Israel, Gaza, and the Middle East Conflict

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Concerning the Sami..., they are now perhaps the most well-endowed and independently acting indigenous people on the planet
While the Norwegian state made missteps in the past, trying to force the Sami people to learn Norwegian and become 'real Norwegians', that era is over.
Today, Sis, the Sami people of Norway have their own brand new, state-of-the-art parliament in northern Norway where more than 20 parties or so are actively participating. The ancestral land of the Sami people in mostly Finnmark is now labelled strictly for the Sami people's use. They have unique ownership rights to this area and in fact most of Finnmark for farming, fishing and other commercial purposes that would make most landowners in the world green with envy! Being a Sami in Norway these days tastes very good I believe.

Oh, I'm sure. The same thing applies to First People's in the US. I know several people who are willing to explain what a "sweet deal" they get.

So, the evidence is that people should just get a ladder and get over any small residual issues they have about losing their language, culture, and holy places. Good idea. Let the people of Gaza know we've found them a solution.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Oh, I'm sure. The same thing applies to First People's in the US. I know several people who are willing to explain what a "sweet deal" they get.

So, the evidence is that people should just get a ladder and get over any small residual issues they have about losing their language, culture, and holy places. Good idea. Let the people of Gaza know we've found them a solution.

Perhaps you should be careful with comparing Native American's bloody history in the US with the relatively peaceful history of the Sami people in northern Norway. Just a tip

I wouldn't say it's a small residual issue the Israelis and Palestinians are having. But I'm sure you don't think so, so I'm guessing your being sarcastic.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Perhaps you should be careful with comparing Native American's bloody history in the US with the relatively peaceful history of the Sami people in northern Norway. Just a tip

Really? Why? I'll admit I'm no expert of any of the idigenous or minority peoples of Norway. But I know considerably more about "spin" and "denial" than you do, I'll bet. It pleases you to think that the Sami are privileged... and I've heard JUST the same song about First Americans. Explain to me how different it is.

So I'm willing to discuss why displacing SOME peoples is okay, and displacing OTHER peoples is an international scandal, and I'm willing to talk about how you choose which is which.

Because your tone of outrage about the Palestinians doesn't display much balance, imo. I'm Irish American.(muchly) You can't BEGIN to imagine how radical those folks get about "the homeland". And we've had our share of bombers too, yes? Quite recently I was being rushed out of the Tube in London because my crazy cousins might be leaving a ticking package on it.

So, explain to me why Palestine is for the Palestinians, no matter how they get it, and Israel is always wrong.

I got time.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Really? Why? I'll admit I'm no expert of any of the idigenous or minority peoples of Norway. But I know considerably more about "spin" and "denial" than you do, I'll bet. It pleases you to think that the Sami are privileged... and I've heard JUST the same song about First Americans. Explain to me how different it is.

So I'm willing to discuss why displacing SOME peoples is okay, and displacing OTHER peoples is an international scandal, and I'm willing to talk about how you choose which is which.

Because your tone of outrage about the Palestinians doesn't display much balance, imo. I'm Irish American.(muchly) You can't BEGIN to imagine how radical those folks get about "the homeland". And we've had our share of bombers too, yes? Quite recently I was being rushed out of the Tube in London because my crazy cousins might be leaving a ticking package on it.

So, explain to me why Palestine is for the Palestinians, no matter how they get it, and Israel is always wrong.

I got time.

I'm not interested in having that kind of debate with someone who thinks she's sitting on some high horse. As long as you're unable to address the talking points I'm presenting without cherry-picking the one's you can get something controversial out of and simplifying the words I write (is it hard to scroll up and down?)

