Death tolls mysteriously rise in Gaza

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:
A large amount of what they put up with is self-inflicted. Why allow trade if every time you do groups import rockets to fire at Israel? Why allow free movement if people use it as a chance to stab Israeli's?

Have you heard the term "collective punishment"? The Israeli blockade is, by any stretch of the imagination, harsh. Gaza is basically the world's largest prison camp; it has huge restrictions even on materials necessary for basic development.

The situation is a clusterfuck, with elements of both sides making it worse. Pretending it isn't a clusterfuck is stupid and likely to get people killed.

Sorry, are you talking to someone else here? Who said it's not a clusterfuck?

But what are you expecting here? Since the dawn of time, in every place and every culture, marginalised and oppressed peoples - be they slaves, peasants, serfs, or occupied peoples - have protested, rioted, revolted. It is the only way it is ever going to be. For us to expect the Palestinians will magically accomplish what no other people ever have is absurdity; making it a conditional demand of peace talks abusive.

The long term plan for the region was the two state solution, with both having capitals in Jerusalem. Someone has to make the first move.

Someone is moving. Israel is busy expanding Israeli occupation and displacing Palestinians. The current situation works fine for Israel: it takes over more and more of the land it thinks it deserves because of a several thousand year old book, without ever having to grant the displaced occupants fair opportunities, rights, or any meanignful say in what's going on. The endgame is perhaps simple: the Palestinians squashed into a few cities like Hebron to join Gaza as glorified prison camps.

The problem is, people are too busy rushing to bash Trump to actually seize the opportunity to progress the situation. And no, I'm not saying his was the most diplomatic of moves. I'm saying it could be adapted into one.

Are you serious? Israel is under the rule of a (corrupt) hardliner whose is busy aggressively expanding Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and favours violent crackdowns. Under Trump, Netanyahu has been given the full and uncritical support of the USA to do pretty much anything that he wants with Palestine, with the embassy move the most colossal symbolic slap in the face. What this means is that Trump has burnt to the ground trust in the USA as a fair or neutral mediator.

When one side has the whip hand and no meaningful constraints, how does this become "progress"? The only motivation for "progress" currently is that the Palestinians become so dejected that they opt for unconditional surrender and accept whatever mouthful of shit Israel hands them to chew on.

KingsGambit:
Not really a mystery...maybe they shouldn't charge a border with rocks and molotovs, burning tires and kites with swastikas on.

Oh no! Rocks! Kites! Tires! Whatever are the brave soldiers of the IDF supposed to do against such powerful, dangerous weapons? They were just forced to snipe 2000 people, it only makes sense!

IDF short for 'Indefensable' as usual. Israel now more validated than ever by the US hard-on for Muslim murder.

Catnip1024:
This mini-thread is about your link to the sob story about the baby dying. The baby died of tear gas inhalation. You suggested this could not happen elsewhere. My point is, tear gas is used everywhere, and the only thing stopping it happening elsewhere is sensible parenting.

I suggested the situation could not happen elsewhere, not that tear gas is not used elsewhere. Nobody died in Paris due to police action, because they were not using live ammunition and tanks against protesters.

On a side-note, the phrase "sob story" really indicates how much you give a shit.

Catnip1024:
No. Not at all. You have a bizarre mindset on this.

If a group has a history of violence towards police, you do not treat them like any other protesting group. You can't. That's not retribution, that's common sense in light of the facts of the situation.

A group. The entire point of what I was saying was that you cannot hold an entire demographic responsible for the actions of some of them. This is not a "bizarre mindset"; it's literally how due process takes place in civilised countries.

The actions of the murderers do not justify killing people who are are unrelated to those murderers, just because they're part of the same demographic group.

Catnip1024:
afaik, nobody was shot by a tank. Nobody was shot at by artillery. These were things in reserve in case things got really out of hand. So the repeated bringing up of the subject does you no good. Live fire was limited to the odd sniper.

The "odd sniper"? Soldiers were instructed they could use live ammunition on anybody within 300m of the fence, even if they weren't damaging it, in direct contravention of international law

Catnip1024:
Again, most riots do not believe the policing force are subhuman, and would not be happy to see them dead. Yes, that applies both ways. But that doesn't overlook the fact that this is a very different situation to your average riot.

You're assuming what the dead people believed as a justification for their deaths?

That's not even close to how due process works. You have nothing to go on. This is just grouping people together by their demographic and judging them all guilty; it's ludicrous.

Catnip1024:
I don't believe in God given rights. Some people can't be trusted with the human rights assigned to them, particularly in certain contexts (like tens of thousands at a border, creating a smokescreen by burning tyres, as part of an event the name of which implies they wish to breach said border).

"Some people can't be trusted with the human rights assigned to them" -- and you're happy to see them denied on the basis of assumption of guilt?

People do not lose rights by being near others perpetrating violence. People do not lose rights by being in the same demographic as others perpetrating violence. The former is guilt-by-association; intellectually bankrupt nonsense. The latter is, quite frankly, just sheer bigotry.

Agema:
Gaza is basically the world's largest prison camp; it has huge restrictions even on materials necessary for basic development.

You reap what you sow. The Palestinian government has, at various times, actively supported militant attacks on Israel. It has certainly not attempted to stop them.

If any country in the world did that, you would expect some response from it's neighbours.

Sorry, are you talking to someone else here? Who said it's not a clusterfuck?

If you imply that it should be policed like the rest of the world, you imply it is not a clusterfuck. That people will behave just because some flashing blue lights show up. It's an unrealistic assumption.

Silvanus:
I suggested the situation could not happen elsewhere, not that tear gas is not used elsewhere. Nobody died in Paris due to police action, because they were not using live ammunition and tanks against protesters.

Again, missing the point. Had babies been taken to the front line of the Paris / Nicaragua riots, you would likely have seen dead babies.

A group. The entire point of what I was saying was that you cannot hold an entire demographic responsible for the actions of some of them. This is not a "bizarre mindset"; it's literally how due process takes place in civilised countries.

I'm not aware that protestors were a demographic now.

The protest is carried out by the Pro-Palestine groups / supporters. The attacks are carried out by a set of the same people. Hence there are likely to be violent elements within the gathering. That would be enough cause to stop protests in a lot of places.

"Some people can't be trusted with the human rights assigned to them" -- and you're happy to see them denied on the basis of assumption of guilt?

People do not lose rights by being near others perpetrating violence. People do not lose rights by being in the same demographic as others perpetrating violence. The former is guilt-by-association; intellectually bankrupt nonsense. The latter is, quite frankly, just sheer bigotry.

Do you see the irony here? Considering the Charlottesville response, where the cry was "ban all far right marches" over one death and a bit of minor scuffling? Whereas my view is, if you can be trusted / policed, assemble, at the very least until your group has caused sufficient violence to result in you losing your right to assemble. There is nothing stopping Palestinians gathering anywhere that isn't a border to a disputed region.

It's not demographics, it's about protest groups. That's a very different thing. If a band of militant vegans was killing people on a regular basis, I'd be inclined to deny them the right to assemble too, particularly outside a turkey farm.

Catnip1024:
The protest is carried out by the Pro-Palestine groups / supporters. The attacks are carried out by a set of the same people. Hence there are likely to be violent elements within the gathering. That would be enough cause to stop protests in a lot of places.

And for "stop" to mean "shoot into" in a much smaller number of places. Shooting up a protest, hell, even a riot mostly went out of fashion in the West since the Troubles, it gives us something to look down at China about.

Catnip1024:
Do you see the irony here? Considering the Charlottesville response, where the cry was "ban all far right marches" over one death and a bit of minor scuffling?

The far right killed more people at Charlottesville than have been killed or wounded by Palestinians at the Gaza protests.

Oh, and it's a fence, not a border.

Don't punch Nazis, but by all means shoot indiscriminately into crowds of Palestinians.

Seanchaidh:

Catnip1024:
Do you see the irony here? Considering the Charlottesville response, where the cry was "ban all far right marches" over one death and a bit of minor scuffling?

The far right killed more people at Charlottesville than have been killed or wounded by Palestinians at the Gaza protests.

And Palestinian lone wolf attacks have lead to far more deaths than any "Alt Right" group. We can all cherry pick statistics to distort reality.

Oh, and it's a fence, not a border.

Oh, aren't you precious, buying into that bullshit line of argument...

My garden flowerbed has a border, regardless of whether or not my neighbour recognises it. It's a border.

Don't punch Nazis, but by all means shoot indiscriminately into crowds of Palestinians.

Again with the inaccurate wording.

50 dead in a crowd of 40,000 is not indiscriminate.

You can question the rationale behind the shootings, but they were clearly targetted. Note that on the first day of the protests, Hamas acknowledged that a number of the dead were Hamas operatives, whether or not they were peacefully protesting or up to no good.

You can also question why only one side in this conflict is being held up to international human rights standards. If Palestine wants to be a legitimate state, it ought to start acting like one. No hiding military forces behind civilians (as has been done in previous instances if not this one), no indiscriminately bombarding civilian territory itself. This disjoint in applying international law is one of the main reasons I lack any sympathy for the Palestinian state. The Palestinian people, sure, they're screwed over. But their own state is as much at fault there as anyone else.

Catnip1024:

50 dead in a crowd of 40,000 is not indiscriminate.

You are leaving out the count of injured, m8.

BreakfastMan:

Catnip1024:

50 dead in a crowd of 40,000 is not indiscriminate.

You are leaving out the count of injured, m8.

Which is over 2000 according to Haaretz.

Also: "shoots 50 times into a crowd of 40,000 and hits 50 people" is possible anyway. The logic doesn't even work.

Zontar:
I wonder how much of Judea and Samaria will be annexed by the time they finally realize that Israel won't be driven back into the sea, they will never be the ones in a position of power to make the demands of a victor of pre-UN war, and that whatever deal they currently are being offered at that moment is as good as it will ever be, as each deal after, due to reflecting the reality on the ground and the fact the Green Line is not and never was the border, will be worst then the one before, just as they all have.

Translation: The beatings will continue until morale improves.

BreakfastMan:

Catnip1024:

50 dead in a crowd of 40,000 is not indiscriminate.

You are leaving out the count of injured, m8.

Considering that a large number of injuries will be from regular policing tactics - rubber bullets and tear gas were also heavily used - it's not really a useful thing to look at.

Seanchaidh:
Also: "shoots 50 times into a crowd of 40,000 and hits 50 people" is possible anyway. The logic doesn't even work.

If you only fire live rounds 50 times in a day long protest, that in itself implies that it is not "indiscriminate". That works out as, what, 50/8 = 6.25 shots per hour? Just over 1 every 10 minutes?

Again, feel free to criticise the tactics, but you have to acknowledge that there are two sides to this issue. And you have to acknowledge that it cannot be expected that this could be policed like a US protest.

BreakfastMan:

Catnip1024:

50 dead in a crowd of 40,000 is not indiscriminate.

You are leaving out the count of injured, m8.

2000 injured, not 2000 shot. From every article I've read the majority of the injuries are caused by inhaling tear gas.

Dirty Hipsters:

BreakfastMan:

Catnip1024:

50 dead in a crowd of 40,000 is not indiscriminate.

You are leaving out the count of injured, m8.

2000 injured, not 2000 shot. From every article I've read the majority of the injuries are caused by inhaling tear gas.

This is from March 31: it sets precedent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:
Also: "shoots 50 times into a crowd of 40,000 and hits 50 people" is possible anyway. The logic doesn't even work.

If you only fire live rounds 50 times in a day long protest, that in itself implies that it is not "indiscriminate". That works out as, what, 50/8 = 6.25 shots per hour? Just over 1 every 10 minutes?

"The shooting wasn't indiscriminate because we waited until seven hours had passed, then sprayed the crowd with bullets, killing 50. Why? Well, because the math works out to an average of 6.25 shots per hour, so each target must have been judiciously chosen; indeed, each had their due process rights respected!"

Kills random person every 7 minutes; expects anyone who asks to believe that each killing was justified because, well, if I'm waiting seven minutes each time that must mean I have to be choosing only targets that deserved it anyway.

Seanchaidh:

Dirty Hipsters:

BreakfastMan:

You are leaving out the count of injured, m8.

2000 injured, not 2000 shot. From every article I've read the majority of the injuries are caused by inhaling tear gas.

This is from March 31: it sets precedent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/31/palestinians-hold-day-of-mourning-after-773-shot-with-live-ammunition

Ok that's pretty fucked. All the numbers I'd heard previously were significantly lower than that (I guess more gunshot victims were coming in over time).

Catnip1024:
You reap what you sow. The Palestinian government has, at various times, actively supported militant attacks on Israel.

The Israeli government is running an occupation that intentionally denies Palestinians rights to land, economic production, and large swathes of self governance, all for the benefit of Israel. Which, purely incidentally, happens to include a great deal of military actions.

They can hardly run this militarily-enforced occupation and complain if the occupied fight back. This military occupation is the core aggression, not the stone-throwing resistance to it.

If you imply that it should be policed like the rest of the world, you imply it is not a clusterfuck. That people will behave just because some flashing blue lights show up. It's an unrealistic assumption.

I expect a state that postures as a civilised state to live up to fairly standard civilised norms. That does not include firing a load of live bullets into a crowd because they're near a fence.

Agema:
The Israeli government is running an occupation that intentionally denies Palestinians rights to land, economic production, and large swathes of self governance, all for the benefit of Israel. Which, purely incidentally, happens to include a great deal of military actions.

They can hardly run this militarily-enforced occupation and complain if the occupied fight back. This military occupation is the core aggression, not the stone-throwing resistance to it.

Bear in mind that the reason Israel is so heavy-handed is because historically, it's neighbours regularly try to destroy it - this was the initial aggression, from the day British troops left. The reason it operates outside of the conventional frameworks is because it's in a uniquely dangerous position where, were it to be over-run, it would cease to exist, and quite credibly be subject to a genocide, in terms of displacement if not murders.

So I don't blame them for operating outside of the regular international human rights laws - again, it's neighbours are equally as bad between them. Although at the minute, you have to give Syria some leeway because it is facing military opposition that doesn't play by internationally recognised rules of engagement either. The point being, rules are nice, but surviving is nicer.

That doesn't mean I don't think there is a debate to be had on the correct policing response to a protest, that just means that you have to recognise and acknowledge that this is not a student loans protest in the centre of London.

And what I've said doesn't mean I don't sympathise with the Palestinian people, but that I have no sympathy for the Palestinian state.

Agema:
They can hardly run this militarily-enforced occupation and complain if the occupied fight back. This military occupation is the core aggression, not the stone-throwing resistance to it.

Oh look, supporting radical islam again, there's a surprise. The "military occupation" is not aggression. Firstly, your premise is flawed since Gaza is not occupied. At all. Every Israeli soldier and civilian left Gaza over a decade ago. The result was a coup d'etat where Hamas seized power from Fatah in a bloody battle between the factions. Since then, the economy has failed, civilian infrastructure is gone, schools, hospitals and mosques get used as arms storage and all foreign aid money goes to line the pockets of Hamas leadership or building tunnels for terrorists to smuggle arms and attempt to enter Israel. While section A of the West Bank is still under occupation, B is under joint control and C is fully under PA control, Israel is unlikely to leave the West Bank as it did Gaza. Why? Because experience and history have shown that the likely outcome of them leaving the West Bank would be the same as Gaza...terrorists firing more indiscriminate rockets at Israel.

The occupation is to protect Israel from islamic militants that want its people dead. The Palestinians can have peace and a state of their own any time they want, when they put down their arms and leave Israel be. Israel has been on the receiving end of arab aggression every single time bar none since it's founding 70 years ago and this time is the same. Radical islamists promise pay for the injured and slain if they march on the fence and cause a scene for the cameras. It is a farcical show designed to get arabs killed. Israel will defend its border, as would any sovereign state.

Agema:
I expect a state that postures as a civilised state to live up to fairly standard civilised norms. That does not include firing a load of live bullets into a crowd because they're near a fence.

Israel is so morally superior to the Palestinians that it isn't even a comparison. One is a liberal democracy with a free society, where all citizens of every faith, gender and sexual orientation can flourish and enjoy the full protection of the law. Gaza is a theocratic, brutal regime where speaking against hamas, a terrorist organisation as defined by every civilised country, will get the speaker killed. Selling land to a jew is punishable by death, a woman can be stoned for bringing shame to her family, homosexuals are beheaded, hung, thrown from buildings or dragged down the street tied to a vehicle.

Hamas are barabaric savages, radical islamist terrorists who pursue the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. It's in their charter. They are an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, determined to spread sharia law (ie. Islamism). They behead babies, stab families around their dining tables and hand out sweets whenever a jew is murdered. They celebrate their own dead by calling them Shahid (martyrs) and name their buildings after murderers and terrorists. Hamas and their poisonous ideology are to blame for every death at the border. Hamas is the worst enemy the Palestinian people have and the sad truth is that while they refuse to relinquish power (why would they?) Gaza won't change. They are at war with Israel so casualties should not be a surprise to anyone.

KingsGambit:
snip

Shooting at human beings at the other side of the fence like cattle is the perfect evidence on how morally superior one is, isn't it?

Catnip1024:
Bear in mind that the reason Israel is so heavy-handed is because historically, it's neighbours regularly try to destroy it

Actually it's because they would really prefer that all Palestinians (a "demographic threat") would die. Then they can have their land!

CaitSeith:

KingsGambit:
snip

Shooting at human beings at the other side of the fence like cattle is the perfect evidence on how morally superior one is, isn't it?

Hardly like cattle. The fence is only on the one side, so there's nothing stopping the attackers dropping their molotovs, fire bombs, fire kites and slings, turning around and going home.

There's no moral equivalence to be had between uncivilised, brainwashed radicals who march their people and children as human shields into harm's way and a democratic nation with a free press, freedom of religion, equality under the law and an army dedicated to protecting its people. When Israel builds bomb shelters and Iron Dome, Hamas builds tunnels and hides weapons in populated areas and civilian buildings.

But for what it's worth, instead of leading long, productive, peaceful lives that improves the lot of the Gazans, the "martyrs" get to go to the heaven in the Quran and get their 72 virgins. I'm not sure if that's each or altogether; it would be a lot of virgins if it's 72 each. West Bank Arabs under occupation have more freedom, protections and rights than Gazans do under Hamas, not to mention a better economy. Hamas, radical islamist terrorists, are responsible for every death at the border; it's the entire goal of the riot. The instant you're able to see who is to blame for the riot, you'll understand why there can't be peace while Hamas remains in power.

As long as they try to cross the border, on their "Day of Rage" (aka Tuesday), Israel has to defend itself. The same way any other nation would if a person who swore their people dead tried to cross it after being warned not to. I sympathise for the suffering in Gaza but the blame lies wholly with Hamas.

KingsGambit:
But for what it's worth, instead of leading long, productive, peaceful lives that improves the lot of the Gazans, the "martyrs" get to go to the heaven in the Quran and get their 72 virgins. I'm not sure if that's each or altogether; it would be a lot of virgins if it's 72 each. West Bank Arabs under occupation have more freedom, protections and rights than Gazans do under Hamas, not to mention a better economy. Hamas, radical islamist terrorists, are responsible for every death at the border; it's the entire goal of the riot. The instant you're able to see who is to blame for the riot, you'll understand why there can't be peace while Hamas remains in power..

Firstly, Hamas is trash and is making things worse.

You know that people are being removed from their homes right? For the last 80 years.They have Israeli government restriction placed on them to reduce travel and work opportunities. Could you imagine Americans "lead peaceful lives" if their government did this to them? They revolted over far less and killed around 25k in a few years. They made their own government and constitution

At the moment IDF is being the scary bogeyman that Hamas says it is. I.e. The IDF are making it worse. Until that changes, Hamas has ligitmate complaints. Until Hamas stops sending terrorists, IDF has ligitmate complaints.

Or let me put it this way, without Hamas, there still wasn't peace. It wasn't even close. Both side will find scapegoats for their actions.

KingsGambit:
equality under the law

Israel is literally enforcing a blockade that has poisoned Gaza's water supply.

Seanchaidh:

Catnip1024:
Bear in mind that the reason Israel is so heavy-handed is because historically, it's neighbours regularly try to destroy it

Actually it's because they would really prefer that all Palestinians (a "demographic threat") would die. Then they can have their land!

Well done on mentally erasing that troublesome thing called history, which would indicate that there is far more to this issue than your personal narrative allows.

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:

Catnip1024:
Bear in mind that the reason Israel is so heavy-handed is because historically, it's neighbours regularly try to destroy it

Actually it's because they would really prefer that all Palestinians (a "demographic threat") would die. Then they can have their land!

Well done on mentally erasing that troublesome thing called history, which would indicate that there is far more to this issue than your personal narrative allows.

The ethnic cleansing and aggressive settlement of Palestine is part of history, Catnip1024. It is also part of the present.

KingsGambit:
There's no moral equivalence to be had between uncivilised, brainwashed radicals who march their people and children as human shields into harm's way and a democratic nation with a free press, freedom of religion, equality under the law and an army dedicated to protecting its people. When Israel builds bomb shelters and Iron Dome, Hamas builds tunnels and hides weapons in populated areas and civilian buildings.

Until Israel grants the Palestinensians their own state with full souvereinty they are resposible for them as much as for those holding Israeli citicenship. Which means you can basically forget "free press" and "equality under the law" as Palestinensians don't get equal treatment from Israel.

That is the downside of sabotaging the two state solution. If people look at it as precurser to a full annexation and one state solution that is just an alite using army, blatantly unfair law, dispossession and relocation against its own people.

Satinavian:

KingsGambit:
There's no moral equivalence to be had between uncivilised, brainwashed radicals who march their people and children as human shields into harm's way and a democratic nation with a free press, freedom of religion, equality under the law and an army dedicated to protecting its people. When Israel builds bomb shelters and Iron Dome, Hamas builds tunnels and hides weapons in populated areas and civilian buildings.

Until Israel grants the Palestinensians their own state with full souvereinty they are resposible for them as much as for those holding Israeli citicenship. Which means you can basically forget "free press" and "equality under the law" as Palestinensians don't get equal treatment from Israel.

That is the downside of sabotaging the two state solution. If people look at it as precurser to a full annexation and one state solution that is just an alite using army, blatantly unfair law, dispossession and relocation against its own people.

Its time to point out that hardliner Palestinian want a one state only as well - just a Palestinian state not Israel. Sometimes it has been them that has rejected the two state solution. Old Hamas was very much this and have actually, slowly, deradicalised since reaching power.

To give you an idea of the craziness of the situation. During WW2, the hardliner Palestinians, still under the British thumb and still really annoyed at Balfour a decade earlier (so much that there was frequent revolts), allied themselves with the Nazi. They promised removal of all Jews. The hardliner Jews, being annoyed that the British were still in land they had claimed, decided to also ally with the Nazis, with the promise of removal of Palestinians. In a dramatic twist, both hardliners allied with the same group, Jews allied with Nazis (this is before any atrocities were found out) and it was almost a repeat of Sykes-Picot 20ish year earlier that got Britain into trouble to start with.

You could probably blame this whole situation on the British, except Napoleon in the 1790s was the first one to call for an Israeli state near Jerusalem. This was has been going on for a very long time.

Catnip1024:
Bear in mind that the reason Israel is so heavy-handed is because historically, it's neighbours regularly try to destroy it - this was the initial aggression, from the day British troops left. The reason it operates outside of the conventional frameworks is because it's in a uniquely dangerous position where,

This speaks for the Israeli psyche, maybe, but not the facts on the ground. Israel has not been significantly threatened for 45 years. And of its past opponents, it has stable and peaceful relations with two (Jordan, Egypt), and the other two are far too weak.

Secondly, ISRAEL HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Everyone sodding knows this, but magically forgets the minute they want to present Israel as vulnerable. Never mind that in terms of conventional military, Israel is the most militarily capable country in the Middle East except perhaps Turkey or Iran (and they'd be relying on manpower advantage).

were it to be over-run, it would cease to exist, and quite credibly be subject to a genocide, in terms of displacement if not murders.

So the "genocide" it's running on the Palestinians is fine then?

KingsGambit:
Oh look, supporting radical islam again, there's a surprise.

I have not offered a single word in support of Hamas, I am arguing the case of Palestinian nationalists. The Israelis didn't just shoot several thousand Islamic militants, they shot several thousand Muslims who want their own country. Perhaps this distinction eludes you, because as (per other threads) you seem to struggle to distinguish an Islamofascist terrorist from any other type of Muslim.

The "military occupation" is not aggression.

Yes, it is. It is military imposition of control over an unwilling populace that disadvantages that populace in their own land. If a burglar breaks into your house and steals your silverware, you're not the aggressor if you fight back.

Firstly, your premise is flawed since Gaza is not occupied.

Sophistry.

1) Gaza is not an independent unit; it is part of the Palestinian territories, like Alaska is part of the USA despite Canada being between it and the rest of the USA, and no-one would think it odd if Alaskans were to protest in support of Americans in other states.
2) The whole Palestinian territories, Gaza included, are areas where Israel unilaterally reserves the right of full military access as and when it wants, and imposes very substantial authority over through military force. This is what a military occupation is, rather than actual "boots on the ground".

The Palestinians can have peace and a state of their own any time they want, when they put down their arms and leave Israel be.

That's not how it works, though, is it? It is effectively impossible for any state to control all the activities of its citizens. Even as the Palestinian Authority tries (and has tried) peace, militants can and will operate illegally. Riots happen in any country (including our own) when the people are unhappy. And so on.

Israel is so morally superior to the Palestinians that it isn't even a comparison. One is a liberal democracy with a free society, where all citizens of every faith, gender and sexual orientation can flourish and enjoy the full protection of the law.

What "liberal state" perpetually occupies a territory containing millions to whom it denies voting rights, economic growth, fair access to land and resources, etc.? The parallel with apartheid South Africa is not inaccurate. You could have called that a liberal state too, as long as you missed out all the black people.

Yes, at one level Israel has a society closer to the values and morals of our own (although it is markedly less liberal than ours in various ways you don't quite recognise), and along the lines of what we'd want more developing countries to move towards. But you know what? That doesn't actually excuse what it's doing. We may as well be talking about the British Empire - I'm sure its society may well have been much nicer than many of its conquered territories... but it was still shipping slaves across the Atlantic and butchering natives as required. No amount of "but it's more civilised overall" truly justifies or removes that stain from what it is doing.

Hamas are scum and problematic. But they are also a product of continued injustice. They were elected because of persistent failure to arrange a political solution by Israel and Fatah, and so a desperate population started looking elsewhere. You might consider the parallel of Brexit: as you'd see it, no-one dealt with Muslim immigration, so they blew the political doors off. Cause and effect.

Once Hamas were let in the door, they've entrenched themselves, and so now they HAVE to be dealt with. And Hamas can be dealt with. The UK dealt with the IRA, Colombia dealt with Farc, Trump is dealing with NK. Sometimes, you just have to suck it up and talk to vile and violent people to sort things out for the better.

Seanchaidh:

KingsGambit:
equality under the law

Israel is literally enforcing a blockade that has poisoned Gaza's water supply.

FYI, Egypt is *jointly* responsible for the blockade on Gaza. It's a small but important detail haters tend to leave out because Egypt isn't a jewish State and it doesn't fit the narrative. Not criticising them is hypocrisy, but a different subject.

But you are quite right about the blockade on Gaza (a completely legal blockade by the way), which has been in place since shortly after Hamas took control of the strip in their bloody coup d'etat over a decade ago. So now the next question...Why is there a blockade? You might say "Because Israel are evil oppressors" or something to that effect, but the blockade on Gaza is because Hamas control it and Hamas is at war with Israel. Note there is no blockade on the West Bank, so Israel is not blockading the Palestinians there. The issue is Gaza, and Israel and Egypt had to put a blockade around the enclave because they smuggle in arms and other supplies to build rockets, bombs and their terror tunnel network.

You need to ask why a thing is how it is. Why is Israel shooting attackers? Because they are at the fence rioting and trying to breach it. Why are they at the fence? Because they're angry and "Raging" against the conditions in Gaza. Why are the conditions in Gaza such as they are? Because of the blockade, lack of civilian infrastructure, poor economy and corruption. Why is there a blockade and the rest? Because Hamas rule Gaza as a brutal, theocratic, sharia state, because they are at war with Israel and without the blockade they would smuggle in weapons and parts to build rockets and bombs to kill Israelis.

The Palestinians can agree to discuss peace anytime they want but they don't want to. They would rather rage and try to murder Israelis, so Israel and Egypt have to enforce a blockade, destroy the tunnel network and do their best to prevent arms and bombs entering the strip. In the decade since Israel left Gaza unoccupied, under Hamas rule the economy has crumbled, agriculture is almost non-existent, buildings get destroyed in the constant battles, the only education is Hamas-led Islamist brainwashing where kids are raised on a diet of hatred, bitterness and resentment and taught that the best they can do with their lives is to die a "martyr" fighting the "occupation". To call Hamas evil is a disservice to the word.

Consider this: whose cause is furthered by the deaths at the border? Israel? The country is being questioned constantly about use of force and it damages its reputation in diplomatic terms. Gaza? They're the poor oppressed victims (despite that the riots are a problem of their own making) and the body count gets them sympathy. This entire riot is going on because the Palestinians were neglected by all the strife in Syria and elsewhere, and they wanted the spotlight back. Hamas wants the bodies and is actually paying the rioters with the promise of more money if they're injured or killed. Israel wants to avoid them but sadly, in war and when Israeli lives are at stake, the IDF's job is to make sure no one gets through the fence. Anyone who tries, sad as it might be, brings it upon themselves. This whole exercise is essentially a Hamas marketing campaign. $3600 per corpse, IIRC. This conflict and every single casualty is the sole responsibility of Hamas. Israel can and must defend itself, as would any country, particularly against a neighbour with whom it is at war.

Agema:
What "liberal state" perpetually occupies a territory containing millions to whom it denies voting rights, economic growth, fair access to land and resources, etc.? The parallel with apartheid South Africa is not inaccurate. You could have called that a liberal state too, as long as you missed out all the black people.

The word apartheid is not only completely inaccurate, it's actually an insult to those who lived thru actual apartheid. What you and the haters do when using the word is to try to associate actual racism with Israel when there is no equivalence.

What you are missing is that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. They have no say in Israeli elections, they are not entitled to Israeli social services and are not able to live and work in Israel. They are two distinct people. They could potentially vote on *their own* government, but Hamas will never relinquish power so there is unlikely to be a vote in Gaza. There could be an election in the West Bank, but the chances of them voting a leader who wants peace is slim.

In Israel, ALL citizens of every faith and ethnicity, Jew, Arab, Christian, Muslim, Reform or Orthodox, all have full rights under the law and full equal opportunity. In Palestinian territories, Christians are bullied, evicted and murdered (look at Christian population of Bethlehem), Jews are frequently murdered, Women are second class citizens stoned to death regularly in honour killings and told to stop bothering the police if they report their husbands raped them. Homosexuals are beheaded or thrown from buildings and selling land to a Jew is punishable by death. Death! That is the most pure form of bigotry there is.

Conversely, an Arab judge sentenced former Israel PM Olmert to jail. Could you imagine a Jewish judge in an arab land sentencing a muslim leader? Arabs have represented Israel at Eurovision, at the Olympics, there are Muslim Members of the Knesset and serving in the IDF. Muslims living in Israel have more rights and freedoms than in ANY muslim country in the world. Women have full equal rights. It is a liberal democracy where people vote and a government discusses laws of the land. Gaza is ruled by Sharia law, speaking out against Hamas results in execution. There is no free press and attempting to report the truth results in...you guessed it, death.

Apartheid south africa was one country where people with one skin colour could note vote and were discriminated against. Israel has NO discrimination against race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. In fact Tel Aviv has one of the most vibrant gay scenes in the world, and certainly in the middle east (where most countries will murder them).

Why would you think Palestinians should have voting rights in Israel? Can Jews vote in Palestinian elections? Can Canadians vote in US elections? Can the French vote in German elections? They are two people and Israel wants a two-state solution. The Palestinians can have their own state, their own government and elections and industries.

As for economic growth, that's Hamas' fault, not Israel. All foreign aid money sent to them is lost to either corruption (lining the pockets of the leadership who are millionaires, often living in luxury in Jordan and the like), squandered, like with Abbas's "presidential palace" or in Gaza, spent on building terror tunnels, arms and bomb parts. When israel left Gaza unilaterally in 2005, they left behind millions of dollars of greenhouses to kickstart the Palestinian economy with a ready-to-go agriculture industry. They were reduced to rubble in barely any time flat. Hamas is to wholly to blame for its campaign of terror and murder, squandering money on its war with Israel instead of benefiting Gazans.

If they put down their arms, the blockade would be lifted, there would be no more battles reducing building to rubble and they could start building a functioning society. Unfortunately, islamist terrorists have no interest in peace, their sole aim is Israel's destruction and the more Gazan dead, the better it suits them. If the Palestinians want a better life, they can make peace, elect a government that aren't militant islamist terrorists, build a social structure, housing, schools, hospitals and so on and begin building a flourishing state of their own. Instead, they "rage" and send their children off to die.

In 70 years, Israel has turned a desert into an oasis and become a world leader in technology, medicine, finance, weapon development, engineering, agriculture and academia. In 10 years, Hamas turned Gaza into rubble. Israel has signed two peace treaties in land for peace deals. The instant it left Gaza unoccupied in 2005, the rockets started coming. There is no moral or other equivalence to be made. The Palestinians live in squalor because they do not want to make peace, because their leadership brainwashes them into being bitter and hateful and sending their children to die. As long as Hamas is at war with Israel and they rule Gaza, the blockade has to continue which will continue to stifle development. Golda Meir famously said "We cannot forgive them from forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with [them] when they love their children more than they hate us."

Agema:
This speaks for the Israeli psyche, maybe, but not the facts on the ground. Israel has not been significantly threatened for 45 years. And of its past opponents, it has stable and peaceful relations with two (Jordan, Egypt), and the other two are far too weak.

Egypt is very volatile at the minute, Syria is a clusterfuck where you are not quite sure what might head out of it. There are strong factions in the other neighbours that are rabidly anti-Israel.

Secondly, ISRAEL HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Everyone sodding knows this, but magically forgets the minute they want to present Israel as vulnerable. Never mind that in terms of conventional military, Israel is the most militarily capable country in the Middle East except perhaps Turkey or Iran (and they'd be relying on manpower advantage).

First, I'm fairly certain they've never openly acknowledged this.

Second, nuclear weapons are a deterrent, not a defence. The fact that you have them does you no good if people are swarming across the border, unless you are willing to lay waste to your own land.

Third, back to my earlier point - were the fence to be breached, it's likely that there would be far more civilian deaths, due to how crowds work. Early heavy-handedness can save a lot of lives - it's easy to condemn things when you never have to live with the consequences of the alternatives.

So the "genocide" it's running on the Palestinians is fine then?

Given that it is heavily self-inflicted, I certainly find it more tolerable.

I would also point out the following update from the BBC:

A senior member of Hamas, Salah Bardawil, has said 50 of those killed on Monday "were from Hamas". Israel has said it knew of "at least 24 terrorists" killed that day. It said most were "active operatives" from Hamas, and some from the Islamic Jihad militant group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44167900

Not so "indiscriminate" after all.

KingsGambit:
snip

I'm not missing that the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. But Israel has ultimate political, military and legal authority over them. You could equally argue that a Roman slave obviously couldn't have the rights of a Roman citizen, because he was a slave not a citizen. But that doesn't make the ultimate control of the Roman state over a slave's life any less real that it was, and it is no answer to those who would query the injustice of slavery.

Thus it is basically a mere technicality that Israel occupies and controls the Palestinians without officially "owning" them. The end result is basically the same - people denied the full rights and freedoms of citizens of the state that controls them, yet also denied the self-determination to make their own system.

In 70 years, Israel has turned a desert into an oasis and become a world leader in technology, medicine, finance, weapon development, engineering, agriculture and academia.

Of course it is! Israel is basically a European colony. It is built on millions of people with all the benefits of Western (or Eastern) European educations, social development, knowledge, outlooks, etc., which is the root of Western human development. (Although considerable accumulated personal immigrant wealth plus exceptionally handsome aid grants won't have hurt, either.) All it ever needed to do was build the infrastructure for all those individuals to excel. Its neighbours, however, were bequeathed the social, political and economic development levels of the long-fading Ottoman empire's backwater provinces.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the most complex episodes of modern history one can conceive of, and it's one that is routinely misread by contemporary politicians who don't appreciate those seven-ish decades of bombings, occupations, massacres and on-and-off warfare.

That said. It is very difficult for anyone to justify the recent violence at the Gaza border. The IDF's standing orders were to shoot any armed protesters within 300 metres of the fence and any unarmed protesters within 100 metres. in the context of managing a civilian protest, those orders were completely unjustifiable. It displays a stunning level of callousness towards the safety of the protesters and a political short-sightedness that I have learned to expect from Benjamin Netanyahu and his administration.

I've mulled over how to summarise this for half an hour now, so here goes: the situation in Gaza is untenable. It can only get worse as time passes. And Netanyahu's conservative coalition has displayed no interest whatsoever in trying to resolve it. They are simply ignoring the kettle as it boils, and then shooting at it when it boils over. What do you get from this? You get a bloody goddamn mess.

Catnip1024:
Not so "indiscriminate" after all.

Thousands of people have been shot. But some of 'em were Hamas, guess that proves it's not indiscriminate!

Are you even listening to yourself?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here