I think you misunderstand, the narrative here is ‘they’ are all the same, ‘they’ all have the same ‘death to Israel’ message, ‘they’ are all dumb as fuck, you can’t reason with ‘them’, and you’re actually doing ‘them’ a favour by teaching them hard lessons like blowing up the civilian population.
Would you prefer the ratification of the Treaty of Paris on Jan 14, 1784 or the signing of the Treaty of Paris on Sept 3, 1783?
It’s mug’s game playing with definitions given that better people than us haven’t had any success with it. That said, what I’ve written tends to be how I try to fit events - it doesn’t always work.
If you say Hamas is the legitimate government then Gaza has effectively declared war. If you say that Hamas is a sub-state actor acting to inflict terror on Israel then we’d expect the actual government of the region to criminally prosecute them. Given that there is no regional governing force that can do that, Israel gets to contain/render ineffective Hamas’ attacks.
(post shortened)
Hamas was elected and Hamas is currently continuing to fire their vengeance rockets into Israel in the hopes of murdering as many Jews as possible.
Israel is still entitled to defend itself.
Israel should continue to target Hamas buildings as well as Hamas leaders and the homes of Hamas leadership. Advance notice gives other Palestinians the option of moving out of harms way.
I suppose if the IDF was an indepent group that didn’t enact the directives of a nation state - something like Lebanon and Hezbollah’s paramilitary - then you could call the IDF a sub state actor.
Since my list wasn’t comprehensive enough for you, let me expand it slightly:
Snarky SDMB porter - not a terrorist
IRA, paramilitary group that terrorized protestants in N.Ireland to achieve political union of the island - terrorists
FLQ, paramilitary group that bombed, killed, kidnapped in Quebec to achieve Quebec sovereignty - terrorists
Hannibal Lector, fictional character that gives people bad dreams - not a terrorist
Shining Path, guerilla insurgents that use to brutally inflict fear and pain on the populace to achieve a communist government in Chile - terrorists
Starting line-up of the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers - not terrorists…I think
His role in this case is to put an end to terrorist attacks on Israel. If he can’t do that, then his role is irrelevant.
Hamas is doing the attacking, from Gaza.
That’s good. Now what we need to focus on is ending the firing of rockets from Gaza.
They agreed to a truce, but Hamas refused. They gave notice to civilians in Gaza that they were going to bomb their areas to take out the rockets, but Hamas would rather the civilains stay where they are and get blown up because that is better PR. Israel is trying to minimize casualties among the Palestinians and Hamas is trying to maximize them. Israel agreed to a cease-fire brokered by Egypt but Hamas declined to stop firing rockets at Israelis.
Guess what? It turns out that Hamas was lying, and once they got control they started firing rockets at Israel. So it was a mistake to believe that Hamas was really changing. So, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We can’t believe Hamas if they ever say or imply that they don’t want to kill the Israelis and grab their land.
Regards,
Shodan
LOL. They needed you in Aparthaid South Africa sorting out all those mixed race groups. You’re really good at twisted, ideological nonsense.
If this is going to be a constant on-off rocket attacks and no one wants to recognize Hamas as the legit government, I think a ground invasion and permanent (or at least long term) occupation is the only solution. Set up the strip as an autonomous region - with no right to a military- and try to buy the Palestinians with massive infrastructure and business investments. Try to build stronger mutually beneficial trade. Maybe then in 30 years there won’t be any support for violent anti-Israeli sentiment.
You aren’t.
Regards,
Shodan
They did that because they were poor and conditions are not going to change overnight. And they may not want Israel as it currently stands to survive, but if they were part of it, I believe they would
Giving Palestinians full citizenship will result in the moderates and extremists running for office. Those who are moderates will be treated no differently than Israeli citizens now, and law enforcement will deal with the extremists like they’ve always done.
Also, its unrealistic to expect them to all be like-minded and for “Palestinians” to abandon terror attacks when only some of them support it and even less carry it out. Those who want a united Israel will work against terrorists while at the same time exercising their rights under this new citizenship to vote.
Also, will Israel abandon the destruction of the homes of terrorists too? That’s a pretty appalling practice as well.