For instance:
- You admit, and prove, that you have little idea of what you are talking about when it comes to Sami people in Norway.
- You then make the mistake of assuming you can compare the decimation of the population and culture of Native Americans with the relatively low-key hostilities that have existed between Norwegians and Sami people just because both groups are indigeneous. Is that right?
- You accuse me of sweeeting the situation of the Sami. So instead of doing a bit of reading because your not prepared to accept the current reality I commented on, you say I'm "in denial' because it doesn't fit with your confused idea of the dismal state of living the Sami obviously (but, ssh, it's a secret) are in.
- Wait, it gets better. All of the sudden I'm also okay'ing the displacement of Jews from their previous roots in the Middle East. I can't recall ever saying the Jewish diaspora deserved their faith. Why don't you bring me that quote!
- And lastly, I read to my amazement, I am now anti-Isreali. Well it just goes to confirm my belief that you're not actually reading my posts but vaguely skimming through them, jumping over the parts where I defend Isreali policy and criticise Palestinian actions.

Why do I bother

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Coffeehouse, you're free to ignore me, if you like. But a great many of your posts deal with the "better claim" of the Palestinian people to Israeli territory.

Now, first of all, there are already Palestinians in Israeli territory. 20% of the Israeli population is already Arab/Palestinian. (And, unsurprisingly, most of those don't support the Gazan incursions.) That's 20% more than I've ever seen suggested for a Palestinian state, but, hey.

So what works for you? What percentage of Israel should be Arab Palestinian? What makes a Jewish state possible? Because the Jews lived there for a long time, too. They built cities, as well as kingdoms. But their heritage is based on the center of their religious identity. That's the fact of it. For hundreds of years, they pledged each other with "To next year in Jerusalem." Is it surprising that they're happy to be "home"

So when you're saying, "the vast majority" to talk about the rights of the Palestinian people...who are also, apparently, Caananites (although The Palestinians today, much like Arabs in Syria and Lebanon, constitute a culmination of centuries and millenias of displacement and replacement of peoples, cultures and languages. I don't know what criteria you use to make them a people.

Except that they're not Jewish.

As for indigenous peoples? There are over 2 million First Americans in the US. And almost everything you think you know about their relationship with the rest of the population is all in your imagination. It's a complicated family, the US.

[brownjenkins]

Might it right.

It's the way it's always been, and it's the way things will always be.

If not for the oil in the Middle East, we wouldn't give the conflicts there any more heed than we do those in South America or Africa.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Sadly, BJ, I probably agree. But since I know dozens of people who have spent time in Israel, I suspect money isn't the only explanation.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Coffeehouse, you're free to ignore me, if you like. But a great many of your posts deal with the "better claim" of the Palestinian people to Israeli territory.

Now, first of all, there are already Palestinians in Israeli territory. 20% of the Israeli population is already Arab/Palestinian. (And, unsurprisingly, most of those don't support the Gazan incursions.) That's 20% more than I've ever seen suggested for a Palestinian state, but, hey.

So what works for you? What percentage of Israel should be Arab Palestinian? What makes a Jewish state possible? Because the Jews lived there for a long time, too. They built cities, as well as kingdoms. But their heritage is based on the center of their religious identity. That's the fact of it. For hundreds of years, they pledged each other with "To next year in Jerusalem." Is it surprising that they're happy to be "home"

So when you're saying, "the vast majority" to talk about the rights of the Palestinian people...who are also, apparently, Caananites (although The Palestinians today, much like Arabs in Syria and Lebanon, constitute a culmination of centuries and millenias of displacement and replacement of peoples, cultures and languages. I don't know what criteria you use to make them a people.

Except that they're not Jewish.

As for indigenous peoples? There are over 2 million First Americans in the US. And almost everything you think you know about their relationship with the rest of the population is all in your imagination. It's a complicated family, the US.

No Sis... my posts do not deal with the better claim of the Palestinian people in Israeli territory. To the extent that I write about claims I address the illegal settlements on the West Bank, which is Palestinian territory. Unless you are a radical Jewish settler living on the West Bank, on Palestinian property, you would not in any way characterize that land as Israeli. It's occupied in every sense of the word, but if you really believe it's rightfully Israeli then come clean about it.

