timschochet
Footballguy
Because those settlements are making Israel's security worse and draining their economy.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The War in Gaza (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
They didn't withdraw from all of Gaza.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The GH is pointless without the WB, and the Gaza Strip is no different. They are all held on the same basis. There is no justification for giving up any one that doesn't apply to the others.
And now more than ever, with Syria in disarray and ISIL on the march. Israel is more on lock-down than ever. The PA and Hamas could reach a deal tomorrow if they so chose.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Look Rich, I've been making the same arguments you're making now since I was 10 years old. Israel is usually in the right, and they are in this case as well IMO. I am not blaming their leaders for wanting to destroy Hamas. Hamas is evil.
I'm just trying to look at the reality of the situation. Israel's current situation is unsustainable. The cost of this endless war, the settlements, the growing demographic problem- this can't continue. Something had to give here.
I'm just trying to look at the reality of the situation. Israel's current situation is unsustainable. The cost of this endless war, the settlements, the growing demographic problem- this can't continue. Something had to give here.
timschochet
Footballguy
You might try reading a little history of the situation before you chime in with this ignorance. You have in the past justifiably mocked those who offer gun control solutions with no knowledge of firearms. You're guilty of the same thing here.Let's give israel back to the palestinians
Sorta lame that the west just came in and shoehorned them in there. Pretty sure we can find somewhere out in montana for all the jews to hang out.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
They did, mostly. But there are still some settlements on the outskirts.
Just curious, Tim. What was the population of ethnic Jews in the nation that is now Israel before WWII? You're absolutely right in the sense that there were Jewish communities all-through the Middle East before the end of WWII. Something in the neighborhood of 140,000 Jews living in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000 in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 40,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; 300,000 in Morocco, including Tangier, and approximately 200,000 more in Iran and Turkey. Roughly 1.14 million people. But that's not what I asked. How many people of Jewish heritage were living specifically within what is now the nation of Israel? I'll even give you the current boundaries of the nation...not the original boundaries as defined on May 15, 1948?
I live in a town of ~2,000+ in fly-over country. Probably 75% Republican in their political leanings (with 15 of the remaining 25% being radicalized Tea Party folks, lol), probably 75% Christian in their faith/religious affiliation (with 20+ percent of the remaining 25% either being atheist or deist...not subscribing to any other organized religion). Extremely homogeneous, as there's probably ~50 people in the community, max, who have ancestry from places other than Europe (and most are either up from Texas only for the Summer to help harvest crops, or are the spouses/descendants of soldiers who came back from WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War). And if there's more than 5-10 people who are attracted to members of the same sex, I'd be surprised. "Mayberry" ...in all its glory, and horror.
Let's say that the UN passes a resolution...proclaiming the community as the new nation of Bravo. The American flag is replaced with a rainbow and the national anthem is replaced with the Spanish version of It's raining men," and within the next decade, the population balloons up to 15,000. Most of the elected positions in government are soon filled by new residents to the area. Most of the school district has any job openings filled by said residents. Most homes on the market (and almost all new home construction) are owned and lived in by said residents. Etc. Is there anything wrong with it? Nope. It'd probably feel less "foreign" than living here, the way it does now, sometimes. But that's ~20 years of my living/working in the City talking.
But for "grandma and grandpa," who've lived here there entire life, who've raised their children to live/believe a certain way, how is that going to go over? Call me crazy, but I would assume NOT WELL. Sprinkle in kind-hearted but naive prejudice from people who just don't know any better (sheltered in a cocoon most of their lives) with overt ists and racism from younger, more-militant folks who have the ba-jeebus scared out of them by change, and my guess is that the town would be a powder keg...just looking for a spark.The reason I mention that hypothetical is because the Middle East has been, for centuries, a powder keg...just looking for a spark. And we're STILL having windows blown out thousands of miles away via the shock wave from the explosion that was set off by our "spark" in the 1940s.
Last edited by a moderator:
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Fennis
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah, doesn't sound right. Pretty sure Gaza was turned over to the authority there, then Hamas won the election and they run things now.
The whole thing is like 7 x 30 miles or so, not a lot of room for IDF to be running around. No IDF, no settlements.
[icon]
Insoxicated
Politician Spock
Footballguy
What does "already there of their own accord" mean?
