Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xnatex

Israel Vs Gaza

who will win?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. who will win?

    • Israel
      15
    • Gaza
      0
    • Everybody loses
      34


Recommended Posts

An excellent

on the futility of the ME peace process:

 

 

Just in case you're wondering who this guy is and why he's important, his name is Pat Condell. His first 35 videos were issued on a DVD by The Richard Dawkins Foundation. He's been endorsed by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, he is a staunch atheist, a supporter of free speech and a critic of religion.

 

Just finished watching this. Dont really know what the fuss is about him. He seems to have a hit a chord with a particular crowd, but I dont find that he ever says anything insightful or unique. He just critiques religion a lot.And goes on a few horribly balanced rants sometimes And is a comedian. Oh well.

 

Unfortunately the poster of the video describes the peace process as "futility" which unfortunately defines a preconcieved view of things. Personally the point is to UNDERSTAND what the problems on both sides are and then move forward. I do not see futility. Futility only exists if you stay in the present once identifying a problem

 

Just a couple of quick observations - GAZA is not the West Bank. There are massive differences between the two areas. Its unfortunate that when people focus on the violence in Gaza led by Hammas Terrorists they in advertently tar all Palestinains. This is itself a problem - the Palestinian leadership is not as strong and stable as it needs to be. There are some reasons for this I believe, however it has also been a feature of the conflict for a long time. My other issue with Condell and he does this here is that in his attempt at consciously producing sound bites of an acceptable size for to be consumed by out hipster adhd generation he glosses over significant things too quickly meaning that intentionally or not some of his stuff comes out as bordeline 'propaganda' - delivered in a fervour which is ironically almost religious. For example he completely ignores the issue of illegal land settlement in the West Bank, preferring to focus exclusively on removing settlement from Gaza as somehow being representative. Furthermore when focusing on the hardline Hammas approach with negitioans he completely disregarded the equally hardline Israeli appraoch for example with respects of the settlemenst loicated throughout the West Bank. In such a video we witness Condell having what is ostensibly a rant about islamists but which in fact comes out as a propaganda pro Israel piece precisley because in that neck of the woods religion and politics are so intertwined. Is it a problem? Yes.

 

Nevertheless at a 'base' level he is correct. Hammas are a significant concern. Totally. My response though is that I seee Hammas as a SYMPTOM rather than the actual problem. And if Condell actually reflected on the role of religion in society and under what conditions extremism is born then he too may want to reconsider his rant in this video.

 

Maybe if you watched his other videos, you'd see he is equally critical of Judaism.

 

He does not as you say "completely ignore the issue of illegal land settlement in the West Bank". He mentions it in his video that Israel withdrew from PA controlled Gaza and removed the settlements. Gaza then promptly fell to Hamas and they destroyed everything, proving to Israel that giving the Palestinians an inch, makes them take a mile.

 

Settlements aren't a problem. They're a symptom. How you like dem apples?

 

I mean if Hamas are merely a symptom as you lie/say, then so are the settlements, by the same twisted demented logic.

 

But 8'll do you a deal. Symptoms are treated by retro viral drugs and/or preventative surgery.

 

What do you say to a complete eradication of Hamas down to secretarial level, at the same time as a peace treaty with the PA based on mutual security and withdrawal from all except the agreed-upon swapped land in the West Bank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a clever trick isn't it? Brutalise a people for long enough then when they behave like brutes you can fold your arms and say," look we were right all along".

You have a point.

 

It's hard to expect people brutalised again and again to act reasonably.

It's harder still when the brutalisation is an ongoing process.

 

It applies to both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed how the Emeritus Professor of Lying always says soothingly that the problems of both sides need to be understood.

 

Then he states that the settlements (which Israel is willing to compromise on) are a MAJOR problem (his capitalisation, not mine). In the same breath he states that Hamas is a SYMPTOM), not a problem (his capitalisation, not mine).

 

So lets get this straight. A bunch of people living on land that does not belong to them is a PROBLEM. A bunch of people executing homosexuals, segregating women, enforcing 1000 year old laws and committing 24000 war crimes over 10 years - they're not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a clever trick isn't it? Brutalise a people for long enough then when they behave like brutes you can fold your arms and say," look we were right all along".

You have a point.

 

It's hard to expect people brutalised again and again to act reasonably.

It's harder still when the brutalisation is an ongoing process.

 

It applies to both sides.

