Topic: Justifications for Gaza (Read 2619 times)

I don't think you understand what relocating hundreds of thousands of persons means; it's not just the housing that needs to be addressed - and this is already one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, so that's already a big problem - but also all the essentials that need to be made available for people to be able to live there: mostly clean water and food, but also access to healthcare and electricity. You can't just shove them on to another area and expect them to survive unaided.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.



Perhaps I am, but it's not like mindlessly killing each other is working either - well, not for the respective populations at least.

---

I made no such argument; I think you might have either misunderstood what I said or got the chronology there wrong - some of the events I mentioned occurred after the disengagement, or were never addressed altogether. So, for example, the Fatah-Hamas conflict Israel/US pushed along occurred after the disengagement, as did the acceleration of the illegal settlements on the West Bank, and ultimately the goal of separating Gaza and the West Bank. On the other hand, human rights abuses were never addressed, and the occupation of the territories never really ended - Gaza simply didn't have the Israeli army already inside its borders, but the government there did not otherwise have control of its borders, imports-exports, airspace, coastline, or a lot of the infrastructure.

Your argument is basically that since Israel did something that some may thing was wrong, that it is okay to attack them forever. This obviously makes zero sense. If someone is doing wrong and then correct that wrong there is no reason to attack them once the issue has been addressed.

Is Gaza made out of only 17,000 houses? No. problem solved then.
These figures wont increase as a permanent ceasefire was signed today-Israel must be the worst genocider ever,signing 11 ceasefires which most were violated by Hamas,now signing another one.



Assad still has allies(Iran,Russia,Lebanon,etc) with 260,000 people dead on his hands,im sure Israel can get away with 2000.China and Russia would love to get their hands on Iron Dome,once the US finally abandons the monopoly on Israeli tech.
the world mostly doesn't realy give a damn about the Palestinians.


Sorry but you are too naive if you think multiculturalism will work here.

You may reach that conclusion if you ignore that the occupation as a whole never ended, and neither did Israeli human rights abuses, or interference in the region - the Fatah-Hamas conflict, for example, was largely pushed by the US and Israel (among others). Further, the disengagement served a few other Israeli goals that you omitted there: it increased the separation between Gaza and the West Bank (not only physically in contravention of previous agreements, but also politically as stated above), and allowed Israel to focus on advancing its settlements of the West Bank (which sharply increased at that time).

Unfortunately no; if anything, I'm putting it mildly: according to Unicef's Pernille Ironside (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/gaza-cost-far-exceeds-estimate-official-says.html?_r=0), they are currently dealing with some 350.000 refugees there. And it's a little hard for them to return home when Israel destroyed them: at least some 17.000 were totally destroyed, and 37.000 damaged. However, these figures are likely to increase, especially as the conflict continues. And this to say nothing of what Israeli attacks on vital infrastructure have done to access to healthcare, food and water. In fact, in the article I linked, Pernille Ironside goes on to say that, if the blockade isn't at least eased, some estimates put the time to reconstruct Gaza after the latest attack at 18 years!



I offered it as my own personal opinion, so take it as you will; but from all I've seen so far, that seems to me the most likely outcome, unless things start changing very soon.



I'm not Palestinian, so again, take it as you will; but I'd say the average Palestinian cares less about what the land is called, and far more about their human rights being respected, than what you think - see this interview with Shir Hever for more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYeWeoQ-uQ (at about the 7 minute mark, though I definitely recommend the full interview).

And you know, there is one way to deal with the illegal settlements without kicking anyone out again: give them the chance to stay and integrate them into a future Palestinian state, or monetary incentives to return to Israel and resettle, for example (they are currently being given governmental monetary incentives to illegally occupy Palestinian land, so it wouldn't be much of a shift there).



Human rights must be respected, whether or not you're the losing side. And yes, there is no assurance that the removal of the blockade will end the conflict, especially if the occupation and human rights abuses continue; but you can be sure that continuing the blockade will make the situation far worse over time - as I said before, it is only further radicalizing the population there, in the West Bank, and in Israel.