If some people set up camp in your back yard, they are there of their own accord. When you then go to the local government and ask that they be removed, and the local government responds by giving them legal recognition to exist in your back yard, then I'd bet you'd take the point of view that the local government is impossing those people on you.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
Spock> one little issue there. The area they took over, they formed collectives and transformed a desert. Also, when Israel was declared a state they did not force the palestinians out, they left of their own accord (being told by their arab neighbors to "get out of the way as we march the jews into the sea). Also, let us not forget that some of the original land set aside for "palestine" is in Jordan, but they were told to get the heck out of Jordan or they would be killed.
timschochet
Footballguy
Datonn, it would take pages and pages of posts to demonstrate why your hypothetical bears no relationship to the reality of what happened in 1948, and, even more importantly, in the years prior to 1948. Put simply, the vast majority of the Jews who won the War of Indeprndence were already there by 1948. They were not Holocaust refugees, but emigrants who arrived earlier in the century, quite legally, purchased land and developed it and defended it. The vast majority of Holocaust survivors arrived AFTER the war was won. TJust curious, Tim. What was the population of ethnic Jews in the nation that is now Israel before WWII? You're absolutely right in the sense that there were Jewish communities all-through the Middle East before the end of WWII. Something in the neighborhood of 140,000 Jews living in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000 in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 40,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; 300,000 in Morocco, including Tangier, and approximately 200,000 more in Iran and Turkey. Roughly 1.14 million people. But that's not what I asked. How many people of Jewish heritage were living specifically within what is now the nation of Israel? I'll even give you the current boundaries of the nation...not the original boundaries as defined on May 15, 1948?I live in a town of ~2,000+ in fly-over country. Probably 75% Republican in their political leanings (with 15 of the remaining 25% being radicalized Tea Party folks, lol), probably 75% Christian in their faith/religious affiliation (with 20+ percent of the remaining 25% either being atheist or deist...not subscribing to any other organized religion). Extremely homogeneous, as there's probably ~50 people in the community, max, who have ancestry from places other than Europe (and most are either up from Texas only for the Summer to help harvest crops, or are the spouses/descendants of soldiers who came back from WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War). And if there's more than 5-10 people who are attracted to members of the same sex, I'd be surprised. "Mayberry" ...in all its glory, and horror.
Let's say that the UN passes a resolution...proclaiming the community as the new nation of Bravo. The American flag is replaced with a rainbow and the national anthem is replaced with the Spanish version of It's raining men," and within the next decade, the population balloons up to 15,000. Most of the elected positions in government are soon filled by new residents to the area. Most of the school district has any job openings filled by said residents. Most homes on the market (and almost all new home construction) are owned and lived in by said residents. Etc. Is there anything wrong with it? Nope. It'd probably feel less "foreign" than living here, the way it does now, sometimes. But that's ~20 years of my living/working in the City talking.
The reason I mention that hypothetical is because the Middle East has been, for centuries, a powder keg...just looking for a spark. And we're STILL having windows blown out thousands of miles away via the shock wave from the explosion that was set off by our "spark" in the 1940s.
timschochet
Footballguy
With regard to Gaza, I was confusing some of the settlements previously there with others in the West Bank. Saints is right on this; I was wrong.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
IMO Cubans have a better case than many Palestinians. Not all Palestinians were just "run out" or had their property seized. People have to realize that when the mandate in Palestine was started ancient Arab property laws were very loose or nonexistent, it was not always clear who owned what. Sometimes property was sold, sometimes it was abandoned, sometimes it was just not owned, and yes sometimes it was taken. Supposedly there is a commission that looks at all these issues, or there should be. But not every Palestinian has a legitimate property claim.
Last edited by a moderator:
higgins
Footballguy
Stay Home and Stay Out of This Fight Why John Kerry has no business trying to make peace between Israel and Gaza right now.
When I was working on this issue, we usually had two speeds when it came to these sorts of violent eruptions: fast and faster. The clarion call -- usually without thinking things through -- was almost always "do something." What exactly that was we usually figured out after we got started. I remember in the fall of 1996 after Benjamin Netanyahu -- in his first incarnation as prime minister -- opened up the Hasmonean tunnel in Jerusalem, an action that ultimately lead to Palestinian and Israeli security services
shooting at one another. We ended up in Israel and the West Bank for almost three months straight, eventually negotiating the Hebron Accords in February 1997.
