Israel - Gaza - What should we do if anything.

[kireta21 13]

It seem threat of ground invasion in place of customary airstrikes did the job, and ceasefire is in effect.

We'll see for how long.

[nettrucker 142]

I dont want to burst a bubble, but this was never meant to be resolved, only resolved through one way, and that will end and continue into WW3.

I agree with mrcash on that one. There will never be peace in that region.

[nodunit 397]

Kinda related to the above post

[spooky lynx 73]

There is a chance for peace, not related with WW3:) If those two nations fail to live peacefully in theor states - let this land be governed by some third nation or organization, not related to any of them. Israel and neighboring Arab states can't stand each other and constantly fight? Let them be prohibited to have any armed forces and heavy weapons, only some police-kind ones.

[kireta21 13]

You want to disarm entire Middle East?

[spooky lynx 73]

You want to disarm entire Middle East?

Maybe. Looking at some countries I'm already missing old good colonial times...

BTW, if I'm not mistaken there were restrictions put on some former Axis countries regarding armed forces and military industry directly after WW2. I don't see any reasons against such restrictions applied on Middle East countries. Don't wanna live peacefully? Won't have ability to have armed forces.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Spooky Lynx

[osmo 0]

Here's some history for y'all:

As long as the "palestinians" are being taught to hate the Jews and Israel since the childhood, it's really hard to see any actual peace happening in that area. Israel is the only civilized country in the area, surrounded mainly by barbaric/religious dictatorships. Any country will (and has right to) defend itself against a constant rocket attacks from neighbours. Imagine your hometown being under constant threat of rocket attacks.

For those who are brainwashed by media and pallywood to think that Israel is the big devil: Israel's strikes are focused on military targets. Hamas terrorists are targetting mainly civilian towns, while using their own civilians as shields (there's evidence of hamas shooting rockets from hospitals and schools). Not only Israel warns the civilians living near the target beforehand with mobile phone / leaflets, but they also monitor the target area from air to ensure that civilian casualities are avoided as much as possible. Here are a few examples of that:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=931_1353386508

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=612_1353364533

hmm what's up with the media and some people presentation in this forum (e.g. the comic above) ... daily / weekly there are mortar, missile and rocket projectiles flying from Palestian controlled zones into Israel ... nobody cares, it's probably natural phenomenon and when Israel react, it's all pure evil ? sorry but it perfectly shows why there is no peace, as one side obviously refuse to accept it

I agree. There have been a lot of rocket attacks into Israel all the time prior to the start of this conflict. Those attacks are completely ignored by the media.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Osmo

[spooky lynx 73]

The only civilized country whose armed forces were formed partly by Irgun and Lehi terrorist organizations:) And whose Knesset contained Herut right wing party also formed on the base of Irgun. Oh, and Deir-Yassin massacre is also very civilized act... Eh?

[ProfTournesol 956]

The only civilized country whose armed forces were formed partly by Irgun and Lehi terrorist organizations:) And whose Knesset contained Herut right wing party also formed on the base of Irgun. Oh, and Deir-Yassin massacre is also very civilized act... Eh?

And letting the illegal colonies stay and expand isn't exactly democratic nor peaceful.

It's the whole concept of the "gaza strip" which is absurd.

Edited November 22, 2012 by ProfTournesol

[spooky lynx 73]

Both sides have quite huge list of things that can be used not to name them civilized. So I wonder, if two nations failed to create peaceful relations with each other even in one region (I don't even mention one country:)), is the solution in introducing the third side to govern those two? The other unfortunate way, IMHO, is either total annihilation of one of the sides or total mandatory expulsion of both to have this land free of constant residents.

[kireta21 13]

Actually it's over 6 years since last non-Gaza conflict in the area, and there was no direct country vs country confrontation since Yom Kippur War.

[osmo 0]

Both sides have quite huge list of things that can be used not to name them civilized. So I wonder, if two nations failed to create peaceful relations with each other even in one region (I don't even mention one country:)), is the solution in introducing the third side to govern those two? The other unfortunate way, IMHO, is either total annihilation of one of the sides or total mandatory expulsion of both to have this land free of constant residents.

You are forgetting that in this conflict there are no two nations that are on both sides. In this particular case, one side is a terrorist organization (hamas) whose stated goal is the total destruction and removal of the other side (State of Israel), and it's replacement with an islamic state. Negotiating with that is simply impossible. To have a negotiations, you would first need to at least recognize and acknowledge the right of the other side to exist (as PLO did back in the 90s). If it was up to Israel, there would already have been peace in the area for over 50 years.

[vilas 477]

You are forgetting that in this conflict there are no two nations that are on both sides. In this particular case, one side is a terrorist organization (hamas) whose stated goal is the total destruction and removal of the other side (State of Israel), and it's replacement with an islamic state. Negotiating with that is simply impossible. To have a negotiations, you would first need to at least recognize and acknowledge the right of the other side to exist (as PLO did back in the 90s). If it was up to Israel, there would already have been peace in the area for over 50 years.

oh c'mon, have you read previous sites of this topic ?

okay, i will give you an example:

you are from Finland, imagine that for example US, Russian and Chinese troops in 2020 invade Finland

and state that there will be country for Kurdistan (whatever nation from whatever continent)

and Kurds ogranize there country , army etc. and start to fight with Finish people , so you become terrorist in 2040 ? and in 2045 someone on BIS forum in regard of Arma11 states "we cannot talk about those terrorists from Finland,they deny existence of Kurdistan and attack Kurdish army garnison in Helsinki"

Finland before 1917 not existed, am i right ? it was part of Russia or Sweden, so what if Sweden and Russia would now want to attack Finland ? and divide it to return from situation from 1916? would you not be a terrorist ?

Poles were terrorist vs. German troops and German administration which was official General Gubernie administration since 1939 to 1945 on our territory too , we were terrorists in 1831, in 1864 vs. official Russian administration here in my city of Warsaw (cause Poland lost independance from 1797-1914 when it was divided by 3 empires, so of course we were setting up bombs too and innocent Russians died here too for example those who were close to Russian troops serving Tsar here in for example 1831) etc.

this coin has 2 sides, it is not "official state vs. some terrorists"

those 2 sides have some dirt in pockets and act not like they should,

in 1948 UN resolution made 2 countries, but one country invaded territory of second country and in consequence since 1967 this second state not exist but is under occupation of first state

so it is not white-black situation , but both sides have some things in history plus both sides have rights to independence etc. also 2 other cultures which were there since 3 thousands years have rights, but every side deny right of opposite site

every time when one bigger and stronger state (government , not usual people) deny right to existence of other state - there are terrorists, everytime, everywhere

reason is simple - one state wants power in region, taxes from region etc.

even in Europe we have Bask, in UK we had Nother Ireland people fighting with other country supremacy on their island etc. etc. etc.

so be carefull looking at "terrorists" cause first there is a need to look at reason,

of course Islam is agressive culture which we can see like now in Kokkedal or Paris (YT movies) but in case of Palestine there is another situation

of course Israel also have rights because Jews live there for 4000 years , it is their Homeland too , it was Judea in Roman time

Edited November 22, 2012 by vilas

[osmo 0]

okay, i will give you an example:

*an example not fitting with the history of Israel/Palesitne

Your example doesn't fit in the middle east situation at all. The majority of the "Palestinians" who live in the area today are Arabs who at the end of 1800 and especially during the early 1900 emigrated to Palestine from the surrounding Arab countries.They were attracted to the area from the neighbouring countries by the organized Jewish emigration to Palestine that started in the 1880s. To learn more about the history of Israel and the region, I recommend you to watch the videos that I posted in the previous page.

Particularly this one:

Edited November 22, 2012 by Osmo

[spooky lynx 73]

You are forgetting that in this conflict there are no two nations that are on both sides. In this particular case, one side is a terrorist organization (hamas) whose stated goal is the total destruction and removal of the other side (State of Israel), and it's replacement with an islamic state. Negotiating with that is simply impossible. To have a negotiations, you would first need to at least recognize and acknowledge the right of the other side to exist (as PLO did back in the 90s). If it was up to Israel, there would already have been peace in the area for over 50 years.

Please show me any Arab that will like the idea either of giving his lands for Jewish state or staying in it. I can name some very small group of Jews that are against existence of Jewish state (national state - doesn't it sound a bit like one well known Reich?). So because of that idea of Jewish state creation this conflict stepped on the national level.

[osmo 0]

Please show me any Arab that will like the idea either of giving his lands for Jewish state or staying in it.

First of all, majority of the land that is present day Israel, was pretty much barren and desolate in the 1880s when more and more Jews started moving in the area. However, there were a small presence of both Arabs and Jews in the area. Some land was indeed sold by Arabs to the Jews (so there is one example for you), but majority of it was simply empty (no one living in it). As I stated before, majority of the so called "palestinians" today are arabs who started moving into the area from neighbouring arab countries after Jewish emigration started.

