Until Israel shows some recognition that their ongoing isolation of Gaza contributes to the rocket rain, using it as an excuse to continue the same mistreatment indefinitely is hard to swallow. They've had decades to make concessions. So have the Palestinians. Both sides are extremely bad at it, granted, but ultimately it's the Israelis, as the ones with the power in the relationship, who are going to have to make the bigger concessions. The biggest concession will be having to live with a close neighbour who won't like them much. But surely that's infinitely preferable to having to police the stateless people on your doorstep forever and ever?In my opinion, they are reasonable suggestions, but not as a direct response to attack. If Hamas is firing rockets at Israel, however ineffective they might be, can't you see why Israel wouldn't want to respond by making immediate concessions and hoping that will protect their citizens in the short-term?
Um, the bits the Palestinians live on? The West Bank. Gaza. Not sure if trick question, sorry.---ME. What is "Palestinian land"
They may have wanted more, but seeing that Israel has continued year by year to appropriate more and more of that land, leaving less and less for them, I can understand their edginess.and who--and how many--are the "moderates"? Keep in mind, that in the past when both sides have come together to discuss the (at that point and also now, remote) possibility of land for peace, the Palestinians always wanted more.
So all Palestinians want Israel gone, now? Citation needed. And quite frankly, even if they were a whole nation of colossal arseholes, I still don't see how that would limit their right to self-determination.And the question of why the Israelis should share a state with another state that wishes to see them gone arises.
Gaza is a 40 km long strip of sand dunes with no trees, no natural resources, no defenses, no friends, and a million people. Its two neighbours (and I don't blame Israel alone, Egypt is equally responsible for Gaza's isolation) bear great responsibility for the weeds that have sprung up on that stony ground, IMO. Hamas would not have the power and support it does if not for deliberate Israeli and Egyptian policy. Now reversing the situation is going to cost them billions, but that outlay is nothing compared to what ongoing low-level war will cost them, amortised over infinity.---ME. Not a bad idea, but the funds would have to be managed. Keep in mind that in the past, Hamas used whatever funds they got to buy weapons and build ten-million dollar tunnels...while their people starved. When peace was there, how did the economy grow? Some sectors did well...most did not, and if you blame that all on Israel, think again.
Let's be clear where we stand. If every second preschool, old folks' home, bingo club and dog shelter on the Strip held a cache of Hamas weapons, bombing civilian targets in a densely populated urban area would Still. Be. Wrong. YMMV.---ME. Fair enough. If Hamas expects to be treated nicely during war, let them stop building tunnels to bomb/kidnap/kill Israeli soldiers and civilians. Tell them to stop hiding weapons at civilian-type locations such as hospitals and power plants, and stop using their own people as human shields. They lied about it before--they'll do it again, and to pretend otherwise means believing in something other than reality.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Defending Hamas. Because any criticism of the Israeli state means supporting Hamas. I get it.Once again, excuses and minimizing to make Israel seem the only bad guy. If you call Hamas crazy or disenfranchised, then they're not evil. I get it.
Did you miss the part where I called them fundamentalist paramilitary fucknuts? Do you think I think those are good things? I don't refrain from criticising my own country's human rights violations. Why the fuck should I refrain from criticising Israel? Don't tell me what crimes against humanity I can and can't oppose.
Last edited: