Israel, Hamas and a dozen dead people...

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Israel is clearly an economic powerhouse in the area. This is irrelevant in the question of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and actually makes Israel appear more and more of a bully than anything else.
The Palestinian quality of life certainly improves when Israel allows it to. Again, irrelevant but it makes it pretty clear who is the dominant party.
Israel has suffered aggression in the past. Again irrelevant in the current discussion but serves to understand the racial and national hate from both sides.

This is a misconception; The Palestinian goal, as we have already proved, is the the total destruction of the Jewish state. Their leaders have also admitted that they'd rather see the land in ruin than be successful under Jewish rule. If the Palestinians dropped these views, accepted the Jewish people and their country there would be abundant prosperity in the region. This is evident during the rather peaceful 20 year period between 1967 and the First Infitada. (which also proves that past aggression is important to the points I've raised)

The leadership of Israel is most definitely not interested in peace, nor do they have a "Peace Now" mindset. Read the article linked at the top of the thread for that. Israel has absolutely no problem with inflaming the situation whenever it feels it gains advantage. Every action of collective punishment against Palestine is driving the Palestinians to terrorism and other forms of asymmetric warfare back against Israel. Neither side is "right" in this conflict.

Israel has every right to defend themselves, I think everyone can agree on this; They were not, and have not, been the instigators in these conflicts. There has always been some action by Hamas (who runs the Palestinian state) that has elicited a response from Israel.

I would argue that every action of support for Palestine, whether it be positive news coverage or funding, drives the Palestinians to more terrorism and asymmetric warfare against Israel. Everytime they cause a conflict in the region, they get more money. In order for them to continue to propel their welfare state it requires them to cause conflict in the region.

The harsh truth for Israel is that world opinion does matter. Support for Israel wanes every time they invade, push more settlements or clamp down on blockades. When it deteriorates to the point that another nation says "enough" and runs the blockade, the house of cards collapses and Israel must come to a negotiating table with whoever is in charge of Palestine at the time or face the prospect of being the aggressor in a war over aid. The longer the current path continues, the more radical the Palestinian leaders will be and the worse Israel will fare. There's really no good end-game from here.

Actually the harsh truth for Israel is that world opinion, mainly driven by the Main Stream Media, is against them. This is the Antisemitism machine at work. There is other media out there, though, that is positive when it comes to Israel and its efforts to defend itself... sadly it is a serious minority when compared to the rest of the world's agenda.

The issue with other nations running the blockade is that those nation's do not have key interest in Israel's defense, letting rockets and other war material through the cracks. This is what forces Israel to the negotiating table with the PLO. What ultimately leads to Hamas, or whatever Terrorist organization thats popular at the time, to provoke Israel into attacking them. The Media then claims that Israel is off the hinges again and lashing out at the Palestinians, which gets the PLO more money to propel the welfare state and purchase arms (usually from Iran) and becomes a cyclical event.

I believe Israel's end game in the region is peace and prosperity for all in the region, unfortunately this will not be achievable until the leaders of the Palestinian people can accept the Jews of the region and bless them.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Yet another Cease-fire has ended, and yet again Israel is not the aggressor: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Confl ... ire-371015

[Ddrak]

You cannot have Israel without the Jew, so you can and should conflate "Jew" with "Israel".

Israeli policy is not the policy of all the Jews. It is, in fact, not even the policy of a majority of Jews if you pay attention to global surveys. To conflate the two is to ascribe a position to most Jews that they simply do not support, just because they have a particular religious belief. Sounds somewhat racist to me.

Also: If it had not been for the Jewish people being given the land in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine, then there would be no Israel today. It would simply be Palestine.

Without a ton of people forcibly displaced into ghettos like Gaza. /slowclap Britain and allies.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You cannot have Israel without the Jew, so you can and should conflate "Jew" with "Israel".

Sounds somewhat racist to me.

I guess it would if you ignore the rest of what I said. The problem with the rest of what you said is "GLOBAL" surveys. You're talking about a global survey of Jews, many of which do not live in Israel and go through what the Israeli Jews do on a daily basis. Would their views change if they did? I guess we'll never know.

