Israel is bombing Gaza... AGAIN!

[teddyearp]

Indeed, the Palestinians were peaceful before the Zionist settler colonial project.

Really? What about the attacks on the Jews of Safed in 1834 and 1838?

 

[teddyearp]

No one is driving the Gazans out of their homes by the point of a gun.

They already were.

Yes they were, in 2005, the Israelis living in Gaza were driven out at the point of a gun. Nobody else is being forced out of Gaza now, quit your fucking truth twisting.

 

[Shusha]

Who cast the first stone this time?

Looks like some stupid sent a rocket from Gaza into Israeli territory!

Whilst I do not condone the launching of rockets from Gaza, I also cannot condone the 'excessive' responses by Israel...

Yes, I know the argument, Israel has a right to protect itself, with which I agree, but sending F16's into Gaza and bombing is as futile as the rockets fired from Gaza!

Futile in that, yes, 'The Empire Strikes Back' but, all it achieves is a pretense for the next missiles to be fired into Israel...

It depends on what you mean by "futile". Gaza's rocket fire into Israel will never compel Israel to bring down the blockade (actually having the opposite effect), nor hand over Israel to Hamas for a one state solution (even in discussions of one or two state solutions, no one wants Gaza). So what's the point? Why do they keep doing it?

Because its working remarkably well in terms of keeping up international sympathy (which comes with $) and for the support of some Muslim groups and countries (which also comes with $) and keeps the fires of victimization going.

Israel's response to rockets will never stop the rockets. Nor will the blockade. But it is enough to keep it in check, low-level, infrequent and minimally damaging. Its enough to keep Israelis (mostly) content with the fact that a response is being made. In my opinion, it is a very minimal response and not at all excessive. But that is worthy of further discussion with people who don't exaggerate the situation to demonize Israel and use inappropriate language like genocide or slaughter etc.

Israel's options are to re-take Gaza (and I can't in any way see that as a good idea, can you?) or to stop responding (and again, I don't see that as a good option).

So, what is the solution here? How do we end Gaza's constant belligerent attacks on Israel and encourage them to live in peace? Please don't say -- just end the blockade and all will be unicorns and cheesecake. That seems entirely unrealistic to me.

Absolutely! The futility in the constant rocket fire from Gaza into Israel that will achieve nothing!

In excessive, I feel that launching multiple F16's to bomb Gaza is excessive, but that's just my opinion. I agree that there should be a response to the rockets but, as history has shown, even bombing the crap out of Gaza also doesn't stop the rockets!

Israel retaking Gaza is NOT an option, in my opinion... It would simply increase hostilities.

Lifting the blockade? Well, I have suggested that this would be an option in the past, I still believe it would help... HOWEVER, there is a condition to this... That is that Gaza be 'monitored' so that imports of weapons cannot happen! It should also be a 'monitoring' that has teeth! To bite back at Hamas should rocket launches continue after the blockade...

I really do not think it is a good idea for Israel to be involved in the 'monitoring' simply that it would demonise Israel should there be 'issues' that need sorting out!

Simply lifting the blockade IS unrealistic without putting conditions in place to stop the rockets.

There is one other condition...

Hamas to hold open elections PRIOR to lifting the blockade.... Hamas would also need to amend their 'charter' and declare their acceptance of Israel...

A tall order? Totally! Would Hamas ever do that? Would Israel every consider an option like that?

And, before the 'haters' start simply hating, how about some sensible, non belligerent alternatives to the above?

I can get behind this. A few points of clarification, though:

1. I absolutely agree there needs to be an acceptance FIRST of the government of Gaza that it will accept Jewish sovereignty over part of the territory and live peacefully next to her. (But that is the sticking point, isn't it? We aren't there yet.)

2. What, specifically, would you mean by "lifting the blockade"?

3. What consequence would you suggest that has "bite"? I mean, isn't that what Israel is already doing? Do you suggest more bite or less bite. Clear up the apparent contradiction for me, please.