But those were the good old days. That was before Hamas ruled Gaza and had serious high-trajectory weapons; before the idea of interim accords had been discredited; before the second intifada; and when we had a Palestine Liberation Organization leader in Yasir Arafat, who actually had the power to make decisions, even if he was the exasperator-in-chief. That was when Arab leaders like Jordan's King Hussein and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak actually helped us. Most important of all, it was at a time when both Netanyahu and Arafat wanted and needed our help, however loathe they were to admit it.
John McCain -- a man I admire and respect -- recently called on John Kerry to do something about the current violence. And by that he meant that Kerry should travel to Israel and "initiate a dialogue" between the two sides. I don't think that's right, at least not yet.
The problem at the moment is not between Mahmoud Abbas and Bibi; it's between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
And trying to get in the middle of that one would both weaken Abbas, give phony unity a boost and likely alienate the Israelis. The last thing Washington should we doing right now is bailing out Hamas, let alone engaging it directly or through cut-outs. Egypt and Israel both known how to negotiate cease-fires with Hamas. And both understand how to restore calm, if Hamas is willing.
And that's the issue now. What does Hamas want and what kind of game is it playing? Do they need to let the rockets and airstrikes continue for several days to demonstrate their resolve against Israel and to preempt pressure from smaller groups like Islamic Jihad? Having already been blamed and implicated in the murders of the three Israeli teens, are they already in the dock and don't care if the situation escalates? Or perhaps Hamas believes that the revenge killing of the Palestinian teen, Mohammed Abu Khdeir, has so angered the Palestinian public, that they're in a confrontational mood and can further erode Abbas's relevance with the Palestinian street? Either way, with the situation so murky, Kerry should keep his powder dry.
Second, there's not much America can do regarding the killings of the Israeli and Palestinian kids. This is a problem for the parties. Abbas needs to do everything in his power to assist in the manhunt for the murderers of the three teens. And Israel needs to bring the full power of the state to find those responsible and convict them with sentences befitting the horrific nature of the crime. Both need to continue to cooperate on security and keep their respective streets as quiet as they can. John Kerry inserting himself into this mix would only politicize the problem further.
Finally, there is a real danger that U.S. credibility -- already badly undermined by the failure of the Kerry effort -- could be harmed even more by yet another failed attempt at making peace. The last thing needs is to be hanging around Israel, unable to stop either Hamas rockets or Israeli airstrikes. And right now, it goes without saying that talking about political issues related to the peace negotiations makes no sense at all.
Washington should be encouraging restraint, maintaining contact with leaders on both sides, and encouraging the Egyptians to see if they can't broker a cease-fire in Gaza. If I were John Kerry, I'd go to Israel now under only one condition. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas called, asked for my help, and made clear they were prepared to deal seriously with the peace process when this round calms down. Otherwise, Mr. Secretary, stay home. You have better and more productive things to do with your time.
- BY Aaron David Miller
- JULY 8, 2014
When I was working on this issue, we usually had two speeds when it came to these sorts of violent eruptions: fast and faster. The clarion call -- usually without thinking things through -- was almost always "do something." What exactly that was we usually figured out after we got started. I remember in the fall of 1996 after Benjamin Netanyahu -- in his first incarnation as prime minister -- opened up the Hasmonean tunnel in Jerusalem, an action that ultimately lead to Palestinian and Israeli security services
shooting at one another. We ended up in Israel and the West Bank for almost three months straight, eventually negotiating the Hebron Accords in February 1997.But those were the good old days. That was before Hamas ruled Gaza and had serious high-trajectory weapons; before the idea of interim accords had been discredited; before the second intifada; and when we had a Palestine Liberation Organization leader in Yasir Arafat, who actually had the power
to make decisions, even if he was the exasperator-in-chief. That was when Arab leaders like Jordan's King Hussein and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak actually helped us. Most important of all, it was at a time when both Netanyahu and Arafat wanted and needed our help, however loathe they were to admit it.John McCain -- a man I admire and respect -- recently called on John Kerry to do something about the current violence. And by that he meant that Kerry should travel to Israel
and "initiate a dialogue" between the two sides. I don't think that's right, at least not yet.The problem at the moment is not between Mahmoud Abbas and Bibi; it's between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
And trying to get in the middle of that one would both weaken Abbas, give phony unity a boost and likely alienate the Israelis. The last thing Washington should we doing right now is bailing out Hamas, let alone engaging it directly or through cut-outs. Egypt and Israel both known how to negotiate cease-fires with Hamas. And both understand how to restore calm, if Hamas is willing.