As to the lack of clean water, they were already dealing with water shortages before the recent conflict; after Israel hit water wells and sewage treatment plants (which contaminated several regions), it has been one of the main jobs of Unicef to ensure that the population has access to water as much as possible, job which continues to this day - the article I linked above mentions this, though you can easily find it elsewhere if you bother looking.

An important point to make here is that Israel had dismantled all of its settlements (a total of 21 villages, including the infamous Elei Sinai) in Gaza (during the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005). If the rocket attacks are continuing despite this, then the Israelis are having a valid excuse to claim that the Hamas is opposed to the very existence of Israel.

Many neighbourhoods were destroyed,but im pretty sure at least a half(and im under exaggerating here) of Gaza still stands,they can go there. Just because some UN shelters were allegedly bombed doesn't mean they are all unsafe.


whether Israel pushes more settlers doesn't matter,there are already hundreds of thousands of settlers.
If Israel would kick them out wouldnt that be illegal? the settlers will become refugees in their own country,is it ok for you just because they're not Palestinian?
In the same manner we can ask Hamas to kick out all the Palestinian "settlers" in Gaza and move them to Egypt,a fellow Arab-Muslim country! isn't that wonderful?



Do you have any accurate unbiased information about the internet,sewage and clean water in Gaza as of today? i doubt it.
You keep nagging about what the Palestinians get from the removal of the blockade-but what will Israel get? long term peace? nobody can assure that. Logically the Palestinians being the losing side(according to your post) are in no place to make big demands.

What homes are you talking about? whole neighborhoods were destroyed. you have no idea what you are talking about. even if this point was explained to you many times, heck even UN refuges are not safe from Israel bombardment which is blatantly a crime war


And this is way Israel is pushing settlers and illegal settlement in west bank to make the same excuse you are making here. If they really wanted peace they could move the settlers out and build them new houses elsewhere, as for the building they could be sold for money so there would be no financial lose



Nope but at least it will ease the tension and it would especially relief the Gaza population, they could at least get medical treatment, first necessity equipment and goods, right now they don't even have access to sewage system or clean water and I'm not going to talk about electricity which seems to be a luxury in the area nowadays.

Most of the problems would be solved if Israel accepts and follows the UN resolutions and following the 67 borders and giving palestinians to have their rights as in any other country, which again not going to happen because Israel does not want that.

Hundreds of thousands refugees? thats a lie. They returned to their homes after the ground invasion was stopped.
That so called level of devastation is exaggerated.


Baseless and incorrect assumption.


one state sultion-you are naive if you think the Palestininans would be so happy to have the "evil zionist jews" to rule over them. The Jews would not want the Palestinian to rule over them either-rightly so.
Not with hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank,a 1967 lines agreement is practically impossible. a future Palestinian state can only be based on new lines and borders.

Lets say the disputed blockade was ended-do you really think Israel and Hamas will suddenly ride towards the sunset on a unicorn,and live happily ever after?

I think the international reaction has been more balanced in whole terms, but not in terms of who is doing wrong. Hamas is doing a very good PR job at making Israel look bad but they are also killing the citizens of Palestine in the process.

I get the feeling you really have no idea of the situation in Gaza, and the level of devastation there. Why do you think there are currently, literally, hundreds of thousands of refugees there at the moment? Do you have any idea of what that is? And again, rockets or no rockets, civilians aren't automatically valid targets - that's a violation of the rules of war, if anyone cares.



Yes, and other countries could also nuke that whole region to oblivion and end the stupid conflict once and for all - would you like that solution, or should we perhaps move to kill less people, and not more?



You're right, when you have US diplomatic support, you can get away with a lot of crimes - but make no mistake, that support won't last forever, as more and more opposition to Israel's actions is felt at all levels of society; I honestly don't give it 10 years before Israel is completely isolated at this rate.



I'm referring to the one or two states solutions; that is, Israel either taking over the whole territory and population, or Israel and Palestine coexisting side by side, with negotiations having as a starting point the 1967 borders - both of which Israel refuses, either in word or in action.