4. Who should monitor the borders, if not Israel? On the one hand, don't you think that since Israel (and her innocent citizens) will bear the consequences of any attack that it is an enormous leap of trust and faith for her to turn over her self defense to another party. That is something nations aren't normally asked to do. We both know that international forces are ineffective. Who else would have the incentive to monitor and control smuggling in and out of Gaza?

I'm agreeing with you, in principle, but am looking for ideas as to how to make it actually work.

 

[Humanity]

Who cast the first stone this time?

Looks like some stupid sent a rocket from Gaza into Israeli territory!

Whilst I do not condone the launching of rockets from Gaza, I also cannot condone the 'excessive' responses by Israel...

Yes, I know the argument, Israel has a right to protect itself, with which I agree, but sending F16's into Gaza and bombing is as futile as the rockets fired from Gaza!

Futile in that, yes, 'The Empire Strikes Back' but, all it achieves is a pretense for the next missiles to be fired into Israel...

It depends on what you mean by "futile". Gaza's rocket fire into Israel will never compel Israel to bring down the blockade (actually having the opposite effect), nor hand over Israel to Hamas for a one state solution (even in discussions of one or two state solutions, no one wants Gaza). So what's the point? Why do they keep doing it?

Because its working remarkably well in terms of keeping up international sympathy (which comes with $) and for the support of some Muslim groups and countries (which also comes with $) and keeps the fires of victimization going.

Israel's response to rockets will never stop the rockets. Nor will the blockade. But it is enough to keep it in check, low-level, infrequent and minimally damaging. Its enough to keep Israelis (mostly) content with the fact that a response is being made. In my opinion, it is a very minimal response and not at all excessive. But that is worthy of further discussion with people who don't exaggerate the situation to demonize Israel and use inappropriate language like genocide or slaughter etc.

Israel's options are to re-take Gaza (and I can't in any way see that as a good idea, can you?) or to stop responding (and again, I don't see that as a good option).

So, what is the solution here? How do we end Gaza's constant belligerent attacks on Israel and encourage them to live in peace? Please don't say -- just end the blockade and all will be unicorns and cheesecake. That seems entirely unrealistic to me.

Absolutely! The futility in the constant rocket fire from Gaza into Israel that will achieve nothing!

In excessive, I feel that launching multiple F16's to bomb Gaza is excessive, but that's just my opinion. I agree that there should be a response to the rockets but, as history has shown, even bombing the crap out of Gaza also doesn't stop the rockets!

Israel retaking Gaza is NOT an option, in my opinion... It would simply increase hostilities.

Lifting the blockade? Well, I have suggested that this would be an option in the past, I still believe it would help... HOWEVER, there is a condition to this... That is that Gaza be 'monitored' so that imports of weapons cannot happen! It should also be a 'monitoring' that has teeth! To bite back at Hamas should rocket launches continue after the blockade...

I really do not think it is a good idea for Israel to be involved in the 'monitoring' simply that it would demonise Israel should there be 'issues' that need sorting out!

Simply lifting the blockade IS unrealistic without putting conditions in place to stop the rockets.

There is one other condition...

Hamas to hold open elections PRIOR to lifting the blockade.... Hamas would also need to amend their 'charter' and declare their acceptance of Israel...

A tall order? Totally! Would Hamas ever do that? Would Israel every consider an option like that?

And, before the 'haters' start simply hating, how about some sensible, non belligerent alternatives to the above?

.

Israel needs to stop pussy footin around with an enemy, and fight a war to win it. That has been our problem since the hippie generation (i.e. the left), became so powerful in this nation during the 60's. We began light stepping with our enemies, and it got so bad that our enemies made it into our country to defeat us from within. Israel doesn't need to follow our advice, because it would be the wrong advice.

That's an issue don't you think? Israel hardly "pussyfoot around" when it comes to bombing Gaza...