Also: If it had not been for the Jewish people being given the land in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine, then there would be no Israel today. It would simply be Palestine.

Without a ton of people forcibly displaced into ghettos like Gaza. /slowclap Britain and allies.

Dd

The population of British Mandate of Palestine in 1920 was "hardly" 700,000 people. The Arab population of Palestine in 1922 was 670,000; This doubled to 1.2million by 1948. The total population in 1948 (before Israel was founded) was 1.9million (the other ~700,000 being the Jewish people). This Jewish population doubled with the founding of Israel (688,000 approx Jews immigrated to the area in 1948 after the founding of Israel).

So Palestine went from a land of barren desserts and swamps that hardly anyone wanted to live in. I would argue that it was not until after the Jewish people and the founding of Israel that most Arabs even wanted anything to do with Palestine (other than the 1.2million people that were already there in 1948 and possibly some % of their descendants).

[Ddrak]

This is a misconception; The Palestinian goal, as we have already proved, is the the total destruction of the Jewish state. Their leaders have also admitted that they'd rather see the land in ruin than be successful under Jewish rule. If the Palestinians dropped these views, accepted the Jewish people and their country there would be abundant prosperity in the region. This is evident during the rather peaceful 20 year period between 1967 and the First Infitada. (which also proves that past aggression is important to the points I've raised)

You've "proven" nothing of the "Palestinian goal", and are using ridiculously broad over-generalisations. Hamas has recently stated it would be sufficient to return to the 1967 boundaries and allow the return of the displaced peoples from the founding of Israel (obviously not something Israel would or could agree to). A sane approach would be to actually engage them in direct talks - they are a complex organisation and a careful policy of strengthening the moderates would certainly be better than continually terrorising and radicalizing the entire population. Worked for the PIRA...

As for "rather peaceful 20 year period", I assume you mean ignoring the entire "Iron Fist" policy along with regional inaction which systematically drove the entire Palestinian people into the position of unrepresented cheap labour with no effective rights. Persistent Israeli aggression throughout the period was a clear factor in the boilover that was the first Intifada.

Israel has every right to defend themselves, I think everyone can agree on this; They were not, and have not, been the instigators in these conflicts. There has always been some action by Hamas (who runs the Palestinian state) that has elicited a response from Israel.

The other side has exactly the same story. Does Palestine have the exact same right to defend itself that Israel does? In fact, if Russia (for example) came in and created a Palestinian state and displaced Israel would you call the Israelis terrorists if they fought back from internment camps?

Fact is, Israel has been in instigator in every conflict and Hamas (and the PLO for that matter) sure ain't innocent either in their methods of instigation.

I would argue that every action of support for Palestine, whether it be positive news coverage or funding, drives the Palestinians to more terrorism and asymmetric warfare against Israel. Everytime they cause a conflict in the region, they get more money. In order for them to continue to propel their welfare state it requires them to cause conflict in the region.

Nah. Israel's policies of massive collective punishment and escalating reprisal are a much larger factor here, especially when you consider Israel receives a ton more foreign aid than Palestine.

Actually the harsh truth for Israel is that world opinion, mainly driven by the Main Stream Media, is against them. This is the Antisemitism machine at work. There is other media out there, though, that is positive when it comes to Israel and its efforts to defend itself... sadly it is a serious minority when compared to the rest of the world's agenda.

Race baiting again. Being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic and the US media is comically pro-Israel. Israel's actions are not "defence" in any case - they were all about an attempt to terrorize the Gazan population into submission, which has never worked in the history of warfare.

I believe Israel's end game in the region is peace and prosperity for all in the region, unfortunately this will not be achievable until the leaders of the Palestinian people can accept the Jews of the region and bless them.

So tell me, how does that work in your mind? Two state solution with free access between Gaza and the West Bank and all settlements torn down? Wall moved back to the recognised border, maybe? How about Jerusalem? Maybe even Palestine incorporated into Israel, with Palestinians as full citizens?

Israel's policies are no better than those of Hamas from every piece of news and intel I've read. For me, I say a pox on both their houses.

