-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Israel to create "Warsaw ghetto" in Ghaza
- Thread starter GrGr
- Start date
palehorse
Lifer
I'm very willing to give the new Olmert/U.S. "plan" a shot, even though it is more a reactionary policy than any type of plan. After all, nothing else has worked in 40 years.
Hopefully the good people in Gaza will realize that their suffering is Hamas' fault, and destroy Hamas from within - although that is doubtful given the Arab propensity to blame everyone else but themselves.
like I said, at least this has some characteristics of a plan when one has been missing for so long, so it's worth a shot.
Hopefully the good people in Gaza will realize that their suffering is Hamas' fault, and destroy Hamas from within - although that is doubtful given the Arab propensity to blame everyone else but themselves.
like I said, at least this has some characteristics of a plan when one has been missing for so long, so it's worth a shot.
Hamas had to lead, follow or get out of the way.
They were unable to any of the above.
Now Hamas have live with their actions within Gaza with respect to helping the Palestinians.
They were unable to any of the above.
Now Hamas have live with their actions within Gaza with respect to helping the Palestinians.
Lemon law
Lifer
As I have said on other threads the jury is still out on this----the problem is that the gamble has huge backfire potential. And could end up destroying Fatah leaving Hamas and even more radical elements as the big winners.---with Israel even more isolated than before as the last of the moderates go the way of the dodo.
Its also an opportunity---but as long as people motivated by greed, selfishness, and pigginess on the Israeli side take a minimalist approach, its likely to backfire. Abbas is going to have to win something substantial for the Palestinians or its almost bound to fail. And if the Arab States fail to recognize what amounts to a palace coup by Abbas, its game over before it starts.
Its my understanding Egypt will push for that Arab recognition next week. And we will then soon know if the plan is even short range viable. Meanwhile Hamas is mulling its options as they too have a crisis in confidence. They too will play the PR games. But Abbas has moved swiftly and arrested at least 200 known Hamas militia members in the West bank. And its questionable how much remaining Hamas muscle remains there. I also understand Abbas is thinking about holding early elections--something he may or may not do. But if Abbas loses a free election in the West Bank, its going to be game over for him.
But overall, I still think of all these whole new developments as doing something to rearrange the deck chairs and little else. Until the underlying problems are addressed, its going to be a small chapter in a longer book about business as usual going the hell in a handbasket. As Sherlock sez---the game is afoot.
Its also an opportunity---but as long as people motivated by greed, selfishness, and pigginess on the Israeli side take a minimalist approach, its likely to backfire. Abbas is going to have to win something substantial for the Palestinians or its almost bound to fail. And if the Arab States fail to recognize what amounts to a palace coup by Abbas, its game over before it starts.
Its my understanding Egypt will push for that Arab recognition next week. And we will then soon know if the plan is even short range viable. Meanwhile Hamas is mulling its options as they too have a crisis in confidence. They too will play the PR games. But Abbas has moved swiftly and arrested at least 200 known Hamas militia members in the West bank. And its questionable how much remaining Hamas muscle remains there. I also understand Abbas is thinking about holding early elections--something he may or may not do. But if Abbas loses a free election in the West Bank, its going to be game over for him.
But overall, I still think of all these whole new developments as doing something to rearrange the deck chairs and little else. Until the underlying problems are addressed, its going to be a small chapter in a longer book about business as usual going the hell in a handbasket. As Sherlock sez---the game is afoot.
As long as you have a system based on economic blackmail, not on any justice, how can you expect any real political stability?
Would Americans tolerate that? In our own revolution, preceding it, the Bostonians had thrown tea in the harbor, and were punished economically by England shutting down the port.
The citizens had big economic pressure, and had to choose whether to suffer and fight for their political rights, or to put up with the English policies and be economically better off.
It's a problem when you have a political situation where one party has far greater economic power they can hold over the heads of a second party.
Whatever else you say about them, this does put Hamas in the role of being the 'purer' representatives, democratically speaking.