Your solution is what?

"We began light stepping with our enemies"? Who's we? USA?

US used to have lots of 'imaginary' enemies, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Russia, Russia... The US decision to make 'political' decisions for countries where their ONLY interest was oil, through bombing the shit out of them, created NEW enemies!

. Spin it, spin it.... That's all you got is spin...

And you have what exactly?

Did you even bother to attempt to respond to any of the questions?

Did you give a sensible solution other than just killing Palestinians?

Do you disagree that the US didn't destabilise the Middle East?

Try and address the 'question' at hand...

 

[toomuchtime_]

Israeli warplanes have once again carried out several airstrikes on multiple locations throughout the Gaza Strip.

PressTV-Israeli warplanes bombard Gaza Strip

Every time the Palestinians rebuild they do this shit. The good guys? Still so sure? MSM America?

It is clear the gangs who rule Gaza love to be bombed or else they wouldn't keep firing rockets at Israel. If they ever change their minds and decide they don't want to be bombed anymore, they can just stop firing rockets at Israel.

 

[Humanity]

1. I absolutely agree there needs to be an acceptance FIRST of the government of Gaza that it will accept Jewish sovereignty over part of the territory and live peacefully next to her. (But that is the sticking point, isn't it? We aren't there yet.)

For me, you got it slightly the wrong way round... If there are elections to be held then these need to be held FIRST... If you 'force' Hamas to accept Israel THEN hold elections, you can potentially end up with a Hamas 2.0 who has NOT accepted Israel... See the problem in doing it your way?

2. What, specifically, would you mean by "lifting the blockade"?

Lift every and all blockades imposed by Israel on Gaza! Of course, with the conditions already in place!

3. What consequence would you suggest that has "bite"? I mean, isn't that what Israel is already doing? Do you suggest more bite or less bite. Clear up the apparent contradiction for me, please.

Deal with what Israel is doing... Yes, that IS, kind of, what Israel does... But can you see that it is probably not the most helpful thing to the state of Israel internationally? Please, don't give the isolationist response... Israel doesn't need anyone! Tell me, do you think that the anti-Israel rhetoric isn't enough already without Israel being involved in further attacks against Gaza, no matter WHAT Gaza does?

The 'bite' has to be implanted, on a multi national basis... Afterall, US, UK and EU have managed to topple or at least destabilise nations 50 times bigger than Gaza and 1000 times bigger than Hamas!

I'm not in favor of using military force against Hamas... However, I am also NOT against a multi national force taking control of Gaza, implementing a 'temporary' government and forcing true and honest elections...

4. Who should monitor the borders, if not Israel? On the one hand, don't you think that since Israel (and her innocent citizens) will bear the consequences of any attack that it is an enormous leap of trust and faith for her to turn over her self defense to another party. That is something nations aren't normally asked to do. We both know that international forces are ineffective. Who else would have the incentive to monitor and control smuggling in and out of Gaza?

As mentioned above, Israel, in this current climate, and, likely in future climates, should she decide to intervene, militarily, in monitoring Gaza, WILL face exponential criticism and additional threats from other countries.

I'm agreeing with you, in principle, but am looking for ideas as to how to make it actually work.

I don't think that we have EVER disagreed, in principle, unfortunately, I too am looking for ideas to make it actually work! If I were able to come up with ideas that WOULD work then, I hope, I would be in a different 'job' to the one I am in now!

 

[Shusha]

For me, you got it slightly the wrong way round... If there are elections to be held then these need to be held FIRST... If you 'force' Hamas to accept Israel THEN hold elections, you can potentially end up with a Hamas 2.0 who has NOT accepted Israel... See the problem in doing it your way?

Sure. My bad. I just forgot to articulate it precisely, because we agree.

Lift every and all blockades imposed by Israel on Gaza! Of course, with the conditions already in place!