Dd

[Ddrak]

I guess it would if you ignore the rest of what I said. The problem with the rest of what you said is "GLOBAL" surveys. You're talking about a global survey of Jews, many of which do not live in Israel and go through what the Israeli Jews do on a daily basis. Would their views change if they did? I guess we'll never know.

So you therefore agree that "Israel" is not the same as "Jew", and one can oppose Israeli actions without being an anti-Semite.

Excellent JPost editorial: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists ... war-370787

The population of British Mandate of Palestine in 1920 was "hardly" 700,000 people. The Arab population of Palestine in 1922 was 670,000; This doubled to 1.2million by 1948. The total population in 1948 (before Israel was founded) was 1.9million (the other ~700,000 being the Jewish people). This Jewish population doubled with the founding of Israel (688,000 approx Jews immigrated to the area in 1948 after the founding of Israel).

So Palestine went from a land of barren desserts and swamps that hardly anyone wanted to live in. I would argue that it was not until after the Jewish people and the founding of Israel that most Arabs even wanted anything to do with Palestine (other than the 1.2million people that were already there in 1948 and possibly some % of their descendants).

So you think those 1.2 million people had no right to be there? Did they have a right to defend themselves? Do they still have a right to defend themselves now they've been forcibly displaced? When does it end?

Dd

[Ddrak]

It's probably worth noting that the population growth in the area of Mandatory Palestine has significantly declined since 1948 (from around 3.5% annual growth to 1.5%). I'm not sure where you're getting the stories about it being an undesirable swamp/desert, but statistically people are less inclined to go there now than they were 60 years ago.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Walter C Lowdermilk is where I'm getting the information on the conditions of the area prior to the creation of Israel.

The region's biggest bump in population came during the time of the Aliyah's (starting in 1882) and Israel's creation (which was the largest bump during that time period).

[Ddrak]

Yeah - ton of immigrants in the late 40's through 60's and then slowed down a bunch. The general population was kicking up pretty sharply from the first world war though. Hard to get consistent numbers from around the web.

Untitled.png

(Break at '48 due to differences in area being counted, population in thousands, log scale to see rate of geometric increase)

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

This is a misconception; The Palestinian goal, as we have already proved, is the the total destruction of the Jewish state. Their leaders have also admitted that they'd rather see the land in ruin than be successful under Jewish rule. If the Palestinians dropped these views, accepted the Jewish people and their country there would be abundant prosperity in the region. This is evident during the rather peaceful 20 year period between 1967 and the First Infitada. (which also proves that past aggression is important to the points I've raised)

You've "proven" nothing of the "Palestinian goal", and are using ridiculously broad over-generalisations. Hamas has recently stated it would be sufficient to return to the 1967 boundaries and allow the return of the displaced peoples from the founding of Israel (obviously not something Israel would or could agree to). A sane approach would be to actually engage them in direct talks - they are a complex organisation and a careful policy of strengthening the moderates would certainly be better than continually terrorising and radicalizing the entire population. Worked for the PIRA...

As for "rather peaceful 20 year period", I assume you mean ignoring the entire "Iron Fist" policy along with regional inaction which systematically drove the entire Palestinian people into the position of unrepresented cheap labour with no effective rights. Persistent Israeli aggression throughout the period was a clear factor in the boilover that was the first Intifada.

Check my link that I included that states the Palestinian goals. That is directly from them.

They call the 1967 boundaries the "Auschwitz borders" for a reason. It gives Hamas all the tactical superiority in the region and would likely result in the end of the Israel state. The problem with direct talks with the PLO (Hamas) is that they are the "nutjobs at the table" who have overreaching demands and will not compromise.

As for the "rather peaceful 20 year period", which it was because there was far less violence than we're seeing now or during the Infitada's (yes, its Infitada). Unfortunately your claim of Palestinian people being cheap labor in the region cannot be truly validated (unless you have links) because the historical data on currency for the Palestinians during the time were not well documented.

Historical data from 1967 to 1987, according to The Palestinian economy (1997), are
not very well documented. The Palestinians did not have an independent central bank
during that time and could not issue domestic money. Thus no data on money supply or
nominal interest rates is available. The financial system was underdeveloped and most
of the money was held in cash

Israel has every right to defend themselves, I think everyone can agree on this; They were not, and have not, been the instigators in these conflicts. There has always been some action by Hamas (who runs the Palestinian state) that has elicited a response from Israel.