You seem to mix opinions I have, with opinions you think I have. For example when you ask me "What percentage of Israel should be Arab Palestinian?" are you asking me about the internal demographics of Israel (those statistics you can find on the Internet right?), or are you presuming that I'm really
argueing for a one-state solution where Palestinians become a part of Israel? If you had paid attention to my posts you'd quickly see that I've never advocated a one-state solution. The Israelis would never agree to it (the Palestinians most likely would not agree to it either), and I don't think it is feasible for many reasons. That's why I keep repeating the requirements of a two-state solution, Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, and a stop in rocket and suicide bombing attacks by Palestinians.

Anyways, stop insulting with comments like this (Which seem to come out of the blue when you're arguments are on thin ice):

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Almost everything you think you know about their relationship with the rest of the population is all in your imagination

Seriously? What possibly grounds do you have to measure my or anyone else's knowledge about this theme (or any other theme) when you don't know me? It's really arrogant.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I've always been arrogant, so that wouldn't be much of a surprise. But also, accurate information about racial issues in the United States isn't widely reported, so it's a safe assumption that most people who think they know something about it are talking through their hats.

So, your point of view is that Israel should withdraw from Gaza, and that Gaza would constitute a Free Palestine?

[Nurvingiel]

Keep your disagreement against the argument, not the poster folks. This is a hot issue and it can easily get out of hand.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If not for the oil in the Middle East, we wouldn't give the conflicts there any more heed than we do those in South America or Africa.

Yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has very little to do with neither oil or gas.

I think there is a slight myth to the view that only oil&gas conflicts receive adequate attention. Here are some conflicts which get, at least in Norway, much attention:

1) War in Afghanistan
2) Congolese War
3) Sri Lankan-LTTE War
4) Israeli-Palestinian conflict
5) Conflict in Zimbabwe

Unless you mean by 'we' the major American media like CNN, Fox, etc. in which case I'll just say no comment

[inked]

Now, here's a government that really works for the people:

http://charter.net/news/read.php?ps=...ARSDCCLM_UNEWS

HAMAS STEALS (oops, that was SEIZES) FOOD AND BLANKETS TO DISRUPT AID.......

"JERUSALEM (AP) — Hamas police in Gaza seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents, a U.N. spokesman said Wednesday, threatening to fracture relations between the international agency that cares for most of Gaza's residents and the territory's militant rulers.

Hamas policemen forcibly broke into an aid warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and over 4,000 food parcels, said Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

Gunness said the incident was "absolutely unacceptable."

He said police confiscated aid meant for 500 families after U.N. officials refused to voluntarily hand it over to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. Similar U.N. aid packages had already been distributed to 70,000 residents over the past two weeks.

Ahmad Kurd, the Hamas Minister of Social Affairs, did not deny the seizure of the aid Wednesday. He charged the U.N. was giving the aid to local groups with ties to Hamas opponents. ..."

I guess they can sell 'em to "uncontrolled insurgents" who need to keep warm whilst firing rockets and mortars, eh?

[Coffeehouse]

Hardly surprising though is it. It's retarded, and unresponsible. Typical anti-civilian behaviour of Hamas.

[inked]

But, CH, these are these people you expect the USA tro bring to the table and accomplish what none else has done?

I keep wondering why?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by inked

But, CH, these are these people you expect the USA tro bring to the table and accomplish what none else has done?

I keep wondering why?

Quo bono?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

But, CH, these are these people you expect the USA tro bring to the table and accomplish what none else has done?

I keep wondering why?

Remember, the PLO was labelled a terrorist organization for decades by the United States, and yet on the lawn of the White House stood Yassir Arafat and shook hands with Ehud Barak. The United States has done this countless of times before, and in fact one of the very foundations of peace which democracies rest on, is a viable diplomacy that in the end faces its enemy, by the table.

Bringing Hamas to the table is definitely possible. The political faction of the organisation has many times uttered its willingness to sit down and negotiate. As we speak Hamas' talks with the government of Egypt (concerning the recent cease-fire) is being conveyed to amongst others, the United States. When Hamas sees that it is in its interest to cooperate with Fatah in the West Bank it is only a question of time before diplomats from the US, EU, Norway, etc. are sitting at the same round-table as Hamas representatives.

It's a hard uphill struggle to accomplish this because it means that Hamas must acknowledge that it its interests are more served by an end to hostilities than a continuation of them. This is why it's a very good step that the Obama Administration sent to the Middle East now as its special envoy George Mitchell, who brokered the peace process in Northern Ireland. Eventually Hamas must sit at the table too.

You can't ignore such a major player in this conflict when peace is being brokered, even though they commit detestable actions. But we are talking about security for Israelis and Palestinians right? Worth it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Yet the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has very little to do with neither oil or gas.

I think there is a slight myth to the view that only oil&gas conflicts receive adequate attention. Here are some conflicts which get, at least in Norway, much attention:

1) War in Afghanistan
2) Congolese War
3) Sri Lankan-LTTE War
4) Israeli-Palestinian conflict
5) Conflict in Zimbabwe

Unless you mean by 'we' the major American media like CNN, Fox, etc. in which case I'll just say no comment

By that I mean how much money and time the US government puts into a given conflict. All conflicts get airtime, especially when they are hot. But, ultimately, US self-interest drives how much effort, and money, we put into solving them.

Our initial support for Israel had to do with their proximity to regions we cared about back when proximity meant a lot for defense purposes, mainly Soviet Russia and the oil rich nations we weren't so close to in the 50s and 60s and 70s.

These days, proximity is less important, and we have many other allies and semi-allies in the same region that can play the same role Israel once held exclusively. Take away the oil card, and the need to be actively involved in that region shrinks even more.

That's not to say that we won't always have some interests in every part of the world, but I think that our interests in that region have long since peaked and shall slowly decline to the amount of attention you see us pay to Africa and South America (or Louisiana ) over the coming decades, which is drastically less.

[Coffeehouse]

Yeah. I think that's a fair point. The geopolitics of oil direct great swathes of the US treasury into the oddest of alliances, like the special relationship with Saudi Arabia. Take away oil from that equation and there's virtually nothing left but a very big pile of sand and a lot of American dollars.

Perhaps the relevance of the Middle East will decline. In it's place comes... China? The new, surging player on the world stage. I think the center of gravity on this planet will shift thither.

[inked]

El Tel, if that referenced site were true, how do they explain the failure of Israel to aggrandize territory with every war they have won? Just askin'. But I've yet to meet a conspiracy theory that could not manage an explanation when it had to because.................all the evidence is hidden!

Why weren't the demands for peace-making made and enforced by the UN? What means will the USA use to force HAMAS to the table? I'm all ears.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Let's begin with the simple reality that Gaza is a city of millions and that Hamas therefore did not, would not and could not simply "Move people into the area to get up their body count". Gaza is a civilian city just like London, Paris or New York, not the Local Rocket Ramps Complex of Hamas.

Gaza Strip is not just a civillian city, there's enough barren territory in this area (the former Israeli settlements for instance). Hamas did stop civillians from escaping to southern Gaza Strip (Han Yunes, etc.) which wasn't attacked as fiercely as the city itself, in order to get up the body count. Or rather, perform as human shields.

The Israeli invasion was a direct consequence of barrages of rockets into southern Gaza, which although numeous, thankfully rarely hits buildings and almost never kill people. While Israel is right to act in self-defence against attacks on its civilians (whom, unlike Gazans, have bomb shelters in every neighbourhood), (it should be as unpermissible to maim them as any Palestinians), they do not have the right to indiscriminately launch artillery strikes from sea, land and air into densely populated areas where the death toll can become uncontrollable.
The 1,300 deaths so far in Gaza are a testament to indiscriminate warfare, and are an insult to Israel's assurances.
Any part in this conflict that indiscriminately maims the lives of civilians should be brought to justice because it's completely unacceptable. It's a war crime be it Hamas or Israel, makes no difference.