And you shouldn’t gloss over the fact that only some of them want to murder Israeli’s because they are shut out from the political process and cannot change their situation. Give them the power to do that through non-violent means and a good majority will elect to do that
You can turn your enemies into your friends by offering them benefits to becoming so. Right now violence is the only means some people can use to express themselves and to affect a change on their situations. If they had non-violent means, many will use that
Irrelevant. We’re talking about the unending violence between Israel and Palestine, not women’s rights. It is assumed that absorbing the population of Palestine will have an effect on the culture of Israel. That is still better than this type of violence
We don’t have to convince them of that, simply that a change in the status quo is better than this type of non-stop violence
I read a while ago somewhere that Israel insists on being recognized specifically as a “Jewish” state, which to me is kind of a stupid and unreasonable demand, if true. As long as it survives and the people are alive and well, Israel should not demand unreasonable concessions for recognition. Its enough that Hamas or whoever recognize it as Israel and its a state, that’s all they should hope for
OK then, how about the west bank? Why is Israel not only denying autonomy to the west bank, why are they building settlements there?
No of course not but maybe you can put a cork in the “threaten their existence” bullshit. Hmmm?
No, it hasn’t been said, at least not in this thread.
Because even when they stop building, in return they get nothing back from the Palestinians except “OK now give me the rest of what I demand, and we can negotiate from there.”
Regards,
Shodan
So everything would be Ok as long as they only targetted the IDF? Then they would be freedom fighters?
No, that wouldn’t be a good idea. Because, as mentioned, Hamas issues threats against Israel all the time, and shows by their actions that they want very much to destroy Israel and grab her land. So it isn’t bullshit at all. You are trying the dodge of saying that Israel shouldn’t be able to defend herself against anything less than a nuclear strike. That’s dumb, and it won’t work.
Yes it has. Read Grunman’s post.
Regards,
Shodan
As long as the target is a military site, it is not terrorism. Gilad Shalit attackers/abductors in Israel were NOT terrorists. Iraq’s militants who attacked US troops were not terrorists. Iraq’s militants who suicide-bomb mosques are terrorists. Afghani Taliban, when they attack US troops, are not terrorists (when they blow up civilians, they are terrorists). 9/11 hijackers who attacked the Pentagon were terrorists, not because of the attack on the Pentagon, but because of the hijacking and murdering a planeload of civilians in the process.
See the difference?
Well, the difference there is that there is that tethe h IDF is pursuing legitimate military objectives. The rules of war were drafted by people with large militaries, they were not written by guerrilas and freedom fighters.
Once you start engaging in terrorism and targetting civilians, you have to expect to be treated as if you are engaged in total war. There is no cost free method of freedom fighting/terrorism. If you can’t tolerate the repercussions of continued resistance against tyranny then perhaps surrender to or negotiation with the tyrants is a better course for you than resistance.
So lets just assume for the sake of argument that the Israelis are tyrants who stole Palestine to make their own country and have been cruelly oppressing the palestinians ever since. You’ve been fighting for 60+years and they show no signs of pulling up stakes and moving to Florida.
If you want to keep fighting, you can’t expect the Israelis to just sit there and let you take pot shots at them. You have to accept that they will retaliate. It is part of the cost of resisting tyranny (Mel Gibson in Braveheart taught me that). On the other hand you can surrender/compromise and forge a lasting peace but judging from the way they have trated your more compliant brothers in the West bank, how can you really expect to be treated after a truce?
That’s the part I don’t get. Israel has an opportunity to show Gazans the benefits of peace by being nicer to the WB but instead they just lump them all together and build more settlements in the WB.
So can we invade Mexico and take care of some of the drug cartel violence that is spilling over into our borders?
I think this is like the fourth time i am saying this. I have no problem with Israel defending itself. Israel has a relatively good civilian casualty ratio so it is pretty clear to me that they are in fact trying to target militants. Hamas cannot reasonably expect to fire rockets without Israeli retaliation. But IIRC, the election of hamas was not an embrace of hamas so much as it was a repudiation of Fatah corruption (or so I have read). Some people here seem to think that because hamas won an election they can treat all palestinians as if they screamed “no” three times at Khartoum.