 

Sure does. But one side is a first world country with a large defense force and almost complete control of the other. The other is a series of refugee camps.

 

Who do you think has the power here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a clever trick isn't it? Brutalise a people for long enough then when they behave like brutes you can fold your arms and say," look we were right all along".

You have a point.

 

It's hard to expect people brutalised again and again to act reasonably.

It's harder still when the brutalisation is an ongoing process.

 

It applies to both sides.

 

Sure does. But one side is a first world country with a large defense force and almost complete control of the other. The other is a series of refugee camps.

 

Who do you think has the power here?

 

The Palestinians.

 

Are you suggesting there's an Israeli policy to keep Palestinians in refugee camps for 60 years?

 

I'll also point out the following.

 

The West Bank has 19 official refugee camps containing 194,500 people. About 3/4 of them are in area A - fully administered by the PA as per the Oslo accords.

 

Gaza has 8 official refugee camps with 479,000 people in them. At present, except for a few Mossad and Shin Bet spies, there are no Isralis present in Gaza - it's been wholly handed over to the Palestinians.

 

Again, whose fault is it that the refugee camps are there?

 

Imagine if the Palestinians spent the money they get on resettling the refugees like Israel did in 1948 to 1954 - moving well over a million people from refugee camps to proper simple housing.

 

Amazing isn't it? Palestinians keep whining about refugee camps but when Israel built 10,000 homes to reduce the population of Palestinians in refugee camps in the 1970s, the Palestinians had the UNGA vote to tear them down and force the Palestinians living in these homes to be returned to the refugee camps.

 

So Israel destroyed great blocks of units that had been built for Palestinians with Israeli money (what a surprise) because Palestinians preferred to maintain the victim mentality.

 

It's all a matter of history. UNGA 31/15 and UNGA 34/52.

 

If you travel through Gaza as I did in 1998, you can still see the ruins of the residential complexes built, then destroyed by Israel for Palestinian use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure does. But one side is a first world country with a large defense force and almost complete control of the other. The other is a series of refugee camps.

 

Who do you think has the power here?

Power is a very broad term.

Using it generically, without reference to electricity is almost meaningless.

 

In a straight up fight, Israel would win.

This fact is backed up by the fact that Israel still exists. Suffice to say, being able to win in a stand up fight, is a requirement for the existence and continued existence of Israel.

 

In initiating aggression, Israel would want to initiate a conventional battle.

Hamas et al, want to avoid one at all costs.

 

Hamas is able to, and continues to initiate guerrilla warfare on Israeli troops and civilians.

Whenever Israel responds, it is considered on their heads, any civilian fall out.

 

Hamas as the instigators of warfare, are attempting to use civilians as political armour. To the detriment of those civilans, and yet when civilians die it is Israel's fault.

Hamas choose where the fight occurs. They choose when the fight occurs. They choose who is in the area when the fight occurs, and they have the power to use the battlefield for political gain afterwards.

Seems to me that in the current battle, Hamas holds the power.

 

There is no efficient way for Israel to use it's "might" to end the current conflict. It cannot efficiently stop the missiles, it cannot efficiently destroy it's enemies.

Iron dome is propaganda, it is nice, but the cost of rolling it out across the affected Israeli cities is prohibitively high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've also just deployed the first David's Sling. It's for intermediate range rockets like the Fajr 5.

 

Expensive to be sure, but the cost is coming down. Fundamentally, the missiles used in both systems are very basic with little explosive punch. And considering they only need to stop those rockets aiming for cities, they are only used about 20% of the time Hamas fire rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've also just deployed the first David's Sling. It's for intermediate range rockets like the Fajr 5.

 

Expensive to be sure, but the cost is coming down. Fundamentally, the missiles used in both systems are very basic with little explosive punch. And considering they only need to stop those rockets aiming for cities, they are only used about 20% of the time Hamas fire rockets.

As usual, Leo continues to play men and not balls ;-)

 

He keeps mentioning my name in this thread, because he has to make shit up to rebutt, otherwise he has nothing.

 

For those not "in the know" every single stance, observation, or opinion he has ascribed to me is false. Not a single thing he said I think or would do or would say, is correct.

 

He has to make shit up and misinterpret arguments, because he has only one agenda: pushing the same tired old bullshit.

 

And while he continues to peddle unrequited bullshit, Israel, and everyone else in the world, will eventually move on without him. Because, you see, he's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've also just deployed the first David's Sling. It's for intermediate range rockets like the Fajr 5.