From one injustice flows others; the bigotry and discrimination against the Jews - not only by Hitler but by the nations who refused to accept their emigration, helping to push the 'final solution', led to the reaction of a new homeland for the Jews; selfishness by those responsible, in part, not to want to give them the land led to the homeland being put in the region of people who did not want it there, and to the acceptance of the claims of ancient 'rights' and traditions to have a homeland there (in other words, because the west's bible gives Jews a special role and location, the west accepted this in giving them this land, while the west is hardly so universally recognizing of such claims. For example, the Native Americans' religious claims to land were hardly given much weight, to this day.)
Then, the US desire for a bought and paid for force in the region led to the massive arming of Israel far beyond the existing nations in the region, including WMD/nuclear weapons.
Of course there are two sides to the story, but the idea of 'why can't they just get along' and 'why can't they share' isn't the real issue; because of oil and strategic competition for it among the world's top nations, the politics in the middle east have been and will be dominated by foreign powers without regard for things like 'democracy' and the interests of the local people, for the most part, as things such as the British working to make the radical Islamists powerful as a counter to Arab nationalism since over a century ago, as the support for overthrowing democracy in Iran a half century ago or the support for the House of Saud, especially 30 years ago, as the USSR's incursion into Afghanistan and the US's countering with the creation of the Taliban 25 years ago, make clear.
It's too bad that there isn't any real discussion of the issues; there are just powers, such as the governments and oil companies, who decide what they want, and citizens who are fed simplistic messages about who the 'bad guys' are, the terrorists of the day, to get them to go along with the policies.
I'd be happy to see a solution which gives Israel the right to exist, and has peace in the region, with the region's nations able to let the market settle the oil issues. But it's apparently a lot more in the interests of the powers to use puppet regimes and military force to pursue their oil than to use such a system as that.
Gas is about to shoot up in cost because of increased demand, especially from China. As China is increasingly a competitor to the US, and the US has little room for military conflict with China directly, control of oil is handy for putting some pressure on China and others. Pity the middle eastern citizens, for whom most, it seems, oil is more harm than good.
When I look at the miles-long lines in Iraq for gasoline, it says something about the benefits flowing to the citizens from the oil: about as much as flowed to the natives of the lands Columbus sailed to, when he had economic pressure to find gold for the crown, and the natives were enslaved to search - resulting in 90% of them being dead within 30 years.
The palestenians today are in the unfortunate situation of being a 'nuisance' to a powerful nation, and repressed.
It's messy; there are wrongs you can see on any side, and the ideologues can find them on the side they choose to pay attention to. The Palestenians are very aware of the abuse of power over them of the Israelis, and find revenge attractive; the Israelis worry about their democratic ideals putting them at risk of a majority of non-Jews gaining power, who would destroy their culture if empowered and replace it with something they don't like; they are willing to deny equal rights to the Palestenians and use other repressive measures.
What I'd like to see is for an 'independant' panel of experts to be empowered to recommend solutions; but for now that doesn't seem to be what the powers want.
So, we can expect more of the same, it seems likely. However, because the Palestinian issue fuels the support for the terrorist groups so much, the west may be willing to explore compromises there. Most nations have broad public support for that; Tony Blair has pushed it, and is now being considered for a role there. We'll see.
Would Americans tolerate that? In our own revolution, preceding it, the Bostonians had thrown tea in the harbor, and were punished economically by England shutting down the port.
The citizens had big economic pressure, and had to choose whether to suffer and fight for their political rights, or to put up with the English policies and be economically better off.
It's a problem when you have a political situation where one party has far greater economic power they can hold over the heads of a second party.
Whatever else you say about them, this does put Hamas in the role of being the 'purer' representatives, democratically speaking.
From one injustice flows others; the bigotry and discrimination against the Jews - not only by Hitler but by the nations who refused to accept their emigration, helping to push the 'final solution', led to the reaction of a new homeland for the Jews; selfishness by those responsible, in part, not to want to give them the land led to the homeland being put in the region of people who did not want it there, and to the acceptance of the claims of ancient 'rights' and traditions to have a homeland there (in other words, because the west's bible gives Jews a special role and location, the west accepted this in giving them this land, while the west is hardly so universally recognizing of such claims. For example, the Native Americans' religious claims to land were hardly given much weight, to this day.)
