[losing patience] Look, what’s your solution? I hope you will agree indefinite maintenance of the status quo is unacceptable even if possible; and based on your previous statements in this forum I doubt you care if the West Bank settlements still exist 5 years from now. So what would you do with the OTs and the Palestinians, if you were PM?
Everybody keeps pressing me for my solution in this thread, and nobody proffers their own. (Except for OliverTwistofLime in post #43, of which the less said the better, and that was just a drive-by anyway.)
You’re losing patience!? Dude, I’m the one living through all of this. You think I wouldn’t love to have a “and they lived happily ever after” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict!?!?
Look, not every situation in the world has any solution at all, much less a perfect one. But in order for anything to happen here, I think the very first thing that has to happen is exactly what the world is demanding of Hamas – Formally recognize Israel’s right to exist within the pre-1967 borders (which may or may not be slightly changed, in either direction or both, in following negotiations); Renounce and denounce terrorism, not only in words but in deeds; and most importantly, stop fucking blowing up any Israelis they can get to
Give us that, and within 5 years the West Bank settlements – or at least the vast majority of them – will not exist. Keep up the “good fight” :rolleyes: and they’ll end up deeper in the hole that they are digging for themselves; right now they are guaranteeing that there will be no Israeli goodwill in the forseeable future.
To be fair to many or most of the Palestinians, I think this agenda of deliberate provocation of Israel is not the choice of the Palestinian masses. I think it is driven by external forces (:cough: Iran :cough:) and the Average Jamil ends up following the Hate Israel line for the same reason that the Josh Doe here ends up screaming for Arab blood – the old tit-for-tat. Well, Israel has demostrated, I think (and, need I say again?, IMHO, YMMV…), that in quieter times it is capable of at least trying to make gestures towards some sort of peaceful solution. The Palestinians are yet to show that they are capable, as a society, to turn away the external and internal forces continuously drving them to Holy Jihad. And until they are capable, all we can do is continue to defend ourselves, sometimes forcefully, and hope for better days for all people involved on both sides of the conflict.
:dubious:
All of those organizatons with genocidal intent who plan on destroying the state of Israel in its entirety… they’ll be soothed by getting some turf in the West Bank?
I do think that there are in essence two possible solutions, the ones I have labelled “engagement” and “the porcupine”.
I think the difficulty here is partly conceptual - those who are committed to “engagement” in some form simply do not regard the “porcupine” as an actual solution; thus, if “engagement” is ruled out for any reason, they simply see no solution at all.
I think you’ve got it, in a nutshell. I’m not sure I view what you call “The Porcupine” as a “solution” per se, but it is likely a long-term condition, or will be unless “Engagement” becomes possible in the short or medium term.
That’s only the short-term problem, Malthus. And you are implicitly blurring the distinction between the Hamas-led government and the militants. How can you be sure the former is actually responsible for the campaign? (“Responsible” in the sense of being in any position to stop it.)
“Work” how? Do you actually think it is likely to make the militants any less likely to engage in terrorism? After all, from their POV, they have nothing to lose.
Actually, I made my case and fulfilled the burden of proof by responding point by point to Alessan’s response. I don’t know what Alessan’s opinion of my responses is, because that’s the last we’ve heard from him. You took up the response from there, and I responded point by point to you. And in the wake of that post, you decided to repeatedly ignore the fact that parts of your cite were saying things that undermined your argument, and pretend that the cite supported you in full.
No, that was your quite dishonest moving of the goalposts. But even then, we’ve got a disproportionate response, unless you assume that a significant portion of the 1.3 million Gazans are terrorists. If you’re cutting off water and power to 700,000 people at this time of year to root out even a few thousand terrorists, that’s disproportionate.
Why bother? They’re pathetically obvious. Israel could have invaded without blowing up the power plant. I bet one of the world’s finest military outfits could have seized and held the power plant, and turned off the juice just during nighttime operations, so they could have operated under cover of darkness. And if not, it’s hard to see not being able to knock out the power as a deal-breaker for an army like Israel’s; it could have blown up bridges (as it did) and blown up power substations (smaller, quicker to restore afterwards) or cut power lines in areas where its commandos planned nighttime raids.
Not to mention, if this is about Hamas, rather than about one soldier - Hamas has been there for awhile, and the election that installed them in power was months ago. If knocking out the power plant was a must, then they could have done the whole operation in the spring, not in the summer.
No, I’ve established disproportionality, even after your moving the goalposts (and seemingly expecting some sort of detailed alternative war plan to demolish Hamas in toto). You choose to pretend I haven’t. I don’t see any point in continuing, and you’re not worth a Pit thread.
I think that most Israelis (at least, those I have talked to) believe that the Palistinians are either (a) in so many different factions that it is not possible for any unified command to restrain them from attacks; or (b) deliberately use different organizations (the “militant wing” as opposed to the “political wing”, or some newly invented “People’s Militant Palistinian Freedom Group”, or whatever) to gain plausable deniability of responsibility for attacks. I think the latter is more likely myself, or maybe a combinbation of the two; the distinction is whether the Palistinian government is unable, or unwilling, to cease attacks.
In either case, it amounts to the same - if there is no organization capable of or willing to control attacks, there is nothing to be gained by attempting to “engage” with them. What kind of bargain can one make with a party that does not (or claims not) to have the power to live up to its end of the deal - that is, to stop attacks?
As I said, Israel is faced with a campaign of deliberately provocative terrorism. Whether this is by “Hamas” (which seems likely, Hamas being after all a terrorist group which has never renounced terrorism) or not is, from the POV of which strategy Israel should adopt, irrelevant.
Of course not. Militants will engage in terrorism regardless - that’s the whole point. They will engage in terrorism no matter what the Israelis do, because their demands are not ones which can actually ever be met - in the end, they are apocalyptic: the destruction of Israel. I tend to believe that no lesser goal or half-measures will ever satisfy them - it is after all what they say themselves, even for foreign consumption.
That being the case, the Israelis have to have a response. They cannot acceed to the “militants” demands, because collective suicide isn’t really an option. So what other choices are available?
Here, I am afraid, there are none that will (a) “work” in the sense you seem to mean the term (as in end terrorism permanently); (b) actually “work” in the sense of having a realistic possibility of success (here is where ‘engagement’ falls short); and (c ) “work” in the sense of being something which Israelis are morally prepared to do.
There will be no ‘final solution of the terrorist problem’. Rather, Israelis must find a strategy which will contain the threat terrorism poses. With the one hand, they will cease to occupy lands filled with Palistinians, and so distance and disengage from the source of the threat; on the other, they will use walls, military force and other security measures to blunt that threat. In short, the “porcupine” strategy.
Militants will continue to indulge in terrorism. They will continue to murder and destroy; you can’t stop them always. But you can limit their impact. I suspect that the rest of us in the West are to a lesser extent facing the same sorts of dilemmas.
Not a utopian solution, to be sure. But I think Israelis should be wary of utopian solutions.
I’m going to start with this quote because I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why people who haven’t been reading the news still see fit to hold forth. Do you think, maybe, that they acted now and not in the spring because Hamas had just broken the 16 month truce as of June, 10, 2006?
See why it’d help if you actually read some stuff before about the issue you’re ranting on before… doing whatever you’re doing?
Like using your imaginary but never retracted claim of Israeli targeting civilians for rocket attacks? You started your ‘critique’ by deliberately avoiding the actual situation and making up some absurd un-truth followed by an evasion about the number of deaths.
You can claim, all you want, “Nu uh, it aint gonna work. I’ve taken psych 101”, but you’ve still not done anything to show a more proportionate, less onerous course of action. You have simply evaded and obfuscated.
And, as I’ve already said before, if you cannot and will not provide a less onerous military solution, then you must admit this is the least onerous, and thus, by definition, not excessive. But you’ve never touched on this point, instead debating irrelevancies with pat pablum, and crowing about how very victorious you are. And now you suggest invasion (more onerous) and destroying power substations… which would yield the exact same level of hardship.
Nope, sorry. You are the one who’s repeatedly ignored giving any proof for your position before the post I’m responding to, as evinced by your total inability to suggest any better course of military action. You still can’t think of one which doesn’t involve invasion, destroying the power anyway, or your james bond pipedream where Israeli commandos go into Gaza and kill the terrorists under the cover of night.
All of which, of course, means you must admit this is the best military course of action. Which means your objection is bull. Or can you finally suggest a less onerous military solution that doesn’t rely on super-cool IDF Ninja Commandos?
Something tells me you’re going to ignore that one, yet again.
Um… no. You seem to have forgotten what you’re posting about. See, this is about Hamas’ most recent campaign of terror, and you tried to shift the goalposts to make a deliberately disingenuous argument that this was about one soldier.
But it’s cute that you can play the “I’m rubber you’re glue” game.
You going to refer to this bit, too, as “proof” later on? Your only ‘better’ suggestions include invasion, cutting the power anyway, and invisible israel death commandos.
Just because you get an idea, does not make them obvious to others, nor correct. You are suggesting an invasion, with all the attendant carnage it brings… and suggesting that as a less onerous method that one that’s killed how many Palestinians, exactly? (Feel free to ignore that one, too. Why break a streak?)
And had Rambo and McGyver take care of the Palestinian civilians while they were at it. :rolleyes: And, surely, while they were holding and occupying the power plant, there wouldn’t have been any battles through the city, at all. And the militants would still have C&C as well as illumination for night fighting, but would simply chose not to use them. Or Israeli commandos could just run through the steets, snipping power lines like happy little pixies. Brilliant plan.
:dubious: Sent troops in, and just cut power lines you say? Or just have blown up all the substations they’d need to suppress C&C all over Gaza, getting the same exact result as you’re now complaining about?
You seem to be very confused here, so I’ll help. Just because you want to dishonestly suggest that this is only about one soldier, due to the fact that you didn’t have the courtesy to read about this topic before holding forth, doesn’t mean that’s what the debate was about.
I have never yet seen someone invent a strawman argument to beat up and then claim that when others try to discuss the actual topic, they’re shifting the goalposts. I guess that there’s a first time for everything.
It is, of course, nice to know that you at least admit you have no idea what alternative war plan could be created to deal with Hamas.
It’s not an “Okay, I was wrong. I can’t suggest anything more proportionate, but I’m still prepared to be difficult.”
But it’ll do.
Riiiiight. I’m pretending. Someone not accepting that your obfusacative, goalpost shifting, deliberately intellectually dishonest, non-news-reading-based argument supported by imaginary claims like Israel targeting civilians for rocket attacks… why, someone not accepting that as gospel must be pretending not to have seen your flawless reasoning.
And from someone who’s been treating this thread like a Pit thread, I find your little moan about how I’m not worthy to be, well, just a tad ironic. But it’d be funny to see you start a Pit thread.
You find a marksman whose aim you have absolute trust in.
Stand against a tree with an apple on your head.
Let him target the apple with a grenade launcher, and pull the trigger.
Afterwards, I’ll let you tell me all you want about how he didn’t ‘target’ your head, we’ll make the appropriate connection to the present argument, I’ll concede the point, and we’ll go out and have a beer together.
And I’m sorry you’re upset that I’m supposedly treating this like a Pit thread, but if I want to insult your arguments, I can do that right here; I just can’t insult you. You may feel insulted, but that’s life in the big city.
Hi guys - very new to all this, but have been lurking for a while. The Israel/Palestine thing is very touchy, but I think the Fourth Geneva Convention is worth a read.
Article 53 is probably a good place to start:
Not an answer to anyone’s questions by a long shot, but rather raises the question, “Was it absolutely necessary to take out the power plant?”
I’m sure FinnAgain or someone like him will be along in a bit to tell us that since Israel recently pulled out of the West Bank, it’s no longer an occupying power, but rather one nation at war with another, or some such.
I’ll go ahead and call that a fig leaf, rather than a valid defense.
It certainly seems that way, as in this thread the only ‘better’ solutions to be suggested including destroying power relays anyways, invading and causing much more hardship, or ninja IDF commandos from hell.
That and some obfuscation about what the word ‘target’ means, but that’s pretty much standard for this discussion. If a cop shoots at a criminal in a location where others can be hit, the cop is deliberately targeting civilians, dontcha know? If you’re shooting bazookas at an apple on someone’s head, your real secret goal is to kill the person, even though, if the guy threw the apple 1000 yards away, the apple would get shot at. But hey, what’s the use of intellectual honesty when you could be constructing banal gradeschool metaphors for the purpose of obfuscating intent and engaging in rhetorical masturbation?
~shrugs~
Nobody has, as of yet, suggested a military solution to Hamas that is both less onerous than the current measures, and that still deals with the situation.
