Gaza

[telkanuru]

That's actually an interesting and more positive question (we're in this mess, so we need to solve it). Going into who started what in the middle east is kinda silly.

First and foremost, for there to be peace, Hamas must recognize that Israel has the right to exist.

There must me some mechanism by which the West Bank and Gaza are free from the threat of Israeli blockade.

Israel must feel secure that it will not be attacked by its neighbors directly or indirectly.

I don't see the 2nd and 3rd points occurring, or even the 1st.

[pigeonmeister]

First and foremost, for there to be peace, Hamas must recognize that Israel has the right to exist.

I would agree- but it really isn't that simple. Hamas have only existed for 20 years- there was obviously no peace before this.

There must me some mechanism by which the West Bank and Gaza are free from the threat of Israeli blockade.

Agreed- but also encursions, assassinations and settlements

Israel must feel secure that it will not be attacked by its neighbors directly or indirectly.

By which I assume you mean Iran and Syria. I think it probably does. Iran has not attacked another country in its modern history and has ruled out ever doing so (cue the wiped off the map claim). Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc. (the traditional forces that have fought Israel) are no military threat.

I don't see the 2nd and 3rd points occurring, or even the 1st.

Well it's over to you Mr Mitchell...

In my mind the biggest sticking point is Jerusalem. I think Hamas are willing to accept 2 state solution, and have said so, if Israel ended blockade and went back to pre 1967 borders. Both would states claim Jerusalem as their capital and not sure how that could be resolved.

[pigeonmeister]

.Nor can you make claims of them targetting civilians. They at least claim they are targetting militants. Hamas there is no question, they openly state their objective.

There is a moral distinction- I don't believe Israel deliberately tries to target civilians. Hamas does. I think for Israel to retain its moral highground it needs to not attack buildings without any standard of proof that militants are there (when there is overwhelming evidence civilians are).

For instance, if you bomb a UN school (Israel admits they did not have standard of proof). It killed 42- twice as many killed by Hamas rockets in the last 4 years. It is actions such as this that force me to question how seriously to we take this 'claim'?

If there IS a fundemental difference on morality on this thread- it is that I don't believe Palestinians of any group were entirely responsible for the deaths of these 42 people.

We can also call into question a lot of other basic facts that are reported.

Well you can wander around Gaza and count how many buildings and people are no longer there. You can look at hospital lists and see pictures of phosphorus burns. You can look at UN/Red Cross claims of war crimes. But you are being disengenous- you can't claim IDF only attack militants if you have no idea what Israeli intelligence had on the thousands of buildings it destroyed.

On your second point, I don't care if you live in the heart of New York... if I and all my neighbors are showered with little pamphlets from people who do not like us very much, saying "We're about to blow you away", guess what? I'm not sticking around.

For arguments sake, I'll accept the morality of dropping leaflets like that indiscriminantly. I think I'd like to know where to go that was safe and maybe even a small lull in the continous bombing in the streets outside to affect my exit. I think I would then want a fairly good explanation as to why someone was about to destroy my house. I believe NYC and the Gaza strip are roughly the same size- main difference is that Gaza hasn't got a big wall around it stopping people getting out.

Facts to back this up, or should we be taking YOUR assumptions as truth and the other assumptions as silly? Call it into question if you will, but you must place as much confidence in your own opinion since neither has solid facts backing it up.

You want facts to back up the existance of an unprecedented propaganda campaign? The Foreign Ministry has sent out a three page "talking points" memo to be used by Israeli sympathizers in their comments posted to blogs and major media web pages. Israeli Foreign Ministry is suggesting pro-Israeli Youtube videos to be posted to blogs. Israel set up a twitter site, a facebook page, a youtube page (which showed a rocket attack from a buidling in 2007 to justify its destruction in 2009). Journalists were bombarded with emails from Israeli govt sources. Mark Regev (main spokesman) claimed the NYT had independently verified reports that Hamas gunmen had been seen in a destroyed building- it had done nothing of the sort. Quite apart from Israel's refusal to allow journalists into Gaza until the very end- and even then demanded they have editorial control (obviously people like CNN and BBC refused).

