I’m at a loss to understand why limiting their attacks to soldiers would would somehow make there be less grounds for declaring war or retaliation. Is shelling and kidnapping just soldiers some sort of routine peacetime activity or something?
When it comes to issues of national soverignity… Nothing else ever has.
Israel has as clear a casus belli as any nation ever has had here. It’s a shame Hamas gave it to them, because they had to know what would happen next.
It was pretty obvious once the elections occured that Hamas would have a steep learning curve in the whole ‘governing is harder than opposing’ thing. Consider this, along with everything else, part of the tuition.
Weak.
The Israeli invasion of Gaza is an act of aggression which will no doubt spawn more terrorism.
Sorry, just channeling the Council on American-Islamic Relations - whose local chapter no doubt is busy churning out a letter to the editor of our newspaper along these well-worn lines.
And I am sure Hamas is planning Revenge.
What could there possibly be to debate?
I suggest they evacuate all the West Bank settlements, withdraw west of the Green Line, and let Palestine alone control its own borders with all states other than Israel, including most particularly Egypt and Jordan. If they do that, almost all forms of Palestinian hostility will come to an end.
Well, yeah, that’s how Israel has been dealing with the Palestinians for decades now, and it hasn’t worked yet!
Cite?
See post #28.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
OK, now I know you live in Fantasyland. This isn’t about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This is about the continued existence of Israel. It always has been, it always will be. No amount of appeasement will cause Palestinian hostility to come to an end.
The way you describe the situation, the only thing that would end it would be genocide. Are you really that pessimistic?
Yes I am. Israel took the first real step in solving the problem last year with its withdrawal from Gaza, unilaterally I might add, and what did they get for their trouble? They got a government sworn to their destruction, essentially de facto approval of violent tactics with the election of Hamas, and consistent attacks coming from the very lands they voluntarily gave up.
If that doesn’t make it obvious to you that the Palestinians will never give up their attacks on Israel, nothing will.
As a thought experiment, assume they do all that. And the attacks continue anyway, along with more demands - the “right of return”, Jerusalem as their capital city, etc.
What should Israel do then?
Assume as a further thought experiment that Israel caves to these new, further demands, and the attacks still continue. What then?
What if Hamas, the legitimately elected government party of the Palistinian nation, sticks to its declared plan that nothing will satisfy them except Israel’s total destruction? Is there any point, in your opinion, at which Israelis have a right to defend themselves?
I dunno. It seems to me that it “hasn’t worked” a lot more for the Palistinians. Israel remains a first-world type country, although an embattled one. In contrast, Palistine is a heck-hole. They keep getting hammered, their country is an unlivable mess, and they have a choice of governments between terrorists and crooks.
Shouldn’t they be trying something new? Antagonizing Israel through rocket attacks, terrorism and kidnapping isn’t really doing Palistinians any measurable good - quite the reverse.
Defend themselves within their Green-Line borders. Which they could do quite effectively. An independent Palestine would be absolutely no threat to Israel in strictly military terms, and terrorism could be blocked simply by barring Palestinians from entering Israel (even if that leads to a shortage of cheap labor). There would be no practical need for them to invade Palestinian territory ever again.
Of course, a one-state solution would be better still, but probably a counsel of perfection.
So, stopping immigration will end mortar attack from Giza?
Wow, Brain, I’m amazed by your military knowledge.
Foregive me if I’m wrong, but the incidents which started this present invasion - rocket attacks, tunneling under the border and kidnapping soldiers - would, or easily could, still go on. What should Israel do, if after agreeing to some of Palistinian demands, and barring any Palistinians crossing over the border (a real hardship, as some Israeli Arabs are related to Palistinians living elsewhere) Palistinians keep sending rockets over and invading through tunnels?
No, but it would make the political situation more like that posited by Noone Special in post #12, which the present situation is not. (That would be an apposite thought experiment only if Canada were under American military occupation and we were planting Yanks-only settlements all over British Columbia.) If Palestine were really independent, it could be held accountable for attacks launched from within its own territory on a neighbor’s territor; and there are lots of highly effective ways to hold a real government’s feet to the fire that come well short of military action.
I disagree with your claim that my analogy fails. Let’s make it a little clearer, though. Say the US had been occupying both Canada and Mexico, but has withdrawn completely from Canada. Would the US tolerate Canadian incursions into undisputed US territory? Regardless of the situation in Mexico? Even if the two areas were governed by a single “umbrella” government?