[vilas 477]

of course my example fits, cause in our history we had great empires and colonies, it changed and it caused movement of groups of people, so please tell me from my example, would you be Finish terrorist in year 2045 in such hypothetical situation ? cause i would like my ancestors were in 1944, 1914, 1864, 1831 etc.

empty land excuse/explanation ? okay, so maybe we gonna invade Australia and Canada , our immigrants are there and some empty space is there too ? btw what Native Aborigins and Native Indians think about states as organizations and some John Wayne movies, Native Indians were terrorists too ? cause they were shot at least in Western movies i watched,

so we have situation which we have, now to avoid bloodshed world politics should do something, but remembering that there is no only "one side is wrong, other side is right" , cause in this conflict two sides have their 50% right and it is major problem, that 2 opposite sites have their coin part, which is connected with one coin, but unfortunately 2 totally opposite interests , plus any consequence of choice has an influence on our future world , depending on which future world we want to live in, i'd rather support Israel than have Kokkedal in my city, but not because i think Israel is right but because i love Christmass tree and don't want Mosques in my neighborhood, when i will be grandfather i want my grandson to give gift under Christmass tree, not being afraid of Islamic actions

Israel is for us somekind of guarantee for our (yet) lifestyle , it is boiling point breaking any conventions, but bareer point we need, no matter that they act like some people compared them to Third Reich, i'd rather allow Israel to nuke anyone around Israel than had my throat cut in future for having Christmas tree or eating herring and cabbage plums in December

thats why US is supporting Israel and with regreat i support too , although they are "not right" but they are barrier, Islam is on the stage we were 1000, 800 years ago, we had Crusades, they have now growth, to save our lifestyle and culture we must do bad things as our civilisation (when i say we i mean caucasian european christian-roots people, of course for Japanese or Chinese or African people it doesn't matter)

simply i do not want to be slaughtered in 2050 or like this by very very growing Islam culture which wants more and more influence in Europe, i am European, i have Christian roots, i want to stay and live my life in tradition i've grown and my grandfathers grown

noone can guarantee me that i won't have my throat cut in 2050 if Muslim culture will have more and more percentage in Europe and when Israel would be weak , Israel and Jewish people love their tradition too , i simply afraid of myself and my future kids and grandsons too much,

so no matter how many human rights Israelis break, no matter how much Palestinian people have right, i am afraid too much for future (unless upcoming Islam would give me 4 wives to serve me in bed, kitchen, than i will change my mind, but at the moment i am afraid for, i love Christmass tree too much )

Israel is our European guarantee card in case of danger of change of culture in our region, of course in Australia, America, Asia, Africa it is not important, but in Europe it is,

America probably thinks about oil interests there and having military strategic point, we have other strategic point , cultural point in Israel

Edited November 22, 2012 by vilas

[osmo 0]

of course my example fits, cause in our history we had great empires and colonies, it changed and it caused movement of groups of people, so please tell me from my example, would you be Finish terrorist in year 2045 in such hypothetical situation ? cause i would like my ancestors were in 1944, 1914, 1864, 1831 etc.

empty land excuse/explanation ? okay, so maybe we gonna invade Australia and Canada , our immigrants are there and some empty space is there too ?

The situation is so different between Finland and Israel/Palestine that it's really an extremely bad example. Finns have been known to have lived in this area for thousands of years. We have a long history in the area. The idea that Russia or any country would invade Finland is already absurd. However, if such attempt would be made, we would simply stop their invasion like we did in the WW2. Placing a Kurdish nation here is even more absurd, because Kurds have absolitely no historical presence or any other reason to be in Finland.

Comparing the situation to Israel/Palestine. Israel/Jews have long history in the area (over 3000 years). During the time when majority of the Jews lived outside (100-1900), they were singing songs about going back to Jerusalem. When they finally started moving back to the area in the 1880s, the area was desolate and barren. Small settlements of Jews and Arabs lived there, but it was mainly empty. Thus, it is in no way comparable to a situation where Russia or any other country invades Finland, which is a sovereign country.

[spooky lynx 73]

Your example doesn't fit in the middle east situation at all. The majority of the "Palestinians" who live in the area today are Arabs who at the end of 1800 and especially during the early 1900 emigrated to Palestine from the surrounding Arab countries.They were attracted to the area from the neighbouring countries by the organized Jewish emigration to Palestine that started in the 1880s. To learn more about the history of Israel and the region, I recommend you to watch the videos that I posted in the previous page.

O RLY?:) So Arabic conquest in 636 year a.d. is fake?

[osmo 0]

O RLY?:) So Arabic conquest in 636 year a.d. is fake?

When have I implied that? I was talking about the situation in the 1880s (that's what is relevant, since that's when Jewish emigration started). Don't you know that during the Turkish Ottoman rule (1516-1917), the area experienced an ecological catastrophe because of extensive felling of trees as a result of the Turkish tree taxation. The land turned desolate and barren, as well as, became sparsely inhabited, with very few Turkish feudal lords ruling over the land.

By the way, I don't want to teach you the whole history of middle east here. Watch the videos I posted in the previous page about the history if you lack knowledge of it.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Osmo

[vilas 477]

Osmo, so you would be a terrorist or not ?

you say it is wrong example, but what if it was , if in 2040 Chinese and Russian and US gov. decide that Kurds need land and it can be placed in Finland and first emigration of Kurds (sorry for example simply this nation do not have their state yet) started for example since 2027 ?

[osmo 0]

Yeah I would probably be a terrorist (or at least guerrilla) in that case :)

I understand your point, that if someone would invade a country, it is very likely that the invaded will start guerrilla warfare / possible terrorism to drive them out. I just don't see this to be the case in Israel/Palestine, because no land was stolen from any country in the process of creation of the state of Israel in 1948. There were just a lot of people (Jews and Arabs) who moved into the area between 1880 and 1948, and the British mandate of Palestine was then divided in two, the larger portion in the east was given to Arabs (present day Jordan), and the smaller portion in the west was given to Jews (present day Israel).

Between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank was occupied by Jordan, and Gaza was occupied by Egypt. Only after the 1967 six-day-war, when the surrounding arab countries once again tried to destroy Israel, the state of Israel started occupying Gaza and West Bank. Instead of giving the areas back to Egyptian and Jordanian control, the "palestinians" were given autonomy over the areas of gaza and west bank.

Maybe returning back to 1967 borders (i.e. giving Gaza back to Egypt, and West Bank back to Jordan) would be the best solution. Egypt could integrate the Gazans and Jordan could integrate the people living in West Bank. Hamas and Fatah don't seem to get along anyways so it's better to have them belonging to different countries.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Osmo

[vilas 477]

you do not understand it because you look from our post-Romanian legal tradition of states regulated by the law regulation and from point of view of UN treats and etc.

but you may understand it from tribal point of view, when "we were born here, our granfathers were born here, it is our land" point of view, those guys need no tax, papers, symbols, "state" to be called "nation" or "state" :)

you say no state was invaded cause you look at state as legal bordered taxed organization lead by government, but nation, tribe etc. in past in other cultures were equal states in our civilization

even now many people living in some areas do not identify with state, they identify with their ethnic group, state is organization made by some armed guys to grab taxes from area,

there is no difference if i live in Poland , Russia, Finland, France , USA , cause living in "born place" i support "local market because it means employment, local economy because it means employment, local group interest because it means employment" , state is when soldier with rifle comes to tax me for government he (soldier) is payed , nothing more

so no-mans land is not explanation, simply there was no official west-civilisation (or post Roman civilisation) way of organize people

tribal do not mean no-mans land, it just means "not taxed by fat greed guy in palace" ;) but there was tribal-like state, Arab state and Arab tradition state which is more religion or tribe society than "borders drawn on paper maps"

invasion there do not meant "we invaded noone cause there was no state" (or even more : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom cause in some areas state meant slavery in our organized non tribal states )

for example 4 states may say that they not confirm existence of fifth state, so what than ?

4 kings from 4 "states" say "fifth king is not a king, we divide no-mans land, no-state is invaded by us, ugly terrorists"

Polish history from 1790s , 3 kings said that Poland do not exist ;) German Kind, Russian Tshar, Austro-Hungarian King said we not exist and "no land was invaded" and only Turkey and 15 years later Napoleon Bonaparte said we were existing ;)

Finland was invaded before ? when ?

there was no Finland in 1800s , Finland could be invaded only after 1917 , am i right ? if UN-like post WW1 organization would not justify Finland existence than in 1940 also "no state was invaded" by Stalin ;)

i reffered to this

because no land was stolen from any country in the process of creation of the state of Israel in 1948

off course Edited November 22, 2012 by vilas

[kireta21 13]

So Vilas, what makes in your opinion land ownership and borders legal, if it's not law or strength? Should Poles claim wester Ukraine, and Germans Pomerania? What about places, traditionally claimed as "their" by multiple nations, like Sillesia, or people thinking themself as one?

[vilas 477]

many things make it , but for sure international situation is like it is and we have to function in current situation , people also change their identity depending if in country is good or bad situation (example with people who have 2-nations roors) etc.

so i just said that we should look on history from many points of view, not just one , history is history, it is complicated, but in current politics we should also get our interest point of view (history may be used to justify or simply understand actions, simply understand)

this region has too complicated situation to solve it rightfully for both sides, there is no one good solution in this region , discussion is simply endless :) we call it - what was first ? chicken or egg :)