All states use propaganda- and clearly Hamas- but let's not deny this was on an almost unprecented scale.

You say this as if it was a single isolated incident. Hamas fires an itty bitty rocket and Israel goes haywire. They've been poking a tiger for YEARS.

And of course Israel has done nothing at all to provoke Palestinian violence (quite apart from helping establish Hamas). You seem to forget the entire basis of Israel's racist laws, its illegal land grabs, its monopolisation of the water resources for its illegal settlers, its economic siege, its reserved right to enter Gaza at any time to kill whomever it likes. I would say that both sides have been poking each other's tigers.

People don't seem to even realise the existence of laws such the "Jewish National Fund Law"- which allowed the Israel Lands Administration to discriminate against non-Jews by leasing land through the Jewish Agency.

Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza married to Israeli citizens have not the right to live in the country with their spouses.

Exactly how long are they supposed to respond with "proportional force" (whatever that is anyways, as if it mattered during wartime) before they are justified for coming unglued a bit?

Wow 'unglued a bit'- that's the extent of your criticism of killing 1300 people.

I think what issue most people are taking with your tone is that you glaze over it like it's nothing. You mention it... but light criticism and truly being disgusted are two different things

At least I mention it- my bugbear is that the bombing of schools, use of human shields, settlements, blockade, use of illegal weapons ellicits NO criticism.

If I titled every post- hamas is a racist and terorist organisation would they...of course not.

And if people are not disgusted with the ideals Hamas represents and their goals, that worries me.

What worries me is the assumption that criticism of this war amounts to celebration of Hamas. More broadly, we need to understand Hamas beyond simple notions of disgust. Those that are interested in peace will have to anyway, because they are not going to be destroyed militarily and almost certainly not now politically.

I don't think anyone is "cheering it on".

Err have you read this thread.

"The only way to get peace in this area is for Israel to completely annihilate the Palestinians" Orod.

"Withdraw any help organisations and/or peace keeping forces now and let them finish the bombing once and for all" ZZ

"Personally, I am amazed at the restraint shown by the Israelis." Hauptman

"High 5's to Israel for getting the job done" Slim

Again, exactly how long are they supposed to sit there and "take it" before they are justified in a strong response?

It really isn't that simple- Palestinians are taking it harder and have for longer. That this is so is not purely their own fault as people here find it easier to accept.

My position then, and now, is that the ceasefire had succeeded in eliminating 99% of the attacks and no Israeli citizen had been killed in 6 months. I see no reason why israel could not have responded to this by opening the border and ending incursions. I see absolutely no reason why the correct response was to obliterate huge parts of Gaza and kill 1300 mostly civilian Palestinians. Especially when this resulted also in the deaths of 13 Israelis (more than previous few years) and the hardening of support for Hamas. Clearly you think otherwise and that pointing out my opinion on this matter amounts to glorifying terrorism.

*tiny violin/salt shaker snow*.

Cry me a river, you aren't the victim here. You are indeed employing the same lazy rhetoric. This seems to be a "curiously European" mindset, I've heard this exact same rhetoric more than once I promise you. Why are your assumptions and rhetoric more true than the other sides? Because you believe them?

This strikes me as slightly moronic. I was caricaturing the nature of the attacks made against me. I have deliberately avoided using this kind of loaded rhetoric- clearly you didn't get this.

But either way, your compassion is once again noted.

So are they supposed to sit there and politely ask Hamas to stop firing rockets and killing their civilians??? What action do YOU believe they should take I wonder?

Put more effort into a ceasefire. Put another way- what do you think this action has achieved? If you can't make a cogent case for much then you answer your own question- don't attack Gaza.

Even those that hamas hides amongst are starting to get pissed because they realize as long as Hamas is firing amongst them, it isn't unexpected for Israel to fire back!

Evidence for Hamas' declining support?

