Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15

[Shusha]

When they were elected into power - did Israel give them a chance?

They have been in power for more than a decade. They have had plenty of chances. They have a chance again tomorrow.

You can whine all you want that they didn't get their Shreddies one morning ten years ago and they were hungry. But when you keep putting the Shreddies in front of them day after day after day, its not your fault they are still hungry.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You are right, it is not a valid argument now, however - it might not have come to this if Israel had made a good faith effort to work with them in the beginning. They didn't at all.

As easily argue that Hamas did not make a good faith effort to make peace with Israel. You are forgetting the REASON why Israel did not work with them from the beginning -- they refused peace; they refused to abide by existing agreements and they refused to recognize Israel. So on what grounds was there good faith which Israel could work with?

When they were elected into power - did Israel give them a chance?

Did I miss the news where Hamas said they want peace with Jews?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are right, it is not a valid argument now, however - it might not have come to this if Israel had made a good faith effort to work with them in the beginning. They didn't at all.

As easily argue that Hamas did not make a good faith effort to make peace with Israel. You are forgetting the REASON why Israel did not work with them from the beginning -- they refused peace; they refused to abide by existing agreements and they refused to recognize Israel. So on what grounds was there good faith which Israel could work with?

When they were elected into power - did Israel give them a chance?

Hamas has as a charter the destruction of Israel and made statements to that effect during the election, explain in detail why Israel should offer an olive branch to a group that PUBLICLY STATES it wants to destroy Israel?

 

[Shusha]

If that happened - the conflict would likely be on it's way to an end.

Whose fault is it that it is not happening and the conflict is not ending then?

 

[Coyote]

If that happened - the conflict would likely be on it's way to an end.

Whose fault is it that it is not happening and the conflict is not ending then?

I think it's a mix, and yes I place a lot on Hamas, but I also think Israel has not made it any easier. The Palestinians are seeing the possibility of a two state solution as no longer possible. They feel the US is no longer an honest broker and they are right. There is no pressure on Isreal to negotiate what so ever they can effectively do what they wish. The Palestinians have no real leadership, and no elections in sight. Hamas has has done nothing towards improving their situation, and continues to refuse to recognize Isreal.

 

[Coyote]

You are right, it is not a valid argument now, however - it might not have come to this if Israel had made a good faith effort to work with them in the beginning. They didn't at all.

As easily argue that Hamas did not make a good faith effort to make peace with Israel. You are forgetting the REASON why Israel did not work with them from the beginning -- they refused peace; they refused to abide by existing agreements and they refused to recognize Israel. So on what grounds was there good faith which Israel could work with?

When they were elected into power - did Israel give them a chance?

Hamas has as a charter the destruction of Israel and made statements to that effect during the election, explain in detail why Israel should offer an olive branch to a group that PUBLICLY STATES it wants to destroy Israel?

1. Because they are the duly elected goverment and 2. Because an olive branch might open the way to negotiations on the recognition of Israel and some sort of peace process.

 

[Shusha]

If that happened - the conflict would likely be on it's way to an end.

Whose fault is it that it is not happening and the conflict is not ending then?

I think it's a mix, and yes I place a lot on Hamas, but I also think Israel has not made it any easier. The Palestinians are seeing the possibility of a two state solution as no longer possible. They feel the US is no longer an honest broker and they are right. There is no pressure on Isreal to negotiate what so ever they can effectively do what they wish. The Palestinians have no real leadership, and no elections in sight. Hamas has has done nothing towards improving their situation, and continues to refuse to recognize Isreal.

Right now, the US is being the most honest broker, imo. I have no love for Trump but give me ten of Nikki Haley and I can change the world.

Hamas needs to be held responsible. IF they step up and Israel responds inappropriately then we can shit all over Israel. (Don't think it will have to happen). But we can't shit on Israel for setting completely appropriate boundaries (of both the literal and figurative kind) in order to preserve her own sovereignty and security.

 

[Shusha]

1. Because they are the duly elected goverment and 2. Because an olive branch might open the way to negotiations on the recognition of Israel and some sort of peace process.

The disengagement from Gaza WAS the olive branch. Still no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

Its not on Israel to shift that paradigm. Its on Hamas. (Perhaps vowing not to rip out our hearts would be a good place to start?)

 

[Coyote]

If that happened - the conflict would likely be on it's way to an end.

Whose fault is it that it is not happening and the conflict is not ending then?