 

Expensive to be sure, but the cost is coming down. Fundamentally, the missiles used in both systems are very basic with little explosive punch. And considering they only need to stop those rockets aiming for cities, they are only used about 20% of the time Hamas fire rockets.

As usual, Leo continues to play men and not balls ;-)

 

He keeps mentioning my name in this thread, because he has to make shit up to rebutt, otherwise he has nothing.

 

For those not "in the know" every single stance, observation, or opinion he has ascribed to me is false. Not a single thing he said I think or would do or would say, is correct.

 

He has to make shit up and misinterpret arguments, because he has only one agenda: pushing the same tired old bullshit.

 

And while he continues to peddle unrequited bullshit, Israel, and everyone else in the world, will eventually move on without him. Because, you see, he's wrong.

 

Am I wrong?

 

How about you put your cards on the table and we'll see.

 

Appearing from thin air, with zero information merely to call people assholes, has little of anything other than vindictiveness behind it.

 

If you're still butthurt about me deleting a Facebook comment about Andrew Bolt that you prefaced by calling me an "an absolute cunt" and further down, a racist - it's time to get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact Kothos, just looking at recent threads, your entire contribution for like 70% seems to be parachuting in and calling everyone a fuckwit or a retard or an asshole.

 

Dude, if you're stressed out - there are other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm only calling you an arsehole - and no, I won't argue with you on this topic. Others have already realised what a waste of time it is, in this thread, and I realised this long before they did.

 

I'm just indulging in a bit of nostalgia, because I knew you'd be shitting your pants with hatred at the idea of Palestine getting a promoted status in the UN. (-:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm only calling you an arsehole - and no, I won't argue with you on this topic. Others have already realised what a waste of time it is, in this thread, and I realised this long before they did.

 

I'm just indulging in a bit of nostalgia, because I knew you'd be shitting your pants with hatred at the idea of Palestine getting a promoted status in the UN. (-:

So just to be clear... Your only purpose here is to be abusive.

 

Also, like it or not, I'm entirely unworried about the promoted status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really it puts the onus back on the Palestinian leadership - stop your citizens from chucking things at the neighbours, stop sneaking next door and blowing things up and there's a good chance they wont throw things back.

 

By that I do not mean Israel is blameless, they certainly are not but they do tend to observe cease-fires.

 

The other incentive for the Palestinians is a lot of Aid money.

 

I don't think I'd call Iron Dome, or its bigger brothers "propaganda," it performed remarkably well and the discrimination feature whilst making it difficult to work out exact success rates also worked well. Yes, it's expensive, but any ABM system always will be, depending how you count it's forth generation but the first to really deal with small missiles apart from CWIS.

 

To be effective not every city needs protection either, it looks like an extra four batteries will suffice, on the assumption any hostiles will only be coming from Gaza and the West Bank.

 

Hopefully it won't be needed but I'm not taking odds on that.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

If you're still butthurt about me deleting a Facebook comment about Andrew Bolt that you prefaced by calling me an "an absolute cunt" and further down, a racist - it's time to get over it.

Geez!

 

Not even I've called you those things... even if I do think you're an absolute cunt.

 

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palestine and Israel will never work it out. Not whilst they consider it right and proper to cut the genitals of their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palestine and Israel will never work it out. Not whilst they consider it right and proper to cut the genitals of their children.

It's about the only thing they agree on... and even that's slipping away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blow-back's started, proving once again, contrary to all do-Gooder statements, that peace requires all parties to want it and to follow previous agreements.

 

With the Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood and acceptance of it by the UN, they broke a pretty key part of the Oslo accords and other subsequent agreements to the same prohibition of unilateral actions.

 

As a result, Israel does not consider itself bound by Oslo. So they've just approved construction of E1, that will link Ma'ale Adumim with North-East Jerusalem. Ma'ale Adumim is one of the settlements that will not be removed as it is a city in its own right.

 

E1 will create 3000 housing units for roughly 10000 people (more than we're in Gaza in 2005) in a 12sq km area that will cut off Arab East Jerusalem, permanently from Ramallah and the West Bank.

 

The E1 territory was likely to go to Israel in a peace plan anyway because without it, Ma'ale Adumim would be cut off from Israel - but it was an as-yet unsettled point.