I think it's impossible to approach that question without approaching the moral/justification side of it.

Not really- you could simply tell me what Israel has achieved strategically.

It's a pissing match, plain and simple. They're whipping 'em out, putting 'em on the table and measuring them.

A facinating analytical framework - did you get that from the Council on Foreign Relations?

[I_luv_saber]

There is a moral distinction- I don't believe Israel deliberately tries to target civilians. Hamas does. I think for Israel to retain its moral highground it needs to not attack buildings without any standard of proof that militants are there (when there is overwhelming evidence civilians are).

Why should Israel be held to this standard while Hamas is not, is my point?

Well you can wander around Gaza and count how many buildings and people are no longer there. You can look at hospital lists and see pictures of phosphorus burns. You can look at UN/Red Cross claims of war crimes. But you are being disengenous- you can't claim IDF only attack militants if you have no idea what Israeli intelligence had on the thousands of buildings it destroyed.

True, but you also cannot claim that they are attacking civilians purposely if you too do not have this knowledge. If Hamas did not dress as and hide amongst their civilians there would be far fewer civilian casualties besides. Hamas attacks Israel, then blends in with crowds of civilians not caring for their welfare when they know they will be caught in the crossfire. Should Hamas not shoulder most of the burden for that?

For arguments sake, I'll accept the morality of dropping leaflets like that indiscriminantly. I think I'd like to know where to go that was safe and maybe even a small lull in the continous bombing in the streets outside to affect my exit. I think I would then want a fairly good explanation as to why someone was about to destroy my house. I believe NYC and the Gaza strip are roughly the same size- main difference is that Gaza hasn't got a big wall around it stopping people getting out.

If they're able to move weapons in and out of the country, I'm sure they can move people. And, funny thing, under threat of death most people start to be pretty creative with ways to save their necks.

And of course Israel has done nothing at all to provoke Palestinian violence (quite apart from helping establish Hamas). You seem to forget the entire basis of Israel's racist laws, its illegal land grabs, its monopolisation of the water resources for its illegal settlers, its economic siege, its reserved right to enter Gaza at any time to kill whomever it likes. I would say that both sides have been poking each other's tigers.

I agree Israel holds some guilt in this matter. I simply believe the majority of the problem lies with Hamas.

People don't seem to even realise the existence of laws such the "Jewish National Fund Law"- which allowed the Israel Lands Administration to discriminate against non-Jews by leasing land through the Jewish Agency.

It's a JEWISH STATE! Right or not, it's their country! If people don't like it, they move to a more free country!

Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza married to Israeli citizens have not the right to live in the country with their spouses.

Which shows they have unjust laws. Does not give Hamas the right to start shooting.

Wow 'unglued a bit'- that's the extent of your criticism of killing 1300 people.

My criticism extends to Hamas as well in this regard. Israel held the axe, but Hamas put theur heads on the chopping block. Again, is Israel to blame? Of course they are somewhat. They know civilians will die as they pursue their targets (which hide there). So does Hamas. Hamas holds just as much if not more responsibility for those deaths as Israel does.

At least I mention it- my bugbear is that the bombing of schools, use of human shields, settlements, blockade, use of illegal weapons ellicits NO criticism.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, you hear it from me now (and the only reason you haven't earlier is because I just cracked into this thread). Israel, right or not in retaliating, has used some pretty horrible weapons. The blockade... well, I don't think the country should be forced to keep it's borders open. If they don't want to, that's their right. As for the human shields, I think Hamas has that covered a lot better than Israel does. Why use A human shield when you can use a crowded mosque?

If I titled every post- hamas is a racist and terorist organisation would they...of course not.

Nor would I expect you to... but as an observer of the thread I can surely tell you you come across as damning Israel's actions while slightly mentioning Hamas'.

What worries me is the assumption that criticism of this war amounts to celebration of Hamas.

Well, I can tell you at least as far as I am concerned, and I think many on this board, that is not the case. Criticism is one thing. That's a bit different than justifying the actions of a terrorist organization as called for.

More broadly, we need to understand Hamas beyond simple notions of disgust. Those that are interested in peace will have to anyway, because they are not going to be destroyed militarily and almost certainly not now politically.

How can you possibly make peace with an organization dedicated to your destruction?

Err have you read this thread.

"The only way to get peace in this area is for Israel to completely annihilate the Palestinians" Orod.

"Withdraw any help organisations and/or peace keeping forces now and let them finish the bombing once and for all" ZZ

"Personally, I am amazed at the restraint shown by the Israelis." Hauptman

"High 5's to Israel for getting the job done" Slim

Do you really want me to go back and pull the "atta boy Hamas'" liners from the thread? I think the general tone of this thread is one that accepts that both sides have some culpability... there is just massive disagreement on who holds more.

My position then, and now, is that the ceasefire had succeeded in eliminating 99% of the attacks and no Israeli citizen had been killed in 6 months.

Firstly I'd like to see facts backing this up. Secondly, slowing down attacks is not stopping attacks. Hamas was still attacking Israel (and pretty likely killing people in the process). They could have instead focused their efforts on peace. They didn't.

I see no reason why israel could not have responded to this by opening the border and ending incursions.

Because they keep getting blown up at the border when they do so? They seem to learn fast, I guess...

I see absolutely no reason why the correct response was to obliterate huge parts of Gaza and kill 1300 mostly civilian Palestinians.

Which Hamas was hiding amongst. Put it this away... assuming Israel takes SOME sort of military action against Hamas, which is fair considering they are being shot at... what do YOU suggest Israel do, militarily speaking, to kill an enemy that hides among innocents WITHOUT killing inncoents?

Especially when this resulted also in the deaths of 13 Israelis (more than previous few years) and the hardening of support for Hamas. Clearly you think otherwise and that pointing out my opinion on this matter amounts to glorifying terrorism.

Please don't drop to that level, PM. This is the lazy rhetoric and arguments I was speaking of. Just because someone disagrees with you and how you characterize Hamas doesn't mean they're calling you a terrorist-lover.

This strikes me as slightly moronic. I was caricaturing the nature of the attacks made against me. I have deliberately avoided using this kind of loaded rhetoric- clearly you didn't get this.

No, I think you didn't get what I was saying. I know your snarky comment was a caricature of others arguments.... my point was that all of YOUR arguments were the same, just on the other side of the coin. Clearly you didn't get this

Put more effort into a ceasefire. Put another way- what do you think this action has achieved? If you can't make a cogent case for much then you answer your own question- don't attack Gaza.

Hamas has been putting effort into a ceasefire? Funny... rockets flying over the border are an interesting way of saying let's be friends. It isn't Israel's responsibility to reason with warheads. Now, if they weren't being fired at, I could see.

What has Hamas accomplished in their doings?

Evidence for Hamas' declining support?

For a quickie there was an article cited earlier in this thread with it. Though, I'd like to see some of your statements backed up as well.

Not really- you could simply tell me what Israel has achieved strategically.

Probably not much. Most of these wars are pissing matches.

A facinating analytical framework - did you get that from the Council on Foreign Relations?

Simply an observation that for the millenia they have been fighting, it doesn't seem to have done much. Most of the wars are wars of principle. Is that really so hard to see?

Meh, this subject really doesn't interest me that much at this hour when I haven't slept for 24 hours. Maybe I'll come back and take a look later.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


First of all: I have not read all posts in this thread, but I have searched for and have not found the term "boycott" in all 9 pages so far. Therefore, I think it reasonable to assume that the following is not old news.

What is stated below is explicitly about the situation in Sweden with regard to the Israeli-Palestini conflict. I have chosen to focus on that one country, not because I think that it is especially important, but because I think that it can be used as a reasonable proxy for a large part of Europe. If you want to point out that things are different in other parts of Europe and back that up, be my guest.