Then, the US desire for a bought and paid for force in the region led to the massive arming of Israel far beyond the existing nations in the region, including WMD/nuclear weapons.
Of course there are two sides to the story, but the idea of 'why can't they just get along' and 'why can't they share' isn't the real issue; because of oil and strategic competition for it among the world's top nations, the politics in the middle east have been and will be dominated by foreign powers without regard for things like 'democracy' and the interests of the local people, for the most part, as things such as the British working to make the radical Islamists powerful as a counter to Arab nationalism since over a century ago, as the support for overthrowing democracy in Iran a half century ago or the support for the House of Saud, especially 30 years ago, as the USSR's incursion into Afghanistan and the US's countering with the creation of the Taliban 25 years ago, make clear.
It's too bad that there isn't any real discussion of the issues; there are just powers, such as the governments and oil companies, who decide what they want, and citizens who are fed simplistic messages about who the 'bad guys' are, the terrorists of the day, to get them to go along with the policies.
I'd be happy to see a solution which gives Israel the right to exist, and has peace in the region, with the region's nations able to let the market settle the oil issues. But it's apparently a lot more in the interests of the powers to use puppet regimes and military force to pursue their oil than to use such a system as that.
Gas is about to shoot up in cost because of increased demand, especially from China. As China is increasingly a competitor to the US, and the US has little room for military conflict with China directly, control of oil is handy for putting some pressure on China and others. Pity the middle eastern citizens, for whom most, it seems, oil is more harm than good.
When I look at the miles-long lines in Iraq for gasoline, it says something about the benefits flowing to the citizens from the oil: about as much as flowed to the natives of the lands Columbus sailed to, when he had economic pressure to find gold for the crown, and the natives were enslaved to search - resulting in 90% of them being dead within 30 years.
The palestenians today are in the unfortunate situation of being a 'nuisance' to a powerful nation, and repressed.
It's messy; there are wrongs you can see on any side, and the ideologues can find them on the side they choose to pay attention to. The Palestenians are very aware of the abuse of power over them of the Israelis, and find revenge attractive; the Israelis worry about their democratic ideals putting them at risk of a majority of non-Jews gaining power, who would destroy their culture if empowered and replace it with something they don't like; they are willing to deny equal rights to the Palestenians and use other repressive measures.
What I'd like to see is for an 'independant' panel of experts to be empowered to recommend solutions; but for now that doesn't seem to be what the powers want.
So, we can expect more of the same, it seems likely. However, because the Palestinian issue fuels the support for the terrorist groups so much, the west may be willing to explore compromises there. Most nations have broad public support for that; Tony Blair has pushed it, and is now being considered for a role there. We'll see.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
Isreal should do whatever it needs to to defend itself, and if that means walling off Gaza, then so be it. In the meantime, the Palestinian people need to string up both Hamas and Fatah.
Noobtastic
Banned
Anything Israel does is automatically criticized.
They're in a 24/7 bind, and the neighboring islamic countries are enjoying every second of it.
They're in a 24/7 bind, and the neighboring islamic countries are enjoying every second of it.
lozina
Lifer
Hamas has done far more good for the Palestinian people than Fatah. That's why they were voted in. Fatah is just a corrupt system of cronies and bribery. Bribed with the money we sent as so-called foreign aid meant to feed the poor Palestinians so it's no wonder they are "pro-Western" and tote the line of US/Israeli policies no matter how bad they are for the Palestinian people. These Fatah members send their families off to foreign countries in extravagant mansions with our foreign aid money. US/Israel has no control over Hamas that's why they hate them so much and are so desperate to get them out of the way.
Hamas as a social organization has been good with decent results given the limitations that they have.
As a militant organization; they have damaged severely the Palestinian prospects.
They continue to jab at Israel, knowing that there will be responses that will end up killing people.