And that's the issue now. What does Hamas want and what kind of game is it playing? Do they need to let the rockets and airstrikes continue for several days to demonstrate their resolve against Israel and to preempt pressure from smaller groups like Islamic Jihad? Having already been blamed and implicated in the murders of the three Israeli teens, are they already in the dock and don't care if the situation escalates? Or perhaps Hamas believes that the revenge killing of the Palestinian teen, Mohammed Abu Khdeir, has so angered the Palestinian public
, that they're in a confrontational mood and can further erode Abbas's relevance with the Palestinian street? Either way, with the situation so murky, Kerry should keep his powder dry.Second, there's not much America can do regarding the killings of the Israeli and Palestinian kids. This is a problem for the parties. Abbas needs to do everything in his power
to assist in the manhunt for the murderers of the three teens. And Israel needs to bring the full power of the state to find those responsible and convict them with sentences befitting the horrific nature of the crime. Both need to continue to cooperate on security and keep their respective streets as quiet as they can. John Kerry inserting himself into this mix would only politicize the problem further.Finally, there is a real danger that U.S. credibility -- already badly undermined by the failure of the Kerry effort -- could be harmed even more by yet another failed attempt at making peace. The last thing needs is to be hanging around Israel, unable to stop either Hamas rockets or Israeli airstrikes. And right now, it goes without saying that talking about political issues related to the peace negotiations makes no sense at all.
Washington should be encouraging restraint, maintaining contact with leaders on both sides, and encouraging the Egyptians to see if they can't broker a cease-fire in Gaza. If I were John Kerry, I'd go to Israel now under only one condition. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas called, asked for my help, and made clear they were prepared to deal seriously with the peace process when this round calms down. Otherwise, Mr. Secretary, stay home. You have better and more productive things to do with your time.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
For all the things going on in the mideast right now for once Israel/Palestine might not be a top-5 concern.
Talk about the US and Iran being strange bedfellows when it comes to ISIL, how about Iran and Israel or Saudis and Assad and Israel.
Fennis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
sure it is. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a root issue in the Middle East. The region can not advance without a peace agreement and the only way to get there IMO is a two state solution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
It really is remarkable to me that there are people with this point of view.datonn said:Yet it was our, Great Britain's, and the Soviet Union's concern to displace thousands of Muslim tribal families who had occupied what is now the State of Israel for ~20-30+ previous generations...so that the State of Israel could be (re)formed?pantherclub said:
Can you imagine if China and Russia announced that they were going to move all the refugees from nations embroiled in civil war and genocide in Africa to Alabama...make that its own country, while telling all those Confederate flag-waving locals to G.T.F.O. of the State that their ancestors had called home since the 18th/19th Century? You don't think that a percentage of them wouldn't be kidnapping and killing folks who took "their" land? Fanning the verbal flames to a white-hot level that would make the Tea Party fringe (loons) look moderate/reasonable by comparison? Yelling "Death to China/Russia" into bullhorns? Firing rockets from directly across the border in MS, TN or GA?
But that's "different," right?! Because Israel is our ally. Just like what our nation did to tribe after tribe across most of our nation is "different" too?!
higgins
Footballguy
Sisi's Egypt Has Radically Changed The Dynamic Of Israel-Palestine Negotiations
The ongoing Hamas-Israel conflagration reveals an important paradox in the new Egyptian regime's foreign policy outlook and capabilities.Recently inaugurated president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi shares Washington and Israel's view of Hamas as both a terrorist organization and a strategic threat, and he is consequently both less able and less willing to fulfill Egypt's traditional role of mediating between Hamas and Israel.
While Washington is rightly eager to negotiate a swift end to the current round of fighting in Gaza, it should avoid the temptation to press Egypt to make any concessions that would enhance Hamas's rearming capabilities, such as reopening the Rafah crossing without a reliable system for preventing the flow of weapons and terrorists.