But what do you mean by that? There is a big difference between removing the blockade in terms of creating what amounts to an international border and removing the blockade in terms of creating no border at all. Which did you mean?

Will there be checkpoints, like normal borders between states? Or an open border with people free to move between the two territories? Will Gazans be able to continue to access Israel's medical system? Will the fence stay up? Will there be a land buffer zone? Will Gaza be able to build ports and and airport? Will Gaza be permitted to be militarized? Will everything be lifted at once, or will it be a gradual process, contingent on absolute peace? What are you envisioning here?

Tell me, do you think that the anti-Israel rhetoric isn't enough already without Israel being involved in further attacks against Gaza, no matter WHAT Gaza does?

But isn't that like saying that Israel has no right to respond to belligerent attacks on its sovereignty? Shouldn't be actually be getting behind Israel's absolute RIGHT to defend herself?

The 'bite' has to be implanted, on a multi national basis... Afterall, US, UK and EU have managed to topple or at least destabilise nations 50 times bigger than Gaza and 1000 times bigger than Hamas!

So you are saying that the next time Gaza sends a rocket to Israel that the US, the UK and the EU should join in the response? What response would that be? What is the bite? Is it economic sanctions? Military strikes? What?

Israel is already providing the bite. You seem to be saying that the bite is fine, it just shouldn't be coming from Israel. Why not? She's the one who's sovereignty is being attacked! If you agree that her sovereignty shouldn't be attacked, you just have to get behind her, not take her out of the equation. Why remove her from the equation if we agree she has a right to "bite back"?

I'm not in favor of using military force against Hamas... However, I am also NOT against a multi national force taking control of Gaza, implementing a 'temporary' government and forcing true and honest elections...

So the "bite" is a multinational force occupying Gaza?

As mentioned above, Israel, in this current climate, and, likely in future climates, should she decide to intervene, militarily, in monitoring Gaza, WILL face exponential criticism and additional threats from other countries.

Of course she will. But the solution is not AGREE with the unfair and double standards. Its to COMBAT them. We (the international community) should be supporting Israel in her right to defend herself using sanctions and military force when necessary. In principle.

 

[Humanity]

For me, you got it slightly the wrong way round... If there are elections to be held then these need to be held FIRST... If you 'force' Hamas to accept Israel THEN hold elections, you can potentially end up with a Hamas 2.0 who has NOT accepted Israel... See the problem in doing it your way?

Sure. My bad. I just forgot to articulate it precisely, because we agree.

Lift every and all blockades imposed by Israel on Gaza! Of course, with the conditions already in place!

But what do you mean by that? There is a big difference between removing the blockade in terms of creating what amounts to an international border and removing the blockade in terms of creating no border at all. Which did you mean?

Will there be checkpoints, like normal borders between states? Or an open border with people free to move between the two territories? Will Gazans be able to continue to access Israel's medical system? Will the fence stay up? Will there be a land buffer zone? Will Gaza be able to build ports and and airport? Will Gaza be permitted to be militarized? Will everything be lifted at once, or will it be a gradual process, contingent on absolute peace? What are you envisioning here?

Tell me, do you think that the anti-Israel rhetoric isn't enough already without Israel being involved in further attacks against Gaza, no matter WHAT Gaza does?

But isn't that like saying that Israel has no right to respond to belligerent attacks on its sovereignty? Shouldn't be actually be getting behind Israel's absolute RIGHT to defend herself?

The 'bite' has to be implanted, on a multi national basis... Afterall, US, UK and EU have managed to topple or at least destabilise nations 50 times bigger than Gaza and 1000 times bigger than Hamas!

So you are saying that the next time Gaza sends a rocket to Israel that the US, the UK and the EU should join in the response? What response would that be? What is the bite? Is it economic sanctions? Military strikes? What?