Is it? Again, you have little to no idea of the situation in Gaza - do us both a favor, and please, look into it: Israeli officials weren't kidding when they said it was meant to keep the Palestinian population at a level just slightly over that of a humanitarian crisis. And you know what would help solve the situation? Ending the illegal blockade and the occupation.



Here I'm referring to the recent unity government that Hamas and Fatah created; Hamas accepted all the preconditions of the Quartet, and despite the Quartet's willingness to work with them (even with US agreement), Israel immediately threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority, holding back tax revenues, and suspended peace negotiations - source, the Israeli Prime Minister.

They can go to whatever place that is not bombed,while they're at it they should also not bring their rockets with them.


Israel actions are disproportionate,i agree,but they could be much,much worser. they can turn the operation into to an actual and effective genocide which will end the rocket threat,as there will be no one left to fire. though that will create even bigger problems.


Rules of war.. does anybody actualy follow these?
if they were indeed following the so called Dahiya doctrine again the results would be much more catastrophic.


Which peace deal are you talking about? specify the conditions.



Caged animals is a one hell of a wild exaggeration. Hamas and its allies seeing the Jews as subhuman does not solve the situation either.

Source?

I've just answered someone on this exact point, a few posts back:

"At one point Israel declared about 45% of Gaza as a no-go zone; in a small, densely populated area such as Gaza, and with both Israel and Egypt mostly denying passage to civilians, where exactly is the population supposed to go, even when warnings are actually given? Often times these people have nowhere else to go, and even taking refuge in the few shelters there are doesn't guarantee their safety, as Israel has, intentionally or not, repeatedly hit them."

And again - this doesn't seem to have registered with you yet:

"Also, even if there are enemies nearby firing rockets or whatnot, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to attack them if it puts civilians at risk - Israel's actions have been completely disproportionate, and lead me to question if they aren't just following the Dahiya doctrine again."

That is to say, you can't just attack an area when you know civilians will most likely be harmed - even if you warned them to get out (and as I said above, they can't always really do so). Doing this is a violation of the rules of war, and violates not only discrimination between civilian and military targets, but also proportionality in response to the threat.



Yes, because Israel refuses to accept a peace deal, either in the form of the one or two state solution.



Know that what you're advocating there is collective punishment - another violation of the Geneva Conventions. Further, it's so bad an argument, that it even serves to legitimate Hamas' attacks on civilians: "some 80% or 90% of Israelis support the attack on Gaza, so they are valid targets", or some nonsense like that - it's wrong when Hamas does it, and it's wrong when Israel does it. But treating the Palestinians like caged animals isn't going to solve anything; only worsen the situation.



Really? Because I seem to recall them wanting to move to a peaceful solution, even quite recently, and Israel boycotting the negotiations.

Israel does give warnings and phone calls before it bombs a target with civilians nearby,Hamas being the governing body of Gaza supported by the population and their human shields makes it impossible for Israel not to harm civilians.
a peaceful solution requires both sides to aim for peace,and that is currently impossible.


The Palestininans elected Hamas,even if some Palestininans dont like Hamas anymore they realy do nothing to show it.  besides Hamas,that are dozens of other factions that co operate with Hamas. the more radical Islamic Jihad for example.



That,and the Palestinians not wanting to have any Jews near them.

The estimates of civilian casualties caused by Israeli attacks I've seen so far mostly range from about 70% to 80%. And even if you only want to take the IDF estimates, they put it at some 55% - quite indefensible no matter how you look at it, if you ask me.



Again, Israel doesn't have the right to further endanger and kill civilians just because Hamas might be nearby, and then keeping it up until it causes over 2000 casualties, over 10000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and destruction of vital infrastructure that the population depends on to live. And you can only say this is unavoidable if you don't want to move to a peaceful solution - and unfortunately, Israel has no interest in a two state solution, or even a one state solution, for that matter, as evidenced by its actions over the years.