The papers here in Sweden have reported boycotts of various Israeli produce. Interestingly, they have found shops which have sold stuff that is clearly marked as Israeli on the crates, but that shop-employees have marked with some other country of origin in the produce shelf (Spain seems to especially popular in this regard). However, the shopowners have been dumb enough to leave empty crates out in places where patrons can easily see them. When asked point-blank by journalists on this discrepancy, chain representatives have cited "employee error", and a few other transparently bullsh=t explanations. Funny that these errors have popped up in the same time in so many places, when shops need to unload difficult-to-sell stuff.

One might wonder why the shops go to the trouble of appearing to appease boycotters at all. Quite simple - there is too much business to be lost otherwise. Wikipedia lists the Swedish Jewish population as 18,000 which can be compared to the muslim population of 271,000 all out of a total population 9 million.

What about the rest, does following a boycott make business sense among that group? Well, since a great deal of those Swedes who thought of themselves as real Christians left for the USA during the time 1880-1920, the rest consists of one of the least religious populations in the world - many Swedes can honestly say that they have never met anyone who is religious and open about it. Thus, support for an idea of Israeli state based on New-Testament grounds is a non-starter here, when it comes to gathering votes and wallets.

Ironically, the largest news corporation is owned by a jewish family, but they do not make a big deal of supporting Israel on their pages, to put it mildly. I guess that that is also a business decision.

What about working to gather as much political clout then if numbers do not suffice on their own then?, I hear you saying. Well, the Swedish (and indeed this applies to the great part of Europe except GB) voting system is set up in such a way that a small but strong-willed minority can not overcome a considerably larger, but mostly politically uninterested majority. It can work in some cases, but not at all as well as in the USA.

The reason is that each political body has representation by numerous parties (very rarely less than 5, and fairly often more than 7), all of which field 30+ candidates for each election with very little in the way of primaries election. That means that for a common city council with 69 members (not an uncommon number) there are 80+ candidates which have a reasonable chance of getting in. In USA, a political action group which represents a strong-willed but numerically small voter segment typically gets is will through - when they do so - by cultivating allies in both parties, and generally "sanitizing" the candidate field so that a voter who does not agree with them has no choice other than voting for a no-hoper or staying home. However, this tactic does not work in a proportional voting system. There are simply too many candidates to vet, and most parties do not use a primary system which can be used to get away those candidates that one disagrees with especially much.

To make matters more difficult for those Swedes who wish to get a pro-Israeli policy voted through, one party has an explicitly pro-palestinian platform, and there is a significant number of muslim/arabic swedish voters who are faithful to that party as bedrock single-issue voters. One might wonder why the jewish Swedish voters do not form their own party to try to get at least someplace in Swedish politics in which they reign supreme, but that is also a losing proposition. Swedish law requires (and there are similar laws in all over continental Europe) that a party must attact at least 4% of the total parliamentary votes in order to get any seats at all. This is intended to stop parliaments from being cluttered up with dozens of single-issue parties, which causes logjam like nothing else. However, the Swedish jews number only 1/20ieth of this 4% threshold, so each Swedish jew would have to get 19-non-jews to vote for this party in order for it to be viable. To compare with the USA, jews in Sweden are a slightly smaller proportion of the total population than the Cherokee in USA. There are significant limits to political power when one is faced with such demographic facts.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[telkanuru]

I would agree- but it really isn't that simple. Hamas have only existed for 20 years- there was obviously no peace before this.

Yes, but it's hard to start talking again when your opposition thinks you have no right to exist.

By which I assume you mean Iran and Syria. I think it probably does. Iran has not attacked another country in its modern history and has ruled out ever doing so (cue the wiped off the map claim). Syria, Egypt, Jordan etc. (the traditional forces that have fought Israel) are no military threat.

Actually, I mean the future 2nd State.

In my mind the biggest sticking point is Jerusalem. I think Hamas are willing to accept 2 state solution, and have said so, if Israel ended blockade and went back to pre 1967 borders. Both would states claim Jerusalem as their capital and not sure how that could be resolved.

