bring to bear an army and forced into irregular warfare? When has any conquered people not resorted to such tactics when they have no others left? Why should they pay for another countries war crimes? Explain to them why they were not permitted to form a nation there fro the ashes of the Ottoman Empire like the Turks, but instead fall under the power of the British.

I don't agree that Israel should be wiped out. I don't agree with using terror tactics, targeting civilians or any of that, but I wonder if I would feel differently if I grew up in Gaza. I don't know that my character is sufficient that I could be pushed to such things in rage, despair or desperation. I don't ask that you condone their acts or their policies, but can you understand the source of their anger and hate given the narrative of their history? I can only be thankful that the remaining Cherokee and Apache in America are not bitter enough to start a terror campaign. The Japanese should be glad the Ainu don't inflict such things on them.

I would love to see one state solution. An Israel that is not explicitly a Jewish State, I find asking me to support that asking me to support an inherently discriminatory idea of a nation. I support Israel as a nation, no modifiers, which covers the area of "Greater Israel", if I may use that politically charged term here, and has a parliament consisting of representatives of Israelis and Palestinians. There is no need to share Jerusalem in my best of worlds for there aren't two nations to split it between. (I'd also like to see a bicameral legislature, but that is a personal preference that doesn't really effect peace)

More likely is a two state solution, but the current generation cannot even reach this place in my mind. A new generation could, let's try building that new generation and hope they get farther than we can. People will die while we wait for them to grow up. The real test is not loosing hope for peace or being blinded by (justifiable) anger at the crimes of those who will not live to see a better world. It's easy for me to say this, sitting safely in my house far from trouble, and to ask so much that I don't know I could give, if asked, myself. But this isn't a fair situation. Israel needs to be Jackie Robinson, better, faster and able to take the insults and injuries of the people who hate them. It isn't fair to ask, but what if the only path to peace isn't a fair one?

I said you made a lot of good points, but not all of them were. Two corrections of fact:

First, the Gaza-Egypt tunnels have been around for at least twenty-five years. They have been used to smuggle arms since at least 2001.

I was wrong about that, you're correct. They made the existing tunnel network more extensive and cut through an underground barrier Egypt had place along a part of the border, but the tunnels had been operating for years. Consider that claim withdrawn with an apology for the bad information.

Second, the article you linked said nothing about Hamas stopping the rocket attacks; it seem clear that their concern is that they be in charge of them. It's hard to see that the attacks have stopped, since you can read here, here, and here about rocket attacks from Gaza taking place this week. In the past, a cessation of rocket attacks that lasted as little as 24 hours has resulting in shipments of supplies and the relaxing of security; but that hasn't happened here.

Didn't I link this article? The one that reads:

Hamas is forcing other Gaza Palestinian factions to guarantee they do not launch rockets or mortar bombs at Israel, a source told the French AFP news agency on Monday.

and

The Hamas forces arrested several militants linked to a radical Islamist group in the northern Strip, the report said, an area in which the ruling movement has recently bolstered its security presence to prevent rocket fire.

That's not them trying to stop rocket attacks?

Though honestly I'm surprised that there wasn't more violence coming out of Gaza this week. Perhaps Hamas has decided PR is deadlier than rockets.

[Solon]

How SHOULD Israel defend itself?...

I propose by any legitimate means at its disposal.

The question is what the definition of legitimate here. I'd encourage you to weigh in though.

Even in the face of provocative acts under the guise of "humanitarian aid". Israel's enemies find newer and more subtle means to seek its destruction with each news cycle.

And so knowing that their every decision is under a microscope now, fair or not Israel must weigh their options with an eye towards PR. That is the new field of battle against Hamas.

Concrete and practical I can't comment on, but "STOP LOBBING OR TOTING BOMBS INTO ISRAEL" needs to be said, apparently loudly and often.

Good, now who is doing that. How many out of 1.5 million in Gaza are the ones who do so. How many more who aren't angry enough yet will become so while under a siege they had no hand in causing as they were, say, 14 when it started, but now are approaching 18 and the only available job are from guys who seem to be willing to stand up to the guys who bulldozed your childhood home because someone they thought might have something to do with a rocket lived on the floor above you? If the solution to rockets today guarantees people willing to fire rockets tomorrow that isn't much of a solution.