Why?
To generate sympathy for their cause.
The Palestinians rely severely on handouts that come in from the Western nations, not the Muslim brotherhood. Israel mostly controls the flow of Western funds to the Palestinians and also generates a large amount of economic jobs for the Palestinians.
A problem with that is, Israel also has the economic noose and has had no qualms in using it when Hamas encourages war vs peace. Previously, the Palestinians in Gaza were able to blame Hamas as the militant vs Fatah as the government - No Longer can that distinction be used
Hamas seems to need conflict to maintain their standing within the Arab ranks.
They forced Fatah out of Gaza - now what is Hamas going to do within Gaza for the Palestinian people? They have no bogey man other than Israel (which has already existed).
What will Hamas do to lead the Palestinian people toward a positive future rather than an enslaved Ghetto relying on handouts?
lozina
Lifer
Oh what about Israel? They make jabs at the Palestinians like bulldozing homes and farms, continuing their settlement expansion in Palestinian territory, randomly imprisoning people claiming they are "militants" with no trial or evidence, etc... knowing that reactionary elements within Palestine territory will make responses that end up killing people and generating support for more military intervention by Israel voters.
Yes, and this is a very, very bad thing. We cannot let Israel have so much control over the Palestinians with the economic cards they hold.
Same thing can be said for the Israeli government. How else can they keep up their military-industrial complex if the people were not so jingoistic, where would the support come from to conduct raids in Palestinian territory and expand settlements there?
As you said, they have their hands tied thanks to the overwhelming control Israel has over the situation. So it's easy for Israel to make it look like Hamas is bad by continuing to withhold funding meant for Palestinians, continuing to cut power/water to the people and closing in the borders.
Responses are bolded
Everytime Israel has turned the cheek and accepted the Arab promises; they seem to get stabbed in the back.
Israel apparently has decided that that will no longer be the case until peace exists along all of it's borders.
smack Down
Diamond Member
So Israel is oppressing the people of Palestine which I guess in your opinion is ok, because Palestine doesn't meet your definition of country? Additionally they should just take what Israel does to them in the hopes that one day Israel will be nicer to them. If Palestine was a country would that give them the obligation to do what ever it takes to Israel "to protects its people from attacks."
lozina
Lifer
Yes, and this is a bad policy- it's collective punishment. It does not work and Israel is shooting itself in the foot by doing it. But some will argue as you did with Hamas that Israel does this to provoke responses and garner more support for additional military action.
[/quote]
I don't understand. Are you saying the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel? Because they are not. There would be no "smuggling" since those areas are not part of Israel.
And likewise Israeli companies rely on cheap labor from the Palestinians. They benefit from each other. See, it would be a wonderful thing if the two sides could finally put aside their pride and make peace with each other so we could see more of this kind of trading that benefits them all. Unfortunately there are elements on both sides which benefit from perpetual war and they have tremendous influence.
All boogiemen. We both know they are no threats to Israel. The only threat they pose is to the prospect of expanding Israel's borders. You are almost sounding like the Israeli generals who in 1967 made similar statements only to follow up with an unprovoked attack on their "threatening" Arab neighbors and try to annex huge quantities of land from them. I remember reading a quote from one of those generals later who admitted they really had no reason to fear the Arab neighbors they were publicly worrying about prior to the attack.
Sure, Israel should protect it's citizens, but how does expanding settlements in the West Bank protect their citizens?
Very one-sided. As if Hamas is living in a vacuum and everything depends solely on their actions.
Like when?
I will agree that this may not work.
I would ask that what other options exist should Israel continue to allow such attacks to happen?
The Palestinians have shown that they will continue to attack even if Israel does nothing within a time span.
Then if Israel responds, the militants will state the Israel broke the agreement, even though the militants threw the most recent punch.
Gaza was ceded to Israel by Egypt when the Sinai was returned.
The West Bank was captured from Jordan and Jordan has not asked for the return.
Both as we agree are under Israel control because there is no established government for such areas. Both of those areas declined to be a country back in '48 when offered.