I can find nothing that says Hamas will accept a 2-state solution, but I can find a lot where they say they seek the total destruction of Israel.

1967 borders is kind of a weird idea. I mean, the borders changed because of several full-scale wars waged against Israel that Israel won. To ask for a complete reversion would at best be an anathema to the populace and at worst be a national security nightmare for Israel...

[bpm]

In my mind the biggest sticking point is Jerusalem. I think Hamas are willing to accept 2 state solution, and have said so, if Israel ended blockade and went back to pre 1967 borders. Both would states claim Jerusalem as their capital and not sure how that could be resolved.

Can you explain why Israel should go back to 6-day war borders? Or are you saying that the "Palestinian Arab" nationalism that grew after the 6-day war will all be turned back, and they will all be Jordanians & Egyptians again?

-B

[Fencer X and Y]

I have a question for PM (and anyone else who wants to answer). What do you think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US to end WWII? The reason why I'm asking is because I see a lot of similarities between that and Israel's recent campaign in Gaza. From my point of view it was a regretable but necessary action that killed ~300,000 civilians in order to prevent 3,000,000 US soldiers deaths as well as countless Japanese soldiers and civilians (I also believe that many scholars from both the American and, more importantly, Japanese sides agree with that opinion). So the way I see it is that Israel has killed 1300 civilians and now Hamas is saying they are ready for a 1 year cease-fire. Like it or not sometimes people will only respond to force, and even then only to an extrodinary amount of force at that.

It is of course well known that Hirohito was happy that the bombings happened becasue it gave him a reason to surrender without which none of the generals would ever let him do so. So to your question of

...Fundamentally, is there a realistic military solution available for Israel?...

I believe that there is and that what I just said is one of them. Scare/force Hamas into making peace with them. Because, just like with the japanese before August 6th, there is no negotiation possible with Hamas for Israel right now. Like it or not Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and you can not just dissmiss it as being rhetoric, therefore no talks with an entity are possible until you fundamentally change their outlook on what you are capable of doing to them.

[pigeonmeister]

Yes, but it's hard to start talking again when your opposition thinks you have no right to exist.

I realise. But remember, Israel faced exactly the same problem with the PLO/Fatah. Now the wrong course they pursued was to try and destroy the PLO, the worst cause they tried was to try to build up a rival (Hamas). In the end the talked- despite people saying exactly what you have said. To be honest, same can be said of Egypt.

I think it's worth remember that many of America's close friends think Israel have no right to exist- e.g Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

I honestly don't believe Hamas will be destroyed militarily (as the PLO were not). Trying to do so appears to make them stronger. I would suggest that first thing needed is a 12 month ceasefire- negotiations will only follow a sustained deescalation of tensions.I think that Palestinians would find it harder to vote for a party advocating sustained conflict with Israel if over that 12 months their lives had been visibly improved (this would require the end to the blockade). Hamas would then have to either moderate its language or get voted out.

Believe it or not, it's actually hard for Palestinians to talk to a country that reserves the right for Jerusalem to be the capital of a Jewish state and allows people to steal Arab land and resources because they think God tells them to.

Actually, I mean the future 2nd State.

You think that a free Palestine could be a military threat to Israel? It would have to start building the biggest and best airforce in the region, best armed divisions and get some pretty powerful friends fast.

I can find nothing that says Hamas will accept a 2-state solution, but I can find a lot where they say they seek the total destruction of Israel.

See point one. Acceptance of a two state solution in which Jerusalem is entirely controlled by Israel,with no right to return,is difficult for any Palestinian to accept. I think that a sustained ceasefire would allow the rhetoric on Israel's destruction to become more and more symbolic and isolated. Eventually it would be marginalised. At the moment israel are not giving Palestinians much incentive to confront this rhetoric.

Hamas negotiating with Israel would be an implicit recognition that it exists. For example, in a press conference held on January 28 2005, Khaled Mash’al, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated that the
agreements with Israel would be upheld since they were a reality impossible to ignore.