The other side has exactly the same story. Does Palestine have the exact same right to defend itself that Israel does? In fact, if Russia (for example) came in and created a Palestinian state and displaced Israel would you call the Israelis terrorists if they fought back from internment camps?

Fact is, Israel has been in instigator in every conflict and Hamas (and the PLO for that matter) sure ain't innocent either in their methods of instigation.

I'm curious how Israel has been the instigator in every conflict when the PLO (Hamas) can be blamed for their methods of instigation.

I would argue that every action of support for Palestine, whether it be positive news coverage or funding, drives the Palestinians to more terrorism and asymmetric warfare against Israel. Everytime they cause a conflict in the region, they get more money. In order for them to continue to propel their welfare state it requires them to cause conflict in the region.

Nah. Israel's policies of massive collective punishment and escalating reprisal are a much larger factor here, especially when you consider Israel receives a ton more foreign aid than Palestine.

Actually the harsh truth for Israel is that world opinion, mainly driven by the Main Stream Media, is against them. This is the Antisemitism machine at work. There is other media out there, though, that is positive when it comes to Israel and its efforts to defend itself... sadly it is a serious minority when compared to the rest of the world's agenda.

Race baiting again. Being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic and the US media is comically pro-Israel. Israel's actions are not "defence" in any case - they were all about an attempt to terrorize the Gazan population into submission, which has never worked in the history of warfare.

I understand you haven't been in the States in the while, and while that statement may have been true a few years ago it simply is not the case anymore. Media these days is unabashedly pro-Palestine (With the exception of only a few outlets, which I'm sure you could guess).

Israel's actions, especially of late, have all been about defending their people. They've been exceedingly cautious when sending retaliatory strikes, which is not being correctly reported by much of the media. The fact that Hamas uses an international hospital (Shifa Hospital) as its base of operations should give everyone some clue as to who is in the wrong in the conflict.

I believe Israel's end game in the region is peace and prosperity for all in the region, unfortunately this will not be achievable until the leaders of the Palestinian people can accept the Jews of the region and bless them.

So tell me, how does that work in your mind? Two state solution with free access between Gaza and the West Bank and all settlements torn down? Wall moved back to the recognised border, maybe? How about Jerusalem? Maybe even Palestine incorporated into Israel, with Palestinians as full citizens?

Israel's policies are no better than those of Hamas from every piece of news and intel I've read. For me, I say a pox on both their houses.

Dd

The only solution is for the Palestinian leaders and people to accept Israel and bless it. This is important, spiritually and mentally. If they can change their mentality about Israel in the area and instead of accept it and bless it then I see no reason why Israel shouldn't become the only state and allow the Palestinians to be full citizens.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Yeah - ton of immigrants in the late 40's through 60's and then slowed down a bunch. The general population was kicking up pretty sharply from the first world war though. Hard to get consistent numbers from around the web.

Untitled.png

(Break at '48 due to differences in area being counted, population in thousands, log scale to see rate of geometric increase)

Dd

Yeah, From what I read after WWI is when the third Aliyah started and from there they started bringing in a lot more people (into the hundreds of thousands)...

[Ddrak]

Check my link that I included that states the Palestinian goals. That is directly from them.

Sure, and the PIRA had similar extremist goals and yet were brought to a political settlement. Hamas has made significant concessions in their stance, so you're being rather disingenuous there posting a 30 year old document.

They call the 1967 boundaries the "Auschwitz borders" for a reason. It gives Hamas all the tactical superiority in the region and would likely result in the end of the Israel state. The problem with direct talks with the PLO (Hamas) is that they are the "nutjobs at the table" who have overreaching demands and will not compromise.

Uh, the current borders with Gaza *are* the 1967 borders (ie the Green Line). I have no idea how you think those borders could end the state of Israel, especially with the massive economic and military differences. Israel is much more under threat from squeezing the Palestinians more and more from their land and losing what support they have remaining in the world.