Agreed - When the labor walls have gone up, it has hurt the Israeli economy - however, the walls go up due to the fact that militants have infiltrated Israel via the Palestinian labor force.
The problem is how does one define a threat. Lobbing rockets into villages that kill people can be considered a threat. In '67 Israel attacked Egypt due to a provoking closure of the Suez that was counter to international law. some of those Arab nations were also beefing up there forces at the border. given what happened previously, Israel had every reason to be nervous.
In '48, '56, '73 Israel was attacked by Arab nations that had offered peace after the previous defeat.
Syria still professes to be at war; supports the militant organizations that are against Israel - allows them to maintain their headquarters; provides supplies, etc.
Israel was never attacking as a land grab. They ended up controlling land that was lost by the opposing forces and kept as a buffer for that exact reason. that area had been used as a staging area previously for attacks against Israel proper.
Where else would funds be coming from to pay for the materials that for the munitions. The bare bones materials/supplies are not manufactured within the territories.
[/quote]
This has been demonstrated during multiple "peace windows" The militants keep harassing Israeli areas via shootings, rockets, attempted border incursions, attempting suicide bombers.
It is when one finally succeeds in doing enough damage to create an outcry does Israel retaliate. And that is usually against the group that they has publicly admitted coordination or that was identified as such.
Expansion of the settlements does not.
Prevention of further attacks is required
Hamas has publicly state that there will be no peace with Israel.
They wanted control of the Palestinians - let them accept the responsibility of the control.
As was stated then at another time, "If they mean war, then let it begin here".
Hamas has declared war on Israel - they can also request peace if they choose.
Like when?
[/quote]
'53,'67,'73 as battles of nations from those that sued for peace previously
Munich - a time of unofficial cessation of hostility among nations
'91 from Iraq - Scud missiles in a conflict that they were not part of.
When the all Arabs and Palestinians are willing to accept Israel as a nation and cease hostilities, then peace and prosperity can move forward.
As long as the military and militants feel that they are needed to accomplish the political goals; trouble will exist.
Hogwash.
Gaza was promised as part of a future Palestinian state in the Camp David Accords, and Jordan only gave up their claim over the West bank in 1988, and that was to the PLO...
In 1948, Arab nations attacked in response to the actions of Jewish terrorists driving palestinians into their countries, which had been occuring since the spring of 1947. Israel, France, and Great Britain were the aggressors in 1956, and you left out 1967, which was the reason for arab attacks in 1973.
More hogwash. Israel has annexed the Golan heights and has settlers there in large numbers, and their ongoing settlement of the west bank is quite real. Moving one's population forward into conquered territory isn't "establishing buffers", at all...
Hamas has a legitimate point wrt recognizing Israel and accepting a two state solution. 40 years of negotiation by Fatah has only established that the proposed Palestinian state will never exist except as a mideast bantustan, if that.
Israel always manages to portray herself as the victim, even when lying, cheating, stealing and basically doing their best to starve the pals into submission, with this coup in the West Bank and embargo of Gaza just another shameful episode. It helps create conditions leading to even more palestinian radicalism and resistance, apparently just what the Israelis really want.
imported_dna
Golden Member
It's funny thing giving up claim after you no longer own it, kinda like with the Shebba Farms.
Which neo-reviso history book are you using?
Israel had every right to act in both 56 and 67 when considering the countries were giving a base to terrorists, and the Syrians had the habit of firing shells in an attempt to reach the sea (spoiler: they never reached it).
I'll have to add hogwash to your list of favorite words; at this rate it might just overtake agitprop.
We seem to have some differences in understanding time lines.
Whether or not is was part of the Camp David Accords (which the PLO never took up), Egypt had no control of Gaza or has wanted it. It is a PITA that they are more than willing to pass on to Israel.
Jordan gave up claim to the West Bank in '88 to the PLO - but when did they loose control of the West Bank initially? Jordan lost it to Israel and never took/asked it back. Therefore it would seem that they gave away something that they did not control.