The sources are Israeli officials, as revealed by Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TELAVIV2447_a.html).


Again, this is an official quote from the current deputy chief of General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, made during an interview, and shown in another leaked cable: http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TELAVIV2329_a.html. Whether or not this reflects the reality on Gaza, you can see from the outcome on the ground.

---

That seems like the right reaction to me - but don't forget the circumstances which serve to perpetuate the conflict, namely, the blockade and the occupation.

Well.... I have only one thing today. Don't poke the sleeping bear. If you do that, then don't complain when it bite back. Unlike the previous Gaza vs Israel conflicts, this conflict has seen a more balanced international reaction. People living outside the Middle-East are condemning the Israeli bombings as well as the Hamas rocket strikes.  

According to Hamas-the numbers are most likely very diffrent.


Unavoidable Incidents like this are numerous and rare when looking at the fact that Israel made thousands of strikes in Gaza that were not targetet against civilians. its pretty much impossible to fight a war without civilian casualties,especially in densely populated areas.




Source? the official reason for the blockade is Hamas.


This quote whether actually said this way or not proves nothing about the situation on the ground.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Hamas' actions here - but you're equating two sides that aren't on equal footing. As I said before, Israel's actions are completely disproportionate. For more detail, and to address a), b) and c), see my reply to Starscream from the other thread (sorry for the copy/paste, but it gets tiring always reading and replying to the same things, especially when all this is public knowledge already):

About 80% of the Palestinian casualties are civilians - either the IDF is worryingly incompetent (so much so that it would probably be better not to allow them anywhere near a weapon, for fear they would hurt themselves), or they target/don't care about civilians and civilian infrastructure. Am I missing another possibility there? I've lost count at the amount of shelters they've hit after being repeatedly warned of the coordinates, and that there were refugees inside - at what point should people stop calling these attacks accidents and instead start calling them intentional? Because they just keep on happening, time and time again. And no, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to kill civilians because Hamas might or might not be nearby.

Are we supposed to believe this isn't just a continuation of the Dahiya doctrine? Quoting IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot, “What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. [...] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved”. And quoting a Wikileaks release, "Eisenkot stated that Damascus fully understands what the Israelis did in Dahiya, and that the Israelis have the capability of doing the same to Syria. He suggested the possibility of harm to the population has been Hizballah leader Nasrallah's main constraint, and the reason for the quiet over the past two years".

Then we have the blockade imposed on Gaza, which according to official Israeli policy, is meant to keep the Palestinian population on a state just slightly above that consistent with a humanitarian crisis, and the economy there at the brink of collapse - again, we know this thanks to Wikileaks. Of course, with the recent escalation of the conflict, and the usual Israeli targeting of vital infrastructure, they are now in a humanitarian crisis.

I honestly don't think it's such a stretch to call this genocide anymore.

EDIT: Oh, and take a look also at the following part, in relation to Apartheid, which touches on b) and c) as well.

Fine,Lets look at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b)  Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

If you follow these two,you get a double genocide because both Hamas and Israel pass those criterias.
No proof the current operation is intended to to systematically exterminate the Palestinians whatsoever.

 (c)Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 Palestininan population is steadily growing,at the current rate Genocide in this cirteria is impossible.

 (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group.

Not happening.

I guess you didn't take the advice I gave you on the other thread of looking up the definition (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8171882). Again, you don't classify it as genocide only if the whole population is killed off. Also, see my answer to starscream's post on that thread for a little more detail on it.



At one point Israel declared about 45% of Gaza as a no-go zone; in a small, densely populated area such as Gaza, and with both Israel and Egypt mostly denying passage to civilians, where exactly is the population supposed to go, even when warnings are actually given? Often times these people have nowhere else to go, and even taking refuge in the few shelters there are doesn't guarantee their safety, as Israel has, intentionally or not, repeatedly hit them.

Also, even if there are enemies nearby firing rockets or whatnot, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to attack them if it puts civilians at risk - Israel's actions have been completely disproportionate, and lead me to question if they aren't just following the Dahiya doctrine again.