Sisi's negative view of Hamas represents a dramatic — and welcome — shift from his immediate predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader. Prior to his June 2012 election, Morsi served as Hamas's point of contact within the Brotherhood's Guidance Office, and Morsi later hosted top-ranking Hamas leaders in the presidential palace and permitted Hamas deputy Mousa Abu Marzouk, a longtime personal friend, to reside in a Cairo suburb.
By contrast, Sisi's regime has ordered Marzouk to leave Egypt and undertaken an aggressive military campaign to shut down the vast majority of the underground tunnels from Sinai to Gaza through which Hamas and other groups frequently smuggle weapons. During periods of calm, Sisi has thus contributed to Western efforts to confine Hamas.
Yet Sisi's sour relations with Hamas complicate Washington's efforts to end the latest round of Hamas-Israel fighting.
Unlike his predecessors, Sisi has been unable to influence Hamas toward negotiations, as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces did during the 2011 deal that released Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and as the Morsi government did during the 2012 Gaza ceasefire. Indeed, at U.S. officials' request, the Sisi regime has engaged Hamas with a proposal under which Israel would release recently captured prisoners and expand the fishing area off the coast of Gaza, while Egypt would permit building materials to enter Gaza.
Hamas has rejected this overture, and Cairo appears unwilling to make any concession — such as the permanent opening of the Rafah crossing — that might enhance its leverage with Hamas. An Israeli ground invasion might force Sisi to change his approach, however, because high Palestinian casualties would make Sisi's continued isolation of Hamas politically costly, given the Egyptian public's pro-Palestinian sympathies.
This tension between Sisi's disdain for Hamas, on one hand, and his need to cater to Egyptian public opinion, on the other, has been evident in the wide gap between Egypt's policy and its pronouncements. While the Rafah crossing remains mostly closed, with only temporary openings in recent days to permit the entry of aid and outflow of wounded Gazans, Egyptian officials have publicly lambasted Israel's airstrikes.
On Friday, Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman declared that Cairo stood "with the Palestinian people, who pay the price for the hazards and brutal attacks," and accused Israel of "flaunting the rules of international law." Meanwhile, the Sisi government attempted to calm rising anger regarding the president's stance on Gaza by sending five hundred tons of food and medical supplies to Gaza in military vehicles.
This two-faced policy toward Gaza thus resembles that of the Mubarak era, but with a significantly diminished diplomatic role for Egypt during moments of crisis. While this leaves Washington without a reliable diplomatic mechanism for resolving the current Hamas-Israel fighting, in the longer term — and during periods of lighter media attention — Washington can count on Sisi as a partner in isolating Hamas.
Indeed, Washington shouldn't be nostalgic for the days when a Muslim Brotherhood government had greater sway in Gaza City. Despite his cooperation in negotiating the 2012 ceasefire, Morsi's strong pro-Hamas sympathies meant that every episode of Hamas-Israel fighting carried the risk of a regional crisis. That is not the case during the current conflagration.
The ongoing Hamas-Israel conflagration reveals an important paradox in the new Egyptian regime's foreign policy outlook and capabilities.Recently inaugurated president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi shares Washington and Israel's view of Hamas as both a terrorist organization and a strategic threat, and he is consequently both less able and less willing to fulfill Egypt's traditional role of mediating between Hamas and Israel.
While Washington is rightly eager to negotiate a swift end to the current round of fighting in Gaza, it should avoid the temptation to press Egypt to make any concessions that would enhance Hamas's rearming capabilities, such as reopening the Rafah crossing without a reliable system for preventing the flow of weapons and terrorists.
Sisi's negative view of Hamas represents a dramatic — and welcome — shift from his immediate predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader. Prior to his June 2012 election, Morsi served as Hamas's point of contact within the Brotherhood's Guidance Office, and Morsi later hosted top-ranking Hamas leaders in the presidential palace and permitted Hamas deputy Mousa Abu Marzouk, a longtime personal friend, to reside in a Cairo suburb.
By contrast, Sisi's regime has ordered Marzouk to leave Egypt and undertaken an aggressive military campaign to shut down the vast majority of the underground tunnels from Sinai to Gaza through which Hamas and other groups frequently smuggle weapons. During periods of calm, Sisi has thus contributed to Western efforts to confine Hamas.
Yet Sisi's sour relations with Hamas complicate Washington's efforts to end the latest round of Hamas-Israel fighting.