Israel is already providing the bite. You seem to be saying that the bite is fine, it just shouldn't be coming from Israel. Why not? She's the one who's sovereignty is being attacked! If you agree that her sovereignty shouldn't be attacked, you just have to get behind her, not take her out of the equation. Why remove her from the equation if we agree she has a right to "bite back"?

I'm not in favor of using military force against Hamas... However, I am also NOT against a multi national force taking control of Gaza, implementing a 'temporary' government and forcing true and honest elections...

So the "bite" is a multinational force occupying Gaza?

As mentioned above, Israel, in this current climate, and, likely in future climates, should she decide to intervene, militarily, in monitoring Gaza, WILL face exponential criticism and additional threats from other countries.

Of course she will. But the solution is not AGREE with the unfair and double standards. Its to COMBAT them. We (the international community) should be supporting Israel in her right to defend herself using sanctions and military force when necessary. In principle.

Unfortunately Shusha, I don't have all of the answers, like the rest of us, we can put forward ideas but how they are implemented, of the 'detail' is to be sorted out is another thing!

However, I will try and give a response to the ones that I think should happen...

I would lift the blockade and create an international border, as there are between most other countries in the world, with border control points, as there are pretty much everywhere in the world. So, freedom of movement, yes, why not, with the correct documentation, the correct 'visas' etc... But certainly not open borders, like likes of which we see in Europe for example.

Gaza is a mess, as we all know, and I believe that 'we' should help build a better infrastructure, hospitals for example, so that there is no need for the use of Israeli hospitals.

The fence... Well, provided that the 'fence' is within Israeli territory, that is the decision of Israel not Gaza... The same as a buffer zone... If Israel wants a buffer zone, that's their right to decide provided it is within Israel.

Yes, let Gaza have ports and airports, why not...

Will Gaza be allowed to militarize? That's a really tricky one... Of course they would WANT to militarize... I would perhaps err on the side of caution and say that NO militarization be allowed to take place for X number of years, provided that there is peace between Israel and Gaza...

I don't see much point in lifting the blockade all at once... Lift it in phases starting with humanitarian aid, opening seaports and allowing freedom of movement of goods into Gaza. The rest can be done over a specified period of time based upon certain conditions, namely peace and elections!

So, the "bite"... I think it would be nice to see Israel getting some 'love' from the international communities, don't you?

Yes, of course, Israel has EVERY right to defend itself from attack... That I have NO problem with...

Using an multinational 'force' within Gaza and allowing THEM to provide the "bite" should/when things go wrong is, IMHO, a way for Israel to start getting some 'love'...

I do feel that this continual 'battle' of rockets followed by air strikes is futile on both sides. Let someone else take the responsibility for "biting" those who carry out these attacks...

Of course, this is all a way down the line as there needs to be a lot of changes within Gaza before any of this could take place... The free elections, the recognition of Israel etc, the agreement of a multinational force within Gaza...

I think that we both pretty much agree Shusha, in principle at least, the devil is in the detail, I want the best for Israel and Gaza, the best outcome for both... It will take a lot of change, a lot of negotiation from statesmen with greater knowledge than you and I put together.

 

[montelatici]

Indeed, the Palestinians were peaceful before the Zionist settler colonial project.

Really? What about the attacks on the Jews of Safed in 1834 and 1838?

European Jews began migrating before 1834. The non-Jews were concerned about the intentions of the Jews. Their concern was justified, as history played out.

"First wave of disciples of Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna (known as the Vilna Gaon, 1720-1797) arrives in the Holy Land, led by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Sheklov (d. 1827). The new immigrants journey to Tiberias; seeing the strong Hassidic community there, they relocate to Safed, where they foster a warm relationship with the Sephardi community. (Ya’ari, Avraham. “Talmidei Hagra Vehishtarshutam Ba’aretz”. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 11, pp. 1310) 1808

Hebron

Second wave of the Vilna Gaon’s students comes to Eretz Yisrael, led by his chief disciple, Rabbi Saadya Ben Rabbi Natan Neta of Vilna. 1809

Third wave of the Vilna Gaon’s disciples immigrates to Safed, among them Rabbi Israel Sheklov (d. 1839). A community of 150 Jews of Lithuanian origin (known as Perushim) greets them. (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 9, pp. 1059. Ya’ari, Avraham. “Talmidei Hagra Vehishtarshutam Ba’aretz”.) 1809

Agricultural land is bought by students of the Vilna Gaon in the spirit of the “Natural Redemption”. Flourishing agriculture is seen as a sign of Redemption, and enables the Jews to fulfill the Biblical commandments pertaining to agricultural work in the Land of Israel. "

Before the First Zionist Aliyot (1799-1882)

 

[Shusha]

Unfortunately Shusha, I don't have all of the answers ...

Nor do I, but its still enjoyable for me to discuss.

Let me see if I can sum up your Gaza Solution:

Israel unilaterally lifts the blockade incrementally which includes humanitarian aide (which its already doing, so...), lifting of restriction on types of goods, lifting restrictions on trade goods, lifts restrictions on fishing zones, permits building of ports and airport.

Gaza holds elections and new government agrees in principle to peace with Israel.

International peace-keeping force monitors from within Gaza.

Border treated as international border with checkpoints as would be normal for most countries.

Israel moves the buffer zone to their side of the fence.

Gaza remains de-militarized for X years of peaceful diplomacy.

Is that close enough?

Here's my counter:

Gaza holds elections and new government agrees in principle to recognition of and peace with Israel. Gaza demonstrates its peaceful intent by conducting no belligerent actions against Israel for a period of one year.

Contingent upon above, at the end of year one, Israel lifts trade blockade and enters into a trade agreement for goods flowing into and out of Gaza. Israel removes all restrictions on quantities of dual-use materials. Israel (with the help of the international community) also agrees to build needed infrastructure: water treatment plant, sewage treatment, power station, hospital improvements, etc.

Contingent upon continued peace, at the end of year two, Israel lifts sea blockade on fishing boats.

Contingent upon continued peace, at the end of year three, Israel lifts blockade on building sea- and air-ports.

Gaza agrees to de-militarization for a period of X years. Israel agrees to provide external security protection for Gaza.

Border is to be considered as an international border, with both nations having full agency with respect to entry into their nation.

Israel agrees to support Gaza in becoming a fully independent and sovereign State.

Israel invests in the tourism industry in Gaza.

 

[teddyearp]

Indeed, the Palestinians were peaceful before the Zionist settler colonial project.

Really? What about the attacks on the Jews of Safed in 1834 and 1838?

European Jews began migrating before 1834. <snip>

Before the First Zionist Aliyot (1799-1882)

Whenever the "Zionist settler project" is mentioned here, it is inferring the modern Zionist movement which started in the very late 1800's. Even the title of your link infers this fact, as the date range ends in 1882 which was before the modern zionist movement started.

Got to love how you folks move the goal posts every time it suits you. Like the small portions of UN documents posted while leaving out others and/or discredit some UN actions while standing fully behind others.

 

[beagle9]

For me, you got it slightly the wrong way round... If there are elections to be held then these need to be held FIRST... If you 'force' Hamas to accept Israel THEN hold elections, you can potentially end up with a Hamas 2.0 who has NOT accepted Israel... See the problem in doing it your way?

Sure. My bad. I just forgot to articulate it precisely, because we agree.

Lift every and all blockades imposed by Israel on Gaza! Of course, with the conditions already in place!

But what do you mean by that? There is a big difference between removing the blockade in terms of creating what amounts to an international border and removing the blockade in terms of creating no border at all. Which did you mean?

Will there be checkpoints, like normal borders between states? Or an open border with people free to move between the two territories? Will Gazans be able to continue to access Israel's medical system? Will the fence stay up? Will there be a land buffer zone? Will Gaza be able to build ports and and airport? Will Gaza be permitted to be militarized? Will everything be lifted at once, or will it be a gradual process, contingent on absolute peace? What are you envisioning here?