I think it's a mix, and yes I place a lot on Hamas, but I also think Israel has not made it any easier. The Palestinians are seeing the possibility of a two state solution as no longer possible. They feel the US is no longer an honest broker and they are right. There is no pressure on Isreal to negotiate what so ever they can effectively do what they wish. The Palestinians have no real leadership, and no elections in sight. Hamas has has done nothing towards improving their situation, and continues to refuse to recognize Isreal.

Right now, the US is being the most honest broker, imo. I have no love for Trump but give me ten of Nikki Haley and I can change the world.

Hamas needs to be held responsible. IF they step up and Israel responds inappropriately then we can shit all over Israel. (Don't think it will have to happen). But we can't shit on Israel for setting completely appropriate boundaries (of both the literal and figurative kind) in order to preserve her own sovereignty and security.

I think that the way the Palestinians were effed over with Jerusalem has forever tarnished the US' role. Over and over we heard how things like recognition, boundaries, etc MUST be negotiated. What happened?

 

[Coyote]

1. Because they are the duly elected goverment and 2. Because an olive branch might open the way to negotiations on the recognition of Israel and some sort of peace process.

The disengagement from Gaza WAS the olive branch. Still no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

Its not on Israel to shift that paradigm. Its on Hamas. (Perhaps vowing not to rip out our hearts would be a good place to start?)

Agree - it was one.

But imposing the blockade on the heels of the election of Hamas did nothing to improve matters. It made any negotiation impossible by refusing to recognize Hamas' legitamacy as the elected government and it never gave negotation a chance. You can not negotiate through a blockade that demands you overturn your elected government. And no - I'm not saying I think Hamas is good, but they WERE elected. Had Israel opened up avenues of discussion with them, recognized them as they want Hamas to recognize their own legitimacy - then maybe things would have been different? Maybe things wouldn't have and Hamas would just act like Hamas instead of governing but at least then a blockade would have been justified.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Because they are the duly elected goverment and 2. Because an olive branch might open the way to negotiations on the recognition of Israel and some sort of peace process.

The disengagement from Gaza WAS the olive branch. Still no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

Its not on Israel to shift that paradigm. Its on Hamas. (Perhaps vowing not to rip out our hearts would be a good place to start?)

Agree - it was one.

But imposing the blockade on the heels of the election of Hamas did nothing to improve matters. It made any negotiation impossible by refusing to recognize Hamas' legitamacy as the elected government and it never gave negotation a chance. You can not negotiate through a blockade that demands you overturn your elected government. And no - I'm not saying I think Hamas is good, but they WERE elected. Had Israel opened up avenues of discussion with them, recognized them as they want Hamas to recognize their own legitimacy - then maybe things would have been different? Maybe things wouldn't have and Hamas would just act like Hamas instead of governing but at least then a blockade would have been justified.

Had Israel opened up avenues of discussion with them, recognized them

Hamas has to recognize Israel first.

 

[Coyote]

1. Because they are the duly elected goverment and 2. Because an olive branch might open the way to negotiations on the recognition of Israel and some sort of peace process.

The disengagement from Gaza WAS the olive branch. Still no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

Its not on Israel to shift that paradigm. Its on Hamas. (Perhaps vowing not to rip out our hearts would be a good place to start?)

Agree - it was one.

But imposing the blockade on the heels of the election of Hamas did nothing to improve matters. It made any negotiation impossible by refusing to recognize Hamas' legitamacy as the elected government and it never gave negotation a chance. You can not negotiate through a blockade that demands you overturn your elected government. And no - I'm not saying I think Hamas is good, but they WERE elected. Had Israel opened up avenues of discussion with them, recognized them as they want Hamas to recognize their own legitimacy - then maybe things would have been different? Maybe things wouldn't have and Hamas would just act like Hamas instead of governing but at least then a blockade would have been justified.

Had Israel opened up avenues of discussion with them, recognized them

Hamas has to recognize Israel first.

Hamas HAS to recognize Israel. Whether it occurs first or second is immaterial. If you slap on a blockade, you cut off all options.

 

[Shusha]

I think that the way the Palestinians were effed over with Jerusalem has forever tarnished the US' role. Over and over we heard how things like recognition, boundaries, etc MUST be negotiated. What happened?

In what world does Israel NOT already have sovereignty over at least a part of Jerusalem? In what world has Israel NOT had sovereignty over West Jerusalem since her establishment? The only world where Israel is NOT sovereign over West Jerusalem is a reality where Israel has no sovereignty over any territory.

Surely you are not going to argue that Israel has no sovereignty over any territory? But even if you ARE arguing that -- you are arguing for a free-for-all where all bets are off. And everything is subject to negotiation. (Which is actually legally true). Not sure that is where you want to go. (But MAN am I game if you do! If EVERYTHING is subject to negotiation, boundaries and recognition then settlements are just GAME ON!)