Unlike his predecessors, Sisi has been unable to influence Hamas toward negotiations, as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces
did during the 2011 deal that released Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and as the Morsi government did during the 2012 Gaza ceasefire. Indeed, at U.S. officials' request, the Sisi regime has engaged Hamas with a proposal under which Israel would release recently captured prisoners and expand the fishing area off the coast of Gaza, while Egypt would permit building materials to enter Gaza.Hamas has rejected this overture, and Cairo appears unwilling to make any concession — such as the permanent opening of the Rafah crossing — that might enhance its leverage with Hamas. An Israeli ground invasion might force Sisi to change his approach, however, because high Palestinian casualties would make Sisi's continued isolation of Hamas politically costly, given the Egyptian public
's pro-Palestinian sympathies.This tension between Sisi's disdain for Hamas, on one hand, and his need to cater to Egyptian public opinion, on the other, has been evident in the wide gap between Egypt's policy and its pronouncements. While the Rafah crossing remains mostly closed, with only temporary openings in recent days to permit the entry of aid and outflow of wounded Gazans, Egyptian officials have publicly lambasted Israel's airstrikes.
On Friday, Egypt's Foreign Ministry spokesman declared that Cairo stood "with the Palestinian people
, who pay the price for the hazards and brutal attacks," and accused Israel of "flaunting the rules of international law." Meanwhile, the Sisi government attempted to calm rising anger regarding the president's stance on Gaza by sending five hundred tons of food and medical supplies to Gaza in military vehicles.This two-faced policy toward Gaza thus resembles that of the Mubarak era, but with a significantly diminished diplomatic role for Egypt during moments of crisis. While this leaves Washington without a reliable diplomatic mechanism for resolving the current Hamas-Israel fighting, in the longer term — and during periods of lighter media attention — Washington can count on Sisi as a partner in isolating Hamas.
Indeed
, Washington shouldn't be nostalgic for the days when a Muslim Brotherhood government had greater sway in Gaza City. Despite his cooperation in negotiating the 2012 ceasefire, Morsi's strong pro-Hamas sympathies meant that every episode of Hamas-Israel fighting carried the risk of a regional crisis. That is not the case during the current conflagration.
Last edited by a moderator:
higgins
Footballguy
Why Hamas Rejected the Israel-Approved Egyptian CeasefireAn Egyptian ceasefire proposal aimed at ending the week-long battle between Israel and Hamas was accepted by Israel's cabinet on Tuesday, but rejected by Hamas. Here's what you need to know.
A new Egypt makes all the difference
Egypt mediated the last ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012, but those were entirely different days. Back then, Egypt's ruler was Mohamed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood bona fides made him a natural ally of Hamas. With Morsi deposed and military rule restored, Egypt did not pursue the kinds of concessions that Morsi extracted from Israel in 2012. (Israel initially rejected a ceasefire in 2012 before agreeing on one.)
This time around, Egypt also didn't include Hamas in the negotiations. Feeling left out, Hamas acted out a little bit.
The proposal
What the ceasefire proffered by Egypt was pretty straightforward. Most importantly, a cessation of hostilities and some ease of movement and goods along the borders. The basic components of it returned things back to its 2012 ceasefire state.
Why Hamas rejected it
Hamas, in essence, needs to justify why it just went through the trouble of making Gaza the target of some nearly 1,600 Israeli airstrikes. In order to do so, the ceasefire needed to include something that would be construed as a victory for Hamas. In other words, some improvement over the 2012 ceasefire conditions or some of the demands the group has been calling for.
As Avi Issacharoff noted:
It's also important to note that the Arab League, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who heads Hamas' rival Fatah), and the United States all endorsed the proposal.
Why Israel accepted it
Despite rejection of the ceasefire by two right-leaning members in Israel's cabinet, there was no reason for Israel not to accept it.
What now?
Hamas will continue to fire rockets and Israel will likely continue to respond with airstrikes and possibly a ground invasion if things get bad. Until Hamas finds a way to declare some kind of victory, it will continue to fight.
In a statement on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered this assessment:
A new Egypt makes all the difference
Egypt mediated the last ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012, but those were entirely different days. Back then, Egypt's ruler was Mohamed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood bona fides made him a natural ally of Hamas. With Morsi deposed and military rule restored, Egypt did not pursue the kinds of concessions that Morsi extracted from Israel in 2012. (Israel initially rejected a ceasefire in 2012 before agreeing on one.)
This time around, Egypt also didn't include Hamas in the negotiations. Feeling left out, Hamas acted out a little bit.
The proposal
What the ceasefire proffered by Egypt was pretty straightforward. Most importantly, a cessation of hostilities and some ease of movement and goods along the borders. The basic components of it returned things back to its 2012 ceasefire state.
Why Hamas rejected it
Hamas, in essence, needs to justify why it just went through the trouble of making Gaza the target of some nearly 1,600 Israeli airstrikes. In order to do so, the ceasefire needed to include something that would be construed as a victory for Hamas. In other words, some improvement over the 2012 ceasefire conditions or some of the demands the group has been calling for.
As Avi Issacharoff noted:
As a result, Hamas called Egypt's proposal tantamount to "surrender."
It's also important to note that the Arab League, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (who heads Hamas' rival Fatah), and the United States all endorsed the proposal.
Why Israel accepted it
Despite rejection of the ceasefire by two right-leaning members in Israel's cabinet, there was no reason for Israel not to accept it.
What now?
Hamas will continue
to fire rockets and Israel will likely continue to respond with airstrikes and possibly a ground invasion if things get bad. Until Hamas finds a way to declare some kind of victory, it will continue to fight.In a statement on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered this assessment:
Hamas launched over 50 rockets from Gaza into Israel into the afternoon while Israel held its fire. The Israeli cessation is reportedly over and they have resumed airstrikes.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Yeah, I used to say the same things when I was a "the Bible is the Word of God" believing sheeple. I wanted so bad for their presence there to be justified, because "look at how much God loves the Jewish people in the Bible".
I'm no longer a "Bible believing" Christian. I'm still a Christian in my mind, because I believe Jesus is who He claimed to be, and who thousands of people testify Him to be. But I no longer believe the Bible is the "Word of God". Many Christians label me a heretic for not believing the Bible is the word of God. I don't care. My eyes have opened up to a slew of knowledge now that I think for myself instead of letting the Bible tell me what to think.
I can no longer grasp at straws to justify their presence their anymore. If they want to try and stay there, that's their own business. But I no longer support it.
Short Corner
Footballguy
The problem started with the manner in which the land was appropriated. Jews made up 25% of the population and owned 8% of the land yet 69% of the land was given to the Jewish state.
ETA---and they were give the most fertile areas.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Short Corner
Footballguy
Kinda tough to call someone ignorant on the issue when you yourself had no clue about the Oslo Accords until recently.You might try reading a little history of the situation before you chime in with this ignorance. You have in the past justifiably mocked those who offer gun control solutions with no knowledge of firearms. You're guilty of the same thing here.Let's give israel back to the palestinians
Sorta lame that the west just came in and shoehorned them in there. Pretty sure we can find somewhere out in montana for all the jews to hang out.
It really, sadly isn't remarkable (surprising) to me that there are a VAST majority of people who don't. People have such a difficult time climbing out of their boxes and taking off their blinders to see the world in a much broader context. Have you ever spent any time in the Middle East? And potentially wearing a US military uniform doesn't count. Neither does eating in some deli in Little Egypt.It really is remarkable to me that there are people with this point of view.datonn said:Yet it was our, Great Britain's, and the Soviet Union's concern to displace thousands of Muslim tribal families who had occupied what is now the State of Israel for ~20-30+ previous generations...so that the State of Israel could be (re)formed?pantherclub said:
Can you imagine if China and Russia announced that they were going to move all the refugees from nations embroiled in civil war and genocide in Africa to Alabama...make that its own country, while telling all those Confederate flag-waving locals to G.T.F.O. of the State that their ancestors had called home since the 18th/19th Century? You don't think that a percentage of them wouldn't be kidnapping and killing folks who took "their" land? Fanning the verbal flames to a white-hot level that would make the Tea Party fringe (loons) look moderate/reasonable by comparison? Yelling "Death to China/Russia" into bullhorns? Firing rockets from directly across the border in MS, TN or GA?
But that's "different," right?! Because Israel is our ally. Just like what our nation did to tribe after tribe across most of our nation is "different" too?!