The Arabs lost in '48, sued for peace and then came back and attacked in '56.
The Arabs lost in '56, sued for peace and then Egypt started actions that were considered to be a declaration of war in '67. Leading up to those actions were also the massing of Arab armies. Given the previous actions of the Arabs; should Israel have waited for another attack on the Arab terms. That would have been foolish.
When the Arabs sued for peace in '67 they then continued to plan.
They launched coordinated attacks again in '73 on a Jewish holiday (taking advantage of the perceived letdown in alertness). Again they got their asses handed to them.
The Arabs can state that others were against them. The Soviets were using them as proxies - however, for 3 of the 4 major conflicts, it was the Arab armies that crossed the borders first. that is the key point.
'67 can be debatable on the aggressor - but using your criteria for the other conflicts; Israel was justified due to actions by the Arabs.
Golan has a strategic military value and until Israel feels safe from Syria, Syria will not have access to it.
Israel makes her choice when working with the Palestinians. Both sides use the media clips for their advantage. Currently the Pals are able to play the underdog and garner sympathy. Israel is not going to sacrifice the safety of her people to appease the Palestinians
When the Palestinians are actually ready to have a legitimate government that will work with Israel, then they have a chance to break their cycle of suffering.
Arafat tried and failed because he was not strong enough to govern as anything but a resistance leader.
Fatah has tried and failed because they are not strong enough to govern and control the militants.
Hamas now has the chance to show that they can take the best of Arafat and Fatah and lead the Palestinians out of the cycle.
The Camp David accords were well after Israel took control of Sinai and Gaza.
Whether or not is was part of the Camp David Accords (which the PLO never took up), Egypt had no control of Gaza or has wanted it. It is a PITA that they are more than willing to pass on to Israel.
Jordan gave up claim to the West Bank in '88 to the PLO - but when did they loose control of the West Bank initially? Jordan lost it to Israel and never took/asked it back. Therefore it would seem that they gave away something that they did not control.
All those Arab nations were concerned for some settlers? The Arab countries had agreed beforehand to mentor the Palestinian territories. Due to the coordination of the attacks by the Arab armies, it was all coincidental that the attacks happened as soon as Israel declared and the British left?
The Arabs lost in '48, sued for peace and then came back and attacked in '56.
The Arabs lost in '56, sued for peace and then Egypt started actions that were considered to be a declaration of war in '67. Leading up to those actions were also the massing of Arab armies. Given the previous actions of the Arabs; should Israel have waited for another attack on the Arab terms. That would have been foolish.
When the Arabs sued for peace in '67 they then continued to plan.
They launched coordinated attacks again in '73 on a Jewish holiday (taking advantage of the perceived letdown in alertness). Again they got their asses handed to them.
The Arabs can state that others were against them. The Soviets were using them as proxies - however, for 3 of the 4 major conflicts, it was the Arab armies that crossed the borders first. that is the key point.
'67 can be debatable on the aggressor - but using your criteria for the other conflicts; Israel was justified due to actions by the Arabs.
The Golan was taking in conflict against Syria. Syria was using that strategic area to launch missiles and attacks. Israel was attacked by Syria and drove them back. To ensure the security of the Golan after it was captured; the settlements were established to act as a trip wire. Note that Syria has not signed a peace treaty with Israel and is still actively supporting groups that are in conflict.
Golan has a strategic military value and until Israel feels safe from Syria, Syria will not have access to it.
Israel makes her choice when working with the Palestinians. Both sides use the media clips for their advantage. Currently the Pals are able to play the underdog and garner sympathy. Israel is not going to sacrifice the safety of her people to appease the Palestinians
When the Palestinians are actually ready to have a legitimate government that will work with Israel, then they have a chance to break their cycle of suffering.
Arafat tried and failed because he was not strong enough to govern as anything but a resistance leader.
Fatah has tried and failed because they are not strong enough to govern and control the militants.
Hamas now has the chance to show that they can take the best of Arafat and Fatah and lead the Palestinians out of the cycle.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