I disagree; it's not a war crime, it's simply war. Israel has no choice but to shoot artillery into densely populated areas because Hamas shot rockets from these same areas, and that's really the only way to retaliate fast enough to hit the launchers. There were many miss-hits - too many - but there's no other choice. The only other option is to conquer Gaza completely, something Israel avoided until now to prevent an escalation of the conflict. If Hamas continues to shoot rockets at Israeli cities (as it continued this week) I fear there would be no escape from another operation in Gaza..

By the way, those rockets that "rarely hits buildings and almost never kill people" can paralyze all Israeli population 40 km from Gaza Strip (over one million). And they did hit many building, but luckily most people had the wits to be near shelters.

The question the world is asking itself is why, when it was already apparent early on that civilian lives were being taken in the hundreds. The notion that Israel somehow could have eradicated Hamas is unbelievably ignorant and serves as an ill excuse to continue those attacks.
What the continued warfare in the weeks after New Year show was that contrary to squashing Hamas the Israeli army has radicalized yet another segment of civilians in Gaza, maimed yet another new generation of Gazans from the youngest infant to teenagers. I wonder what life lessons these kids will learn in the coming years and how they can ever not view Israel as their eternal enemy. Hamas does not even need to ask anymore.

Israel never claimed the goal was to eradicate Hamas, and it really didn't try to.

I agree, we "maimed yet another new generation of Gazans from the youngest infant to teenagers".. but I feel we had no choice. How would any other country respond to such an attack? For over a month Israel didn't retaliate at all and tried to reach a cease fire agreement. Unfortunately there's no point to negotiate with Hamas, it seems, as they never compromise; and they tried to pressure Israel by shooting rockets, believing Israel wouldn't respond (Hence the success in the initial attack).

What is outrageous is that this conflict could have been avoided by both parties, Hamas and Israel.
If we go back to the 24th of December 2008, a journalist in the Jerusalem Post writes:
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull)
"The way out of such a war is for Israel to lift the blockade - to let trucks, ships and planes pass to and from Gaza - and, in return, for Hamas and the other Gazan factions to stop firing rockets at Israeli border towns. They don't bother us, we don't bother them."

I think it's plainly naive. If Israel lifts the blockade, who knows what kind of weapons Hamas would import from Iran or Syria. Since we don't want rockets to fall in Tel Aviv, we must have a blockade on Gaza Strip, at the moment. This indeed means no ships nor airplanes landing in Gaza.

I do believe we should allow most kinds of merchandise to enter (with trucks); still, to ensure that no weapons get in, we need inspectors from an impartial country (such as from the EU). The idea to stir up the Palestinians against Hamas's government by not letting any goods into Gaza failed; continuing the almost complete blockade would only result in more bloodshed, and there's no point in abusing the people of Gaza like this anyway.

The job for Pres. Obama's administration, for the United Nations, i.e. the world at this moment, is to force Hamas and the Israeli government to sit down and talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. If you talk you don't shoot. If you don't shoot you don't kill people. There's an uncannily simple logic to this which has to be the basis for the cease-fire and new peace talks.
Enough half-promises and evasion of responsibility. This time both Hamas and Israel have to sign up to promises and keep them. The world with its only superpower in the lead must make it clear that enough is enough.

The moment Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, and promises to stop launching terror attacks on Israel - there's no reason Israel won't recognize Hamas as the current government of Gaza, in spite of its illegal overthrow, and eventually reach an agreement for a complete independence.

I feel both nations realize now what the final solution would be, more or less. '67 borders, splitting Jerusalem, no right of return to Palestinian refugees. Two countries for two people. Yet in recent years it seems like neither side really wishes to sign a peace treaty that would end this ongoing war..

By the way, elections in Israel in 5 days. Looks like the right, especially Avigdor Lieberman, is going to be the big winner (The last polls predict he'll be the third biggest party). This is bad news for all of us, who only wish this conflict to be over. I vote Meretz btw.