Neither side is negotiating in good faith, and neither side is willing to make serious concessions that they'll back up. You think Israel will toss the settlers out of the land they've taken in the West Bank ever? You think they'll ever hand back East Jerusalem? Check out the maps for a pretty powerful story:

jpeg.jpg

As for the "rather peaceful 20 year period", which it was because there was far less violence than we're seeing now or during the Infitada's (yes, its Infitada). Unfortunately your claim of Palestinian people being cheap labor in the region cannot be truly validated (unless you have links) because the historical data on currency for the Palestinians during the time were not well documented.

Nothing to do with Palestinian currency, it's based on what the Israelis were employing them for - the exact same stuff you pick up illegal Mexicans for these days in the US. Cheap manual labor and jobs the locals don't actually want to do. It's part of the economic control Israel was exerting over the territories during Iron Fist.

Refer: http://www.amazon.com/Force-More-Powerf ... ref=sr_1_1

I'm curious how Israel has been the instigator in every conflict when the PLO (Hamas) can be blamed for their methods of instigation.

You misquote me, and assume one side must be the instigator and the other the responder. Israel is a clear instigator in their treatment of Palestine, from the continual policies of collective punishment, land seizures for settlements, extra-judicial imprisonment and more, blockades and general oppression of the entire population. Hamas and the PLO are clear instigators in that they fire missiles and suicide bombers. Yay - both sides are the bad guys.

I understand you haven't been in the States in the while, and while that statement may have been true a few years ago it simply is not the case anymore. Media these days is unabashedly pro-Palestine (With the exception of only a few outlets, which I'm sure you could guess).

Uh, no. You're mistaking "being slightly critical of Israel but not really" with "pro-Palestine". I'm guessing you've not read non-US media much to compare?

Israel's actions, especially of late, have all been about defending their people. They've been exceedingly cautious when sending retaliatory strikes, which is not being correctly reported by much of the media. The fact that Hamas uses an international hospital (Shifa Hospital) as its base of operations should give everyone some clue as to who is in the wrong in the conflict.

You know that story is fairly thoroughly debunked by people working in the hospital, right? Follow the trail of quotes in the article and you'll see it was one reporter working for the Israeli press claiming a big conspiracy among journalists to keep it quiet. That makes about as much sense as a conspiracy of politicians to lower taxes.

If the IDF has been "exceedingly cautious", I'd hate to see them not exercising care...

graph-1.jpg

graph-2.jpg

The only solution is for the Palestinian leaders and people to accept Israel and bless it. This is important, spiritually and mentally. If they can change their mentality about Israel in the area and instead of accept it and bless it then I see no reason why Israel shouldn't become the only state and allow the Palestinians to be full citizens.

Never once has Israel suggested allowing the Palestinians to become citizens. In fact, they've strengthened their immigration law to exclude more and more people associated with Palestine. You may as well suggest Israel accept and bless the 1947 UN borders as more plausible than accepting enough Arabs to install a Muslim government.

In any case, that ship's sailed. With practically every person in Palestine having friends and family dead at the IDF's hands I think you'll find forgiveness pretty hard to come by. Similarly from Israel's side without the deaths. Neither side actually thinks of the other as human any more from what I can see, and that's just sad.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Not much time, atm to respond fully. Just want to make a couple points:

Hamas wants to return to all the 1967 lines, not just the Gaza lines. Its a misconception that they only want that to apply in terms of Gaza itself.

This is a pretty great article from 2009 about the whole conflict: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8kpgbq.asp#

[Fallakin Kuvari]

By couple points I meant 1 point and a link to an article...

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Check my link that I included that states the Palestinian goals. That is directly from them.

Sure, and the PIRA had similar extremist goals and yet were brought to a political settlement. Hamas has made significant concessions in their stance, so you're being rather disingenuous there posting a 30 year old document.

Except theres no evidence that they have changed those stated goals, as there would be had they specifically changed their goals.

As for the "rather peaceful 20 year period", which it was because there was far less violence than we're seeing now or during the Infitada's (yes, its Infitada). Unfortunately your claim of Palestinian people being cheap labor in the region cannot be truly validated (unless you have links) because the historical data on currency for the Palestinians during the time were not well documented.

Nothing to do with Palestinian currency, it's based on what the Israelis were employing them for - the exact same stuff you pick up illegal Mexicans for these days in the US. Cheap manual labor and jobs the locals don't actually want to do. It's part of the economic control Israel was exerting over the territories during Iron Fist.

Refer: http://www.amazon.com/Force-More-Powerf ... ref=sr_1_1

I'll have to check that out, I still think theres a lack of documentation to support that claim.

I'm curious how Israel has been the instigator in every conflict when the PLO (Hamas) can be blamed for their methods of instigation.

You misquote me, and assume one side must be the instigator and the other the responder. Israel is a clear instigator in their treatment of Palestine, from the continual policies of collective punishment, land seizures for settlements, extra-judicial imprisonment and more, blockades and general oppression of the entire population. Hamas and the PLO are clear instigators in that they fire missiles and suicide bombers. Yay - both sides are the bad guys.

I can concede that both sides can be seen as the bad guys. The problem

I understand you haven't been in the States in the while, and while that statement may have been true a few years ago it simply is not the case anymore. Media these days is unabashedly pro-Palestine (With the exception of only a few outlets, which I'm sure you could guess).

Uh, no. You're mistaking "being slightly critical of Israel but not really" with "pro-Palestine". I'm guessing you've not read non-US media much to compare?

Israel's actions, especially of late, have all been about defending their people. They've been exceedingly cautious when sending retaliatory strikes, which is not being correctly reported by much of the media. The fact that Hamas uses an international hospital (Shifa Hospital) as its base of operations should give everyone some clue as to who is in the wrong in the conflict.

You know that story is fairly thoroughly debunked by people working in the hospital, right? Follow the trail of quotes in the article and you'll see it was one reporter working for the Israeli press claiming a big conspiracy among journalists to keep it quiet. That makes about as much sense as a conspiracy of politicians to lower taxes.

I think these two are related; The large parts of this being "debunked" are from far left, pro-palestine, organizations (at least so far as I can find in a cursory search).

If the IDF has been "exceedingly cautious", I'd hate to see them not exercising care...

graph-1.jpg

graph-2.jpg

Unfortunately the Palestinian numbers in this graph are inflated due to them conflating IDF Strikes and Hamas mis-fires. Compound that with the fact that Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as human shields and you're bound to have an inflated number of civilian causalities.

IDF has been giving 5+ minute warnings to areas prior to launching targeted counter-strikes.

The only solution is for the Palestinian leaders and people to accept Israel and bless it. This is important, spiritually and mentally. If they can change their mentality about Israel in the area and instead of accept it and bless it then I see no reason why Israel shouldn't become the only state and allow the Palestinians to be full citizens.

Never once has Israel suggested allowing the Palestinians to become citizens. In fact, they've strengthened their immigration law to exclude more and more people associated with Palestine. You may as well suggest Israel accept and bless the 1947 UN borders as more plausible than accepting enough Arabs to install a Muslim government.

In any case, that ship's sailed. With practically every person in Palestine having friends and family dead at the IDF's hands I think you'll find forgiveness pretty hard to come by. Similarly from Israel's side without the deaths. Neither side actually thinks of the other as human any more from what I can see, and that's just sad.

Dd

Ah, but you asked what I thought the solution should be. While Israel has never suggested allowing the Palestinians citizenship, I'm sure you'd hear a different tune.. especially from the World community.. if the Palestinian leadership were to change their tune to accept and bless Israel.

Unfortunately that ship is also a double-edged sword. Practically every person in Palestine also has friends and family dead at the hands of Hamas. If you take that and the pure numbers on either side into account it could be about a 50/50 chance of the Palestinian people turning on Hamas (in fact there had been reports a week or two ago that this was becoming the case) and going this route.

[Ddrak]

On the '67 lines, I'm not sure why you think those lines in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were so problematic? I'm assuming you're referring to the PLO and not Hamas if that's the case. Either way, I've seen no indication that Israel has any intention but the gradual annexation of everything through settlements, which I've never heard an adequate defense of.

I found the article somewhat colored in its tone - equating anti-Zionism with racisim is stupidity. You could equally say anti-Jihadism is racism. Speaking out against a policy with reasoned argument is the cornerstone of democratic systems, and silencing of critics with labels and expulsion is totalitarianism and the opposite of freedom.

There's little truth in the idea that Palestine was a uninhabitable desert prior to 1948. The population curve changed pretty much in line with the rest of the world and there's little doubt that even without Israel the agricultural advances of the 50's and 60's would have continued to bring wealth to the area. The fact is, during the 40's, both Jewish and Islamic settlers in the area were already making significant upgrades to infrastructure and cropping.

Except theres no evidence that they have changed those stated goals, as there would be had they specifically changed their goals.

They are a diverse organisation. The true goals can and will change with external pressure. Like I said - take a look at the PIRA. Prop up the moderates and disenfranchise the radicals without making them martyrs.

I can concede that both sides can be seen as the bad guys. The problem

I wanna hear the problem!

I think these two are related; The large parts of this being "debunked" are from far left, pro-palestine, organizations (at least so far as I can find in a cursory search).

It depends on whether you define the position of those reporting by the report. I would argue that the whole thing is probably tainted and the truth would likely be something like that Hamas people were there but not running a command centre.

On one side you have Israel and journalists embedded with them who have a massive investment in needing to explain away the truly shocking number of civilian casualties and were caught a number of times in the operation outright lying over various attacks (showing a different and empty school with missiles in it, etc.)

On the other side you have the journalists embedded with the Palestinians who will naturally be swayed against anyone that is literally dropping bombs on their heads. Most of the refutation is from the medical staff, and they're hardly going to be unbiased after a few dozen dead kids.

Going to be hard to believe either side there. For example, there were no reports from anyone actually *in* Palestine and not embedded with the IDF that Hamas was using human shield tactics this time around, yet the IDF claimed it over and over. There was a ton of video of IDF snipers killing random people in the street. Are we to believe it was all a mistake on the IDF's part, or that the pro-Palestine story wasn't edited to only show the most negative parts?

IDF has been giving 5+ minute warnings to areas prior to launching targeted counter-strikes.

Sucks if you're asleep, or they don't give the warning, or they miss and hit a school, etc. It's also a poor policy because you've now disenfranchised and radicalized the entire population living there.

When the IDF's stats makes Hamas look good, it's time to start rethinking strategy because whatever they're doing, it's not working.

Ah, but you asked what I thought the solution should be. While Israel has never suggested allowing the Palestinians citizenship, I'm sure you'd hear a different tune.. especially from the World community.. if the Palestinian leadership were to change their tune to accept and bless Israel.

Fair point - I did ask that.

Unfortunately that ship is also a double-edged sword. Practically every person in Palestine also has friends and family dead at the hands of Hamas. If you take that and the pure numbers on either side into account it could be about a 50/50 chance of the Palestinian people turning on Hamas (in fact there had been reports a week or two ago that this was becoming the case) and going this route.

Seems like wishful thinking to me. People, particularly those that are desperate, turn to the strongest voice in the region. I can't see anything other than Hamas with a voice.

:/

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I can concede that both sides can be seen as the bad guys. The problem

I wanna hear the problem!

LOL to unfinished thoughts...The problem is the how the reporting is handled, I think.

[Kulaf]

Dd in relation to the map you posted of the historical boundaries, a population density map would be very telling I think. Basically most of the land lost post UN has a population density like Nevada desert.

[Ddrak]

You're probably right, Kulaf. Having said that there's a few issues:

1. I don't think Americans would be too happy if Mexico started dropping armed settlements all across the desert, regardless of existing population density.
2. The bigger issue is the access corridors carving up the area and preventing people from moving, trading, etc.
3. I'm pretty sure most settlements aren't built in the least hospitable areas - they are actually displacing people.

For me, the settlements in the West Bank are by far the biggest indication of bad faith on Israel's part.

Dd

[Kulaf]

The difference is the United States of America has a clearly delineated border and is recognized as a sovereign country. Palestine, or the Land of Israel, The Holy Land, the Southern Levant, Canaan, etc. etc. was just a geographic region and never recognized as a country.

You'd be better off saying New Mexico was creating settlements in Arizona.