Tell me, do you think that the anti-Israel rhetoric isn't enough already without Israel being involved in further attacks against Gaza, no matter WHAT Gaza does?

But isn't that like saying that Israel has no right to respond to belligerent attacks on its sovereignty? Shouldn't be actually be getting behind Israel's absolute RIGHT to defend herself?

The 'bite' has to be implanted, on a multi national basis... Afterall, US, UK and EU have managed to topple or at least destabilise nations 50 times bigger than Gaza and 1000 times bigger than Hamas!

So you are saying that the next time Gaza sends a rocket to Israel that the US, the UK and the EU should join in the response? What response would that be? What is the bite? Is it economic sanctions? Military strikes? What?

Israel is already providing the bite. You seem to be saying that the bite is fine, it just shouldn't be coming from Israel. Why not? She's the one who's sovereignty is being attacked! If you agree that her sovereignty shouldn't be attacked, you just have to get behind her, not take her out of the equation. Why remove her from the equation if we agree she has a right to "bite back"?

I'm not in favor of using military force against Hamas... However, I am also NOT against a multi national force taking control of Gaza, implementing a 'temporary' government and forcing true and honest elections...

So the "bite" is a multinational force occupying Gaza?

As mentioned above, Israel, in this current climate, and, likely in future climates, should she decide to intervene, militarily, in monitoring Gaza, WILL face exponential criticism and additional threats from other countries.

Of course she will. But the solution is not AGREE with the unfair and double standards. Its to COMBAT them. We (the international community) should be supporting Israel in her right to defend herself using sanctions and military force when necessary. In principle.

Unfortunately Shusha, I don't have all of the answers, like the rest of us, we can put forward ideas but how they are implemented, of the 'detail' is to be sorted out is another thing!

However, I will try and give a response to the ones that I think should happen...

I would lift the blockade and create an international border, as there are between most other countries in the world, with border control points, as there are pretty much everywhere in the world. So, freedom of movement, yes, why not, with the correct documentation, the correct 'visas' etc... But certainly not open borders, like likes of which we see in Europe for example.

Gaza is a mess, as we all know, and I believe that 'we' should help build a better infrastructure, hospitals for example, so that there is no need for the use of Israeli hospitals.

The fence... Well, provided that the 'fence' is within Israeli territory, that is the decision of Israel not Gaza... The same as a buffer zone... If Israel wants a buffer zone, that's their right to decide provided it is within Israel.

Yes, let Gaza have ports and airports, why not...

Will Gaza be allowed to militarize? That's a really tricky one... Of course they would WANT to militarize... I would perhaps err on the side of caution and say that NO militarization be allowed to take place for X number of years, provided that there is peace between Israel and Gaza...

I don't see much point in lifting the blockade all at once... Lift it in phases starting with humanitarian aid, opening seaports and allowing freedom of movement of goods into Gaza. The rest can be done over a specified period of time based upon certain conditions, namely peace and elections!

So, the "bite"... I think it would be nice to see Israel getting some 'love' from the international communities, don't you?

Yes, of course, Israel has EVERY right to defend itself from attack... That I have NO problem with...

Using an multinational 'force' within Gaza and allowing THEM to provide the "bite" should/when things go wrong is, IMHO, a way for Israel to start getting some 'love'...

I do feel that this continual 'battle' of rockets followed by air strikes is futile on both sides. Let someone else take the responsibility for "biting" those who carry out these attacks...

Of course, this is all a way down the line as there needs to be a lot of changes within Gaza before any of this could take place... The free elections, the recognition of Israel etc, the agreement of a multinational force within Gaza...

I think that we both pretty much agree Shusha, in principle at least, the devil is in the detail, I want the best for Israel and Gaza, the best outcome for both... It will take a lot of change, a lot of negotiation from statesmen with greater knowledge than you and I put together.

. Anyone trying to bite for Israel will be accused of hating on the poor palestinians or Gazan's/Hamas etc. It is why Israel must defend itself mostly, and if it has allies in the region or elsewhere, and they want to support their allie Israel, then so be it. If Hamas is supported by those in the region then so be it also, but someone is going to be wrong, and someone is going to be right always. It is why monitors have always been present in the region.

 

[montelatici]

Indeed, the Palestinians were peaceful before the Zionist settler colonial project.

Really? What about the attacks on the Jews of Safed in 1834 and 1838?

European Jews began migrating before 1834. <snip>

Before the First Zionist Aliyot (1799-1882)

Whenever the "Zionist settler project" is mentioned here, it is inferring the modern Zionist movement which started in the very late 1800's. Even the title of your link infers this fact, as the date range ends in 1882 which was before the modern zionist movement started.

Got to love how you folks move the goal posts every time it suits you. Like the small portions of UN documents posted while leaving out others and/or discredit some UN actions while standing fully behind others.

Got to love how undeniable facts become "small portions". Better yet is how these bozos can't seem find anything but propaganda to address the facts.

 

[teddyearp]

Got to love how undeniable facts become "small portions". Better yet is how these bozos can't seem find anything but propaganda to address the facts.

I prefer to call your "undeniable facts" as cherry picking from the documents you post while ignoring other parts of same documents that disprove your "undeniable facts".

Thanks for calling me a bozo.

 

[montelatici]

Got to love how undeniable facts become "small portions". Better yet is how these bozos can't seem find anything but propaganda to address the facts.

I prefer to call your "undeniable facts" as cherry picking from the documents you post while ignoring other parts of same documents that disprove your "undeniable facts".

Thanks for calling me a bozo.

You cannot present anything from an official source that disproves the factual data presented by the source documentation that I present. Nothing disproves the population surveys, nothing disproves the land ownership etc.

 

[Indeependent]

Got to love how undeniable facts become "small portions". Better yet is how these bozos can't seem find anything but propaganda to address the facts.

I prefer to call your "undeniable facts" as cherry picking from the documents you post while ignoring other parts of same documents that disprove your "undeniable facts".

Thanks for calling me a bozo.

You cannot present anything from an official source that disproves the factual data presented by the source documentation that I present. Nothing disproves the population surveys, nothing disproves the land ownership etc.

But context disproves everything.

 

[Hollie]

Got to love how undeniable facts become "small portions". Better yet is how these bozos can't seem find anything but propaganda to address the facts.

I prefer to call your "undeniable facts" as cherry picking from the documents you post while ignoring other parts of same documents that disprove your "undeniable facts".

Thanks for calling me a bozo.

You cannot present anything from an official source that disproves the factual data presented by the source documentation that I present. Nothing disproves the population surveys, nothing disproves the land ownership etc.

Well, actually, your articles have been refuted by various sources including the officisl Ottoman land records, etc.

Your silly "because I say so" , claims fool no one.

 

[louie888]

...what 'excessive' response are you even talking about?

He was talking about bombing children while they sleep.

 

[Roudy]

...what 'excessive' response are you even talking about?

He was talking about bombing children while they sleep.

that's what Palestinian animals do when they shoot rockets indescriminately into Israeli cities. Keep up, Achmed.

 

[Roudy]

Got to love how undeniable facts become "small portions". Better yet is how these bozos can't seem find anything but propaganda to address the facts.

I prefer to call your "undeniable facts" as cherry picking from the documents you post while ignoring other parts of same documents that disprove your "undeniable facts".

Thanks for calling me a bozo.

You cannot present anything from an official source that disproves the factual data presented by the source documentation that I present. Nothing disproves the population surveys, nothing disproves the land ownership etc.

The Ottoman census of 1905 flushes all your whiny claims down the toilet.