1967 borders is kind of a weird idea. I mean, the borders changed because of several full-scale wars waged against Israel that Israel won. To ask for a complete reversion would at best be an anathema to the populace and at worst be a national security nightmare for Israel

Remember that hostilities in the 1967 war were actually initiated by Israel. But surely you don't need me to list all the wars that have resulted in captured land being returned following peace-settlements?

[pigeonmeister]

Can you explain why Israel should go back to 6-day war borders? Or are you saying that the "Palestinian Arab" nationalism that grew after the 6-day war will all be turned back, and they will all be Jordanians & Egyptians again?

-B

On your first point- see my response above. On your second point, I think you are straying into the zionist myth that Palestinian identity emerged only in the last 50 years (if, as they question, it ever existed).

You make another major error. Egypt and Jordan administered Palestine (Gaza and West Bank) at that time. Though some neighbouring Arabs certainly moved into Palestine in the 1st half of the 20th century, and not to ignore the wider Arab identity, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza did not consider themselves Jordanian or Egyptian. Troops from Jordan and Iraq actually controlled the West Bank- but Jordan only annexed it for 17 years before 1967. Worth also remembering that all of the divisions made in the late 1940s were not decided by Palestinians but the UN- and that really meant UK and US.

There has been a proposal of the West Bank's accession to Jordan by some people in Jordan, Palestine and even Israel. Again, this would not make the Palestinians living there feel Jordanian- much as the refugees in Lebanon don't. I don't think it is a serious suggestion anymore.

[pigeonmeister]

I have a question for PM (and anyone else who wants to answer). What do you think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US to end WWII? The reason why I'm asking is because I see a lot of similarities between that and Israel's recent campaign in Gaza. From my point of view it was a regretable but necessary action that killed ~300,000 civilians in order to prevent 3,000,000 US soldiers deaths as well as countless Japanese soldiers and civilians (I also believe that many scholars from both the American and, more importantly, Japanese sides agree with that opinion). So the way I see it is that Israel has killed 1300 civilians and now Hamas is saying they are ready for a 1 year cease-fire. Like it or not sometimes people will only respond to force, and even then only to an extrodinary amount of force at that.

It is of course well known that Hirohito was happy that the bombings happened becasue it gave him a reason to surrender without which none of the generals would ever let him do so. So to your question of
I believe that there is and that what I just said is one of them. Scare/force Hamas into making peace with them. Because, just like with the japanese before August 6th, there is no negotiation possible with Hamas for Israel right now. Like it or not Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and you can not just dissmiss it as being rhetoric, therefore no talks with an entity are possible until you fundamentally change their outlook on what you are capable of doing to them.

With respect, I don't think that is a sustainable comparison. But for the record, I have on this forum before agreed that the US probably did the right thing in Japan.

I don't dismiss Hamas' calls as simply rhetoric- I just don't think they can be reversed by bombing Gaza. I believe that a lasting ceasefire will lead to Hamas' calls becoming increasingly rhetorical and symbolic. Israel cannot physically destroy the ideology of Hamas. I prefer to see conditions established that make it increasingly isolated or moderated.

[I_luv_saber]

I don't dismiss Hamas' calls as simply rhetoric {snip}

Earlier...

3) Hamas’ unwillingness to accept the existence of Israel was about rhetoric and not about reality

There is a symbolic element to their rhetoric- which is still reprehensible.

If you weren't, you sure as hell were coming across that way.

[pigeonmeister]

If you weren't, you sure as hell were coming across that way.

Perhaps you are approaching how I come across to suit your own arguments.

But anyway, perhaps you should read my posts.

You deliberately omit this sentence before the first quote you provide:

How about we engage with some of the points made today by the former UK ambassador to the United Nations and Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock

I was inviting people to respond to the issues raised by Greenstock- I thought they would provoke an interesting debate. I didn't explicitly subscribe to each of them.

The second quote you provide...

There is a symbolic element to their rhetoric- which is still reprehensible.