If you are not arguing that -- you are arguing for some sort of expected result or status quo. The status quo is that West Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty.

There is no way to argue that the Arab Palestinians were effed here.

 

[fncceo]

I think that the way the Palestinians were effed over with Jerusalem

And no one on Earth had it coming more.

 

[Shusha]

1. Because they are the duly elected goverment and 2. Because an olive branch might open the way to negotiations on the recognition of Israel and some sort of peace process.

The disengagement from Gaza WAS the olive branch. Still no negotiation, no recognition, no peace.

Its not on Israel to shift that paradigm. Its on Hamas. (Perhaps vowing not to rip out our hearts would be a good place to start?)

Agree - it was one.

But imposing the blockade on the heels of the election of Hamas did nothing to improve matters. It made any negotiation impossible by refusing to recognize Hamas' legitamacy as the elected government and it never gave negotation a chance. You can not negotiate through a blockade that demands you overturn your elected government. And no - I'm not saying I think Hamas is good, but they WERE elected. Had Israel opened up avenues of discussion with them, recognized them as they want Hamas to recognize their own legitimacy - then maybe things would have been different? Maybe things wouldn't have and Hamas would just act like Hamas instead of governing but at least then a blockade would have been justified.

But you are still negating any responsibility on the part of Hamas.

Israel offers olive branch. (HUGE concession of actual territory and sovereignty). Hamas rejects recognition, negotiation, peace. And you say Israel should have tried harder.

Its a decade later. Chances and more chances. Still another tomorrow.

Why isn't Hamas policing its own citizens during riots against another sovereign's border?

 

[Shusha]

Hamas HAS to recognize Israel. Whether it occurs first or second is immaterial. If you slap on a blockade, you cut off all options.

Yeah, no. Hamas has to recognize Israel first. Without that there is nothing. It would be like having a wedding where one of the parties to be married refuses to say their vows.

And a blockade does not cut off all options. Only the option of violent belligerence. And then only marginally, as the events of the week demonstrate.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: I don't know. But in all probably not.

It is more likely the case that the Arab Palestinians either staged the event for media exploitation; or actually killed one of their own (a sacrifice to the cause).

But Rocco, did this journalist have a drone at this demonstration?

(COMMENT)

The likelihood that a journalist with a drone, more professionally known as UAS (unmanned aerial systems), would be targeted by the Israelis is extremely low. UASs are notorious for being intercepted. Standing Orders for the Military. Border Guards and Police is to report the use. The local signals intelligence unit (SIGSEC) will just tune-in the signal and stream the video back to that sector. Whatever the journalist on the sees using the device, the sector command also sees simultaneously.

The IDF Intelligence Directorate (along with the other intelligence community members) does not interdict, destroy or otherwise neutralize lucrative → action oriented collection platforms → especially assets that provide real-time intelligence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: I don't know. But in all probably not.

But Rocco, did this journalist have a drone at this demonstration?

(COMMENT)

The likelihood that a journalist with a drone, more professionally known as UAS (unmanned aerial systems), would be targeted by the Israelis is extremely low. UASs are notorious for being intercepted. Standing Orders for the Military. Border Guards and Police is to report the use. The local signals intelligence unit (SIGSEC) will just tune-in the signal and stream the video back to that sector. Whatever the journalist on the sees using the device, the sector command also sees simultaneously.

The IDF Intelligence Directorate (along with the other intelligence community members) does not interdict, destroy or otherwise neutralize lucrative → action oriented collection platforms → especially assets that provide real-time intelligence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting. So are you thinking rogue shot or deliberate target for this instance? Just speculation, of course.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Shusha, et al,

A "rogue shot" is possible, but highly unlikely (very unlikely).

Interesting. So are you thinking rogue shot or deliberate target for this instance? Just speculation, of course.

(COMMENT)

You have to ask the question: Who has the most to gain from that single event.

The villain of the day → the Israelis?
-------------------- or -----------------------
The Arab Palestines, in the role of the
victims, played by themselves.
​

You don't need a degree from Juilliard to see what is happening here.

Like our friend "Coyote," you have every right to be spectacle. But this entire event was instigated for what purpose?

Ask the basic interrogatives.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

I have no idea where you get that Israel controls 80% of Gaza.

The only part of Gaza not controlled by Israel is the border with Egypt. Land, air and sea is controlled by Israel.

Dance, have picnics, tell stories, make speeches of peace and brotherhood and co-operation.

And be shot at...