Israel, Gaza, And Everyone Else

[BCSpace]

I think generally they have bent over backwards to make peace with their neighbors and are realizing that this is now ultimately impossible given the state of Islam today.

I am not sure how anyone could consider the embargo in place against Palestine bending over backwards to make peace.

Normally one wouldn't until one looks at the history and the continuing attempts by Palestinians to kill Israelis by any means available to them.

[Kemara]

I agree, and I really don't want a ground action, but rumours of ceasfires have been vastly exaggerated.

Unfortunately that is exactly what is being reported on television as I am typing these words.

[BCSpace]

I would hope that everyone on this board, (saint sinner critic mormon non-mormon anti-mormon less active mormon athiest agnostic etc) would agree that the first step, the very best course of action right now, is for everyone to put down their guns

I disagree. It is obvious the Israelis will not come and slaughter the Palestinians if the Palestinians lay down their arms. The Israeli miltary is so superior they could do that right now if they wanted to. On the other hand, the reverse is no sure thing if the tables were turned. Therefore, it is incumbent that the Palestinians alone lay down their arms. In fact, Israel has given them that very opportunity with their policy of disengagement. Israel does not want to govern them and Gaza and the West Bank are free to build their nation(s) without restriction; those in place now such as the aforementioned embargo are there merely because they won't stop shooting. Israel is under no obligation to go Anti Nephi Lehi.

And what about the UN keeping Palestinian refugees as refugees and not allowing them the same status as other refugees to go on with their lives? The solution IS simple. Israel need do nothing at all except protect it's citizens which so far, has been all they have done since 1948.

Edited November 21, 2012 by BCSpace

[Kemara]

I disagree. It is obvious the Israelis will not come and slaughter the Palestinians if the Palestinians lay down their arms. The Israeli miltary is so superior they could do that right now if they wanted to. On the other hand, the reverse is no sure thing if the tables were turned. Therefore, it is incumbent that the Palestinians alone lay down their arms. In fact, Israel has given them that very opportunity with their policy of disengagement. Israel does not want to govern them and Gaza and the West Bank are free to build their nation(s) without restriction; those in place now such as the aforementioned embargo are there merely because they won't stop shooting. Israel is under no obligation to go Anti Nephi Lehi.

And what about the UN keeping Palestinian refugees as refugees and not allowing them the same status as other refugees to go on with their lives? The solution IS simple. Israel need do nothing at all except protect it's citizens which so far, has been all they have done since 1948.

Oops I pushed your rep button instead of your quote button. Never mind though you have made many excellent contributions to this board so that rep point can count to one of those, but certainly not to this post. I could care less at this point about all of the details of who did what to whom, or who could crush whom right now. I am not talking about any obligation to anti nephi lehi, though I think an arguement could be made for it. I am saying that the best course of action is for both sides to stop killing. It is a course that is possible right now, and while it is possible it is the best course. I understand that you are not saying you want the killing to continue, you plan is one that you believe will ultimately result in peace, but that doesnt help the family of four that was just killed in the early hours of this morning. Does it really matter which side of the line that family of four are on? I dont believe it does. I just want the killing to stop on both sides right now.

[AngryJock82]

The reality of Israel's existence has always been recognised. I think that much is obvious.

I found a copy of the Gunning book and am reading through it. So far, it matches quite well what I already knew, but the sources and statistics Gunning provides are very welcome additions. On p. 235 Gunning makes the pertinent observation that the 2003 hudna (ceasefire) was tactical, allowing Hamas to consolidate its power and "enabling it to play a central role in shaping Palestinian politics and legistlation."

None of this loses sight of the ultimate goal. "A ceasefire allowed it to shelve its goal of eradicating Israel, without having to recognise Israel..."

True, Gunning does say that, "Hamas has multiple goals and is equally, if not more, interested in shaping Palestinian society as in liberating all of Palestine."

Speaking further of the hudna, Gunning notes the following, which I find very much in keeping with Sheikh Yassin's position. "However, Hamas' decision may well be purely tactical, while it continues to be a total spoiler strategically. To put it differently, while Hamas' understanding of its short-term interests may have changed, its identity (as the indefatigable champion of the full restoration of Palestinian rights) may have remained the same." He goes on to discuss the effect this might have, such as making it harder to return to a position of no compromises. All this, however, is dependant on the power and role of pragmatists in the party as oppsed to that of the absolutists.

Look at `We Don't Negotiate with Terrorists!': Legitimacy and Complexity in Terrorist Conflicts by Harmonie Toros and ‘Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes’, by John Steadman. By refusing to enter into dialogue with Hamas moderates are left with the ultimatum of renouncing legitimate grievances - which the Palestinians have - or to become belligerent. Dialogue often serves to marginalize absolutists and spoilers, and empowers moderates. In fact the cessation of violence can be a prerequisite to negotiations beginning. This has worked in Canada, Northern Ireland and the Philippines to mention just a few places.

If the ultimate goal is peace, negotiating even temporary ceasefires with any adversary presents an opportunity to normalize nonconflict. I think much of the problem stems for the fact that violence is entrenched in both camps and both expect the other to cease wholesale before the other will engage.

[AngryJock82]

Oops I pushed your rep button instead of your quote button. Never mind though you have made many excellent contributions to this board so that rep point can count to one of those, but certainly not to this post. I could care less at this point about all of the details of who did what to whom, or who could crush whom right now. I am not talking about any obligation to anti nephi lehi, though I think an arguement could be made for it. I am saying that the best course of action is for both sides to stop killing. It is a course that is possible right now, and while it is possible it is the best course. I understand that you are not saying you want the killing to continue, you plan is one that you believe will ultimately result in peace, but that doesnt help the family of four that was just killed in the early hours of this morning. Does it really matter which side of the line that family of four are on? I dont believe it does. I just want the killing to stop on both sides right now.

The current situation works to Israel's and Hamas' advantage at the moment. Israel can carry out extrajudicial / targeted assassinations of the Hamas leadership which will hamper Hamas politically and militarily, the international community is used to Israel behaving like this and so will let it get away with a certain amount. For Hamas, this is an opportunity to garner greater support from Egypt and other muslim countries which have gone through political change recently and adopted position that reflect the will of their people in greater measure. Also, Hamas are probably hoping that this will refocus Obama on a two state solution and Israel might be hoping to find a smoking gun to link Iran to Hamas rockets. The fighting will stop when both sides cannot see the utility in it any more.

[AngryJock82]

I disagree. It is obvious the Israelis will not come and slaughter the Palestinians if the Palestinians lay down their arms. The Israeli miltary is so superior they could do that right now if they wanted to. On the other hand, the reverse is no sure thing if the tables were turned. Therefore, it is incumbent that the Palestinians alone lay down their arms. In fact, Israel has given them that very opportunity with their policy of disengagement. Israel does not want to govern them and Gaza and the West Bank are free to build their nation(s) without restriction; those in place now such as the aforementioned embargo are there merely because they won't stop shooting. Israel is under no obligation to go Anti Nephi Lehi.

And what about the UN keeping Palestinian refugees as refugees and not allowing them the same status as other refugees to go on with their lives? The solution IS simple. Israel need do nothing at all except protect it's citizens which so far, has been all they have done since 1948.

Israel can't simply do whatever they want. The political/financial ramifications of wiping out Palestine prevent this. What you refer to as protecting citizens others see as murdering innocent civilians.

[Kemara]

There is zero chance of there being a peacful solution to this issue if killing or the threat of killing, from either side, is used to facilitate that peace.

[AngryJock82]

There is zero chance of there being a peacful solution to this issue if killing or the threat of killing, from either side, is used to facilitate that peace.

Whilst I think it's terrible, a bit of bloodletting focuses the mind of the principle actors and engages the international community. And with attention turned to Gaza the chances of carving out peace increase.

[volgadon]

Whilst I think it's terrible, a bit of bloodletting focuses the mind of the principle actors and engages the international community. And with attention turned to Gaza the chances of carving out peace increase.

Great, same thoughts that those who carried out the bus bombing just barely seemed to have had. Beautiful.

[Rob Osborn]

6ou cant negotiate peace with acts of terror. Sure it focuses attention on you, but not for the right reasons. It pleases Hamas when they can hide behind innocent women and children and do their evil deeds hoping and praying Israel will return fire, not to kill them, but to kill innocent women and children. Israel wants peace, Hamas on the other hand dosnt. Acts of terror do not bring peace talks to the table.

[Bill Hamblin]

Palestinian acts of terror are an abomination. And they are idiotic, since they are utterly counter-productive from the Palestinian point of view. This has, in fact, been the standard Palestinian policy for the past 70+ years: abomination and idiocy. But let's remember three things. First, when the Israelis were in a position of military weakness and were occupied by a foreign military force (Britain), they resorted to terrorism on a regular basis. Second, Israeli retaliation for Palestinian acts of terror is generally 50-fold. That is, for every Israeli who is killed by a Palestinian missile or terror attack, dozens of Palestinians are killed by Israeli missiles and air-strikes. Third, Israel is an existential threat to the existence of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians are not an existential threat to Israel. Israeli has utter and complete military dominance over the Palestinians. The Palestinians are utterly helpless in the face of Israeli military might, including dozens of nuclear weapons. (They call it the "Samson option.")

If you want to know what the situation is really like, just ask yourself what would be the Israeli reaction if Palestinians were treating a million Jews in the "Tel Aviv strip" like the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.

Like I said, a plague on both your houses.

[Rob Osborn]

But the palestinians have brought about their own demise. Its not Israels fault they are in that position, it is their own. It is sad that children are born under such dire conditions and dont know different but blame it on their fathers who chose the futile circumstances they are in.

[Bill Hamblin]

But the palestinians have brought about their own demise. Its not Israels fault they are in that position, it is their own. It is sad that children are born under such dire conditions and dont know different but blame it on their fathers who chose the futile circumstances they are in.

Kind of like blaming the Poles for resisting the German conquest and occupation of their country. Nobody forced the Israelis to conquer the West Bank and Gaza, nor to occupy them for half a century.

[Erin15]

I'm interested in hearing the perspectives of various members of the Church on recent events involving Israel and Gaza, as well as Israel's history as a state. How do you view the state of Israel? What do you think of its policies and actions over the years? How does your theological understanding of Israel influence your views (if at all)? What role do you think the state of Israel has to play in future events (not obscure quotations from Isaiah or Revelation, but modern descriptions)?

I know I'll probably be alone on this one, but I don't think we (meaning the USA) have any business interfering on behalf of either side. It is a tragedy, to be sure, the way both sides have managed their affairs, but it remains firmly none of our business.

Unless we are invited to come in as some kind of diplomatic arbiter, we really should not be involved on any level, in my opinion.

[Rob Osborn]

Kind of like blaming the Poles for resisting the German conquest and occupation of their country. Nobody forced the Israelis to conquer the West Bank and Gaza, nor to occupy them for half a century.

Israel hasnt occupied the Gaza sStrip for 5 years and yet in that time Hamas has fired twice as many rockets on Israel as did Hitler on Britain in WW2.

[blackstrap]

It is my understanding that a Palestinian state could have been created decades ago if the surrounding Arab States had made any effort to broker such a deal. It was their position that the Palestinians were excellent pawns to help push Israel out of the territory.Just how long do you think the UN will continue to keep the Palestinians as refugees instead of helping create a state for them? Is 60+ years enough?

[Bill Hamblin]

Israel hasnt occupied the Gaza sStrip for 5 years and yet in that time Hamas has fired twice as many rockets on Israel as did Hitler on Britain in WW2.

Well, that's true. Sort of. First of all, the British lost 40,000 killed during the Blitz, and another 2700 killed later by the 1400 V2 Rockets fired at Britain.

It is true that the Palestinians have fired 8600 rockets at Israel in the past decade. However, they have caused only 28 deaths over the past decade--less than one death per 300 rockets. The rockets the Palestinians have had have been extremely small, wildly inaccurate, and with a small warhead. In other words, the Palestinian rockets have been extraordinarily ineffective. This is in no way meant to justify Palestinian actions. But we need to understand that more people die in a month in automobile accidents in Israel than in a decade of Palestinian rocket attacks. In the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, 750 rockets were fired, which killed four Israelis. Israeli retaliation against Gaza killed over 1400 Palestinians.

The newer rockets they are using now have a longer range and heavier warhead. However, they are still extraordinarily ineffective. Even so, 5 Israelis have been killed in the recent nearly 300 rocket attacks, compared to 140 Palestinians killed by Israeli attacks during the same period. Again, I'm in no way justifying Palestinian action. But we really need a little bit of perspective here.

[blackstrap]

I fire a rocket from a school and hit a house and kill one old lady. You fire back at my position with a 105 mm howizer and kill 20 students. I say 21 deaths are on MY head. What do you say Bill?

[Rob Osborn]

Well, that's true. Sort of. First of all, the British lost 40,000 killed during the Blitz, and another 2700 killed later by the 1400 V2 Rockets fired at Britain.

It is true that the Palestinians have fired 8600 rockets at Israel in the past decade. However, they have caused only 28 deaths over the past decade--less than one death per 300 rockets. The rockets the Palestinians have had have been extremely small, wildly inaccurate, and with a small warhead. In other words, the Palestinian rockets have been extraordinarily ineffective. This is in no way meant to justify Palestinian actions. But we need to understand that more people die in a month in automobile accidents in Israel than in a decade of Palestinian rocket attacks. In the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict, 750 rockets were fired, which killed four Israelis. Israeli retaliation against Gaza killed over 1400 Palestinians.

The newer rockets they are using now have a longer range and heavier warhead. However, they are still extraordinarily ineffective. Even so, 5 Israelis have been killed in the recent nearly 300 rocket attacks, compared to 140 Palestinians killed by Israeli attacks during the same period. Again, I'm in no way justifying Palestinian action. But we really need a little bit of perspective here.

Perspective? What are they supposed to do, throw water balloons back at them? When Al Qaida terrorists flew jets into our towers we rained down overwhelming technology on their heads. The actual war losses were overwhelmingly one sided. It isnt the free worlds fault that we have all the technology and ability to defend ourselves. Perhaps the Palestinians need to kick Hamas out once and for all- they have done nothing for the overall protection of their people.

[Bill Hamblin]

I fire a rocket from a school and hit a house and kill one old lady. You fire back at my position with a 105 mm howizer and kill 20 students. I say 21 deaths are on MY head. What do you say Bill?

The question of who hit whom first goes back a hundred years to some old Jew and Arab in a market in Hebron or some where. Both sides need to show restraint. Neither side will. They never do.

[Bill Hamblin]

Perspective? What are they supposed to do, throw water balloons back at them? When Al Qaida terrorists flew jets into our towers we rained down overwhelming technology on their heads. The actual war losses were overwhelmingly one sided. It isnt the free worlds fault that we have all the technology and ability to defend ourselves. Perhaps the Palestinians need to kick Hamas out once and for all- they have done nothing for the overall protection of their people.

The Palestinians need to kick out Hamas, and the Israelis need to kick out their radicals as well. But it's not going to happen. Both sides are hopelessly embraced in a dance of death, and neither will stop first.

The Israelis and Palestinians deserve each other, because, in fact, they have created each other by a century of endless brutality and inhumanity from both sides. A plague on both your houses.

The whole of Palestine/Israel is not worth the death of a single Israeli or Palestinian child. What an abomination both sides are.

[AngryJock82]

6ou cant negotiate peace with acts of terror. Sure it focuses attention on you, but not for the right reasons. It pleases Hamas when they can hide behind innocent women and children and do their evil deeds hoping and praying Israel will return fire, not to kill them, but to kill innocent women and children. Israel wants peace, Hamas on the other hand dosnt. Acts of terror do not bring peace talks to the table.

Acts of terror do bring about change and peace talks. It's terrible and I am not arguing that terrorism is good but it brings the opposition to the negotiating table. Look at the IRA, just one of many examples. Also, Israel is committing massive acts of terror right now too and in much greater measure. I find it therefore difficult to reconcile your view that Israel wants peace whilst at the same time it's killing innocent women and children. Hamas wants peace and independence as does Israel, it's the detail that is the issue.

[AngryJock82]

Palestinian acts of terror are an abomination. And they are idiotic, since they are utterly counter-productive from the Palestinian point of view. This has, in fact, been the standard Palestinian policy for the past 70+ years: abomination and idiocy. But let's remember three things. First, when the Israelis were in a position of military weakness and were occupied by a foreign military force (Britain), they resorted to terrorism on a regular basis. Second, Israeli retaliation for Palestinian acts of terror is generally 50-fold. That is, for every Israeli who is killed by a Palestinian missile or terror attack, dozens of Palestinians are killed by Israeli missiles and air-strikes. Third, Israel is an existential threat to the existence of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians are not an existential threat to Israel. Israeli has utter and complete military dominance over the Palestinians. The Palestinians are utterly helpless in the face of Israeli military might, including dozens of nuclear weapons. (They call it the "Samson option.")

If you want to know what the situation is really like, just ask yourself what would be the Israeli reaction if Palestinians were treating a million Jews in the "Tel Aviv strip" like the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.

Like I said, a plague on both your houses.

The abomination lies on both sides and in the measure of in which the commit these acts of violence. You raise many excellent points about the size, strength and dominance of Israel in comparison to its foe. Hamas truly stands no chance of destroying Israel in any substantive way. It seems odd then that Israel would refuse to negotiate with Hamas because of its view on Israel.

[AngryJock82]

I fire a rocket from a school and hit a house and kill one old lady. You fire back at my position with a 105 mm howizer and kill 20 students. I say 21 deaths are on MY head. What do you say Bill?

I say the deaths 1 death is all yours and the 20 students are shared equally. Ultimately Israel has the choice to respond in the way it does. It has a choice.