This neither amounts to dismissal nor is it disputed by most sensible analysts. I even call it reprehensible! I don't say it is entirely symbolic- not even substantially. I totally stand by this sentence.

You must try harder to mischaracterise my arguments...

[tchwojko]

Should Hamas not shoulder most of the burden for that?
...snip...
I agree Israel holds some guilt in this matter. I simply believe the majority of the problem lies with Hamas.
...snip...
Hamas holds just as much if not more responsibility for those deaths as Israel does.
...snip...
I think the general tone of this thread is one that accepts that both sides have some culpability... there is just massive disagreement on who holds more.

If I had more time, I'd similarly quote other posts pointing the finger the other way, I'm not arguing one way or another.

I was just struck at how many arguments are over who is more "in the wrong" instead of how to "do the right thing."

[Hauptman]

You are of course entitled to the belief that criticism of Israel's recent conduct, and some of its historic rhetoric, amounts to 'terrorist apologia'. To be honest, I think a man of your considerable intellect can do better though...

About those quotes; weren't they more than 35 years old?

Many of those quotes occuring less than 10 years after the Yom Kippur war in which virtually the entire arab world launched a surprise attack against Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar?

Context is important as Hamas now... today... still espouses the destruction of Israel and the Israeli people.

[I_luv_saber]

Perhaps you are approaching how I come across to suit your own arguments.

Even though I came into this far later (for the sole reason, might I add, that this attitude irked me)? I had no arguments to suit yet!

I was inviting people to respond to the issues raised by Greenstock- I thought they would provoke an interesting debate. I didn't explicitly subscribe to each of them.

It seemed as though you were standing behind those quotes as a way to put forth your own argument. If I misunderstood, then sorry, but in context it certainly appeared as if you were using Mr. Greenstock's points as a point in your favor.

This neither amounts to dismissal nor is it disputed by most sensible analysts. I even call it reprehensible! I don't say it is entirely symbolic- not even substantially. I totally stand by this sentence.

Calling it reprehensible doesn't change the fact you were portraying it as simply symbolic.

You must try harder to mischaracterise my arguments...

You must think a lot of yourself to think I really care enough to do so. Don't flatter yourself. I don't really care too much about this subject... it's fairly disinteresting to me. The only reason I jumped into this in the first place is because (at least what I perceived, I don't know about anyone else...) your attitude towards Hamas was like you were excusing their behavior and genocidal intentions (or rather, minimizing it).

I was just struck at how many arguments are over who is more "in the wrong" instead of how to "do the right thing."

Well, as I explained above, that was the whole reason I entered the debate. IMO, the attitude that Hamas' extreme racism, to the point of advocating and wanting genocide, isn't that big of a deal and is symbolic is horribly wrong. It poked me enough to make me jump in.

[Slim]

You must think a lot of yourself to think I really care enough to do so. Don't flatter yourself. I don't really care too much about this subject... it's fairly disinteresting to me. The only reason I jumped into this in the first place is because (at least what I perceived, I don't know about anyone else...) your attitude towards Hamas was like you were excusing their behavior and genocidal intentions (or rather, minimizing it).

Welcome to the club of unwashed, intellectual retards that are not capable of understanding the nuances and shear brilliance of PM's rhetoric. Find solace in the fact that you are far from alone.

[pigeonmeister]

Welcome to the club of unwashed, intellectual retards that are not capable of understanding the nuances and shear brilliance of PM's rhetoric.

Slim, I would never cast aspersions on your personal hygiene.

[telkanuru]

Welcome to the club of unwashed, intellectual retards that are not capable of understanding the nuances and shear brilliance of PM's rhetoric. Find solace in the fact that you are far from alone.

While I am comforted by the company, the fact that I find myself in agreement with you is cause for significant consternation.

[Slim]

While I am comforted by the company, the fact that I find myself in agreement with you is cause for significant consternation.

Scary, huh? Relax...your brief moment of lucidity is no doubt a fleeting one. You'll be your normal self in a few moments.

And thanks again for the tag line.