 

An unilateral action for an unilateral actions. Palestinians lose again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that whilst on a map it's perfectly sensible, possibly even inevitable, it's not being put that way in the media and the timing could have been far better, all it looks is provocative, on paper.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that whilst on a map it's perfectly sensible, possibly even inevitable, it's not being put that way in the media and the timing could have been far better, all it looks is provocative, on paper.

 

Cheers

Oh it's provocative. My opinion is that Israel is again trying to teach the Palestinians that they won't get what Israel has by asserting a non-existent right to it.

 

The biggest fault I have with the Palestinian position, and its not just their fault, is that they've been convinced of their victimhood, that all of it is Israel's fault, and that they have a legal claim to land they rejected a legal claim to.

 

The Palestinians have nothing. Zero. All they've got is what was given to them in Oslo. They want more. More of what they want belongs/is controlled by Israel. Israel has only twice given back something without promise of something back. And they're not going to ever do it again.

 

Until the Palestinians collectively understand that concept, they're going to keep getting screwed.

 

The point we're all dancing around and one briefly touched upon by Hlass is Israel's relative power. Israel is an 800 pound gorilla - do not provoke it. The Plestinians are an American Bulldog with rabies. Both are stuck in the same pen. The bulldog thinks it can win more space from the gorilla by nipping at it, then whimpers like a cute little chihuahua when the gorilla responds after being roused from its non-provocative state of picking its nose and consuming bananas.

 

Might doesn't make right, but it makes reality. The Palestinians can't win on their terms while Israel holds the aces, and the Palestinians have got to know that no Arab state will lift a finger to really help them to change that balance. Because Arab states have realities to contend with as well. And they get it, even though they may not admit it in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who I blame most, though, are Western anti-intellectuals like Chomsky and his followers like GFK, etc. the prism of university life is a horrible place to judge political realities from. Universities are excellent breeding grounds for theoretically intellectualised ideas but horrible for practical political solutions.

 

Over the years the Palestinians have been convinced by these western anti-intellectuals, that Palestine is their land. No it's not, not any more than Australia is aboriginal land in any legal sense. They've been told that they have right to return. No they don't. They've been told that they have rights to E. Jerusalem - also not true.

 

So much of what the Palestinians believe is simply not true, and thus arguing from that position is a waste of fucking time.

 

As I've said, the Palestinians had nothing in the Ottoman period. They had nothing in the Mandate period. They refused something in 1947/8. They had nothing until 1993. Then on Thurs they broke an agreement that gave them something in 1993.

 

Like seriously. Who the fuck has brains in the entire leadership structure there? If you want something from someone and don't have the means to take it by force, wouldn't it make sense to be nice? Or at least fucking try?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the concept people have been playing with in this thread that warfare should be "fair", lol.

 

Any attack by a foreign government is an act of war and there is no weight divisions. The belligerents must fight to win or surrender to terms. regardless if they are a bunch of refugee camps or a super nation

 

Im actually very impressed by Israel's restraint, there was no ground invasion and the civilian casualties where extremely low for an operation of this calibre. Lots of other nations if faced with the same situation would have foreign policy to "liberate" the Gaza people from the terror of the Hamas Regime. Ground invasion, show trials and prosecution of the Hamas leadership. etc

 

If it was up to me, id imprison the Hamas regime and force them into work and rebuild the destruction they brought into Gaza. Then get them to run another election and tell the people of Gaza to not vote for another militaristic government.

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree xna, when all is said and done Israel has shown a lot of patience, and took casualties, very few it is true, but the quantity is not the issue, it is the taunting attacks in the first place.

 

The enduring problem Leo is that failed accords don't matter in the here and now, it is how to deal with what exists. In that I do really believe Israel is doing as little as it possibly can and still protect its citizens.

 

It just doesn't stop - in 1970 Paul Jacobs wrote a book he called "Between the Rock and the Hard Place. He was/is an American Jew with a background in contentious politics in both the US and the Middle East who went to both sides to explore brokering a meeting of Israelis and Palestinians to establish a path to enduring peace.

 

He failed.

 

( That book has a history of its own in my life, my first copy I was reading when Cyclone Tracy blew through and destroyed it, had to get a second copy from Israel.)

 

It can no longer even be said that time alone will tell because it hasn't.

 

Cheers

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really it puts the onus back on the Palestinian leadership - stop your citizens from chucking things at the neighbours, stop sneaking next door and blowing things up and there's a good chance they wont throw things back.

 

By that I do not mean Israel is blameless, they certainly are not but they do tend to observe cease-fires.

 

The other incentive for the Palestinians is a lot of Aid money.

 

I don't think I'd call Iron Dome, or its bigger brothers "propaganda," it performed remarkably well and the discrimination feature whilst making it difficult to work out exact success rates also worked well. Yes, it's expensive, but any ABM system always will be, depending how you count it's forth generation but the first to really deal with small missiles apart from CWIS.

 

To be effective not every city needs protection either, it looks like an extra four batteries will suffice, on the assumption any hostiles will only be coming from Gaza and the West Bank.

 

Hopefully it won't be needed but I'm not taking odds on that.

 

Cheers

I was more pointing out it's an asymmetrical defense.

The reason projects like the SDI don't work, is that it's easy to make them too expensive.

There's the risk the Iron Dome will just make Hamas invest in larger barrages, better accuracy, or longer range missiles which split up before they enter iron dome's airspace.

 

It's all very well to fire lamborghinis in the way of out of control cars, to stop them hitting your house. You just better be able to afford the cost :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From todays Sydney Morning Herald discussing what some of us already know and feared.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-moves-o...1201-2annr.html

 

and from the NY times with more info and links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/world/mi...rss&src=igw

 

 

Isreal is continuing with 'illegal settlements' within 3 hours of the UN vote. The have been strongly rebuked about this including from their own supporters in the US for example. The action has ben described by all as provocative and a hinderance to peace and developing a viable 2 state solution.

 

Isreal had previously threatened publicly that they would undermine the PA if they went ahead with the UN vote.

 

As has been noted repeatedly, the issue of the illegal settlements encroaching onto Palestinian teritory is of considerable importance.

 

For a basic overview of the settlement issue see this from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/26/...E56P0C720090726

 

Of interest check the UK's policy position in regards to this and some other aspects of Isreali policy (from the Officla UK Foriegn office website) : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/men...onal-community/

 

Another perpsective of the geopolitical aspects from the BBC - the issue is land and water - and there is a suggestion that the lands currently under occupation were always lands that were claimed by the original Zionist movement - when these werent originally given they saw an oppurtunity to take them by war. Great article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11101797

 

which leads to this: As has beeen recognised the policy of Israel is too continue with these settlements in order to over time ensure that in the current occupied territories there will in fact be a majority of Jews vis the Arabs thereby hindering further any Palestinain claims.

 

 

 

So - the first round has to go to the PA here - Israel responded with further provocative action. Then some terrorist will respond and then Isreal can say "I told you so?". Lets see. But so far a very very poor start from Israel.

 

And if yet again people dont consider the action illegal - well unfortunately the rest of the world does not agree. Israel doesnt consider it illegal because it is selective as to how it has interpreted international law at least in this matter :-)

 

 

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, but Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, due to lack of a legal sovereign of these territories. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...eli_settlements

 

 

------

 

I have noted a couple of time how Isreali policiticans were influenced by aspects of the Apartheid structure in South Africa. Not just in the building of walls, and seperate roads and restrictions of movement and so forth but in how to organise the people that they were attempting to control in the most effeicient manner. The method that underpins the philosophy of Isreal is based on this - Bantustan - have a look :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

 

For an really intersting academic piece on this see Hunter, Jane, 'Isreal and the Bantustans' (1986) 15(3) Journal of Palestine Studies 543.

 

then go and do some more searching about Bantustan, apartheid and Israel :-)

Edited by GhostFaceKilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very true Tinny, ABMs are very expensive, but so are attack jets, albeit usually reusable.

 

However there is no doubt Israel is threatened by missiles, which apart from abort or intercept are unstoppable so it's difficult not to provide some defence against them if the technology permits. The suggestion is they will become much cheaper per round however, they are semi-active in the main, with terminal infra-red guidance, so most of the smarts are in the launch control systems. Against that the Iron Dome system is only much use against relatively slow short-range missiles and would be useless against any cruise type missile. For IRBM/ICBM intercepts Arrow type systems, which are MUCH more expensive again is the only defence.

 

For cruise, which tend to be slow but low level CWIS aka Phalanx is the best but being a close-in gun is not much use in dealing with nukes.

 

In short any defensive system cannot expect to be 100% effective and more than one type of system is required to counter different threats.

 

I've already mentioned the settlement decision is provocative GFK, it looks quite sensible on a map but few will bother to look at that, at best it is terrible timing from any Israeli PR perspective.

 

Cheers

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×