Fennis
Footballguy
Short Corner
Footballguy
Some may have but tens of thousands were forced out by the Israelis and their property given to European or American Jews who immigrated.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
He doesn't have to. Without the Bible, the world wouldn't view the conflict in the area any different than tribal conflicts in Africa. It's because of the Bible that the world sees it as news.
Fennis
Footballguy
I agree with what you said here. However, the western argument for supporting Israel at this point is not primarily a biblical one.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I acknowledge that. But the whole recent Iraq debacle has made the "we need to support democracies in the Middle East" a joke.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
It really, sadly isn't remarkable (surprising) to me that there are a VAST majority of people who don't. People have such a difficult time climbing out of their boxes and taking off their blinders to see the world in a much broader context. Have you ever spent any time in the Middle East? And potentially wearing a US military uniform doesn't count. Neither does eating in some deli in Little Egypt.It really is remarkable to me that there are people with this point of view.datonn said:Yet it was our, Great Britain's, and the Soviet Union's concern to displace thousands of Muslim tribal families who had occupied what is now the State of Israel for ~20-30+ previous generations...so that the State of Israel could be (re)formed?pantherclub said:
Can you imagine if China and Russia announced that they were going to move all the refugees from nations embroiled in civil war and genocide in Africa to Alabama...make that its own country, while telling all those Confederate flag-waving locals to G.T.F.O. of the State that their ancestors had called home since the 18th/19th Century? You don't think that a percentage of them wouldn't be kidnapping and killing folks who took "their" land? Fanning the verbal flames to a white-hot level that would make the Tea Party fringe (loons) look moderate/reasonable by comparison? Yelling "Death to China/Russia" into bullhorns? Firing rockets from directly across the border in MS, TN or GA?
But that's "different," right?! Because Israel is our ally. Just like what our nation did to tribe after tribe across most of our nation is "different" too?!
Sand
Footballguy
So tough to come up with something that will work here. The best answer is to ship the Palestinians back to Crete/Santorini where they came from 3500 years ago. Somehow I don't think they'll see that as their true homeland, however. Less drastic options include creating a deeper DMZ line in the West Bank to push the missiles back, though again that would go over like a lead balloon.
The best option would be for the Isrealis to sell the country to the Palestinians and relocate here. We'd be instantly better off (this would be immigration we want, Tim, unlike the dead weight Guatemalans that we're currently getting).
Sadly the effective things aren't all that doable.
The best option would be for the Isrealis to sell the country to the Palestinians and relocate here. We'd be instantly better off (this would be immigration we want, Tim, unlike the dead weight Guatemalans that we're currently getting).
Sadly the effective things aren't all that doable.
Sand
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
There is no practical solution that truly works with the West Bank and Gaza physically separated. And that's only 1 of a billion problems.
Short Corner
Footballguy
Pretty clear you don't understand what the phrase "absolutely true" means. But if you want to use hypothetical conclusions to bolster your argument knock yourself out.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
The biggest issue in this case is that all the other Arab countries want nothing to do with helping the palestinans. A lot could be done to the west bank and Gaza with oil money but it is better to have them where they are and make Israel look bad than actually build infrastructure there. A proposal I once saw is a rail line from Gaza to the West bank (Like they have in scandanavia). The reason this doesn't work is no one will pay for it, and no one can insure some extremist will not blow it up.
While we try to bring equivalency to this discussion, there really is no equivalency. When the Palestinians really want peace and are willing to enforce it, there will be peace. While I agree that settlements in the west bank do not help matters, and I am against them, they do not give anyone the right to kill students and fire rockets at a civilian population. The jews use their missiles to protect their civilians. The palestinians use civilians to protect their missiles.
While we try to bring equivalency to this discussion, there really is no equivalency. When the Palestinians really want peace and are willing to enforce it, there will be peace. While I agree that settlements in the west bank do not help matters, and I am against them, they do not give anyone the right to kill students and fire rockets at a civilian population. The jews use their missiles to protect their civilians. The palestinians use civilians to protect their missiles.
[icon]
Insoxicated
That and the suggestion of a Jewish Establishment in Montana might as well have a flickering neon light that says "Live Bait"Kinda tough to call someone ignorant on the issue when you yourself had no clue about the Oslo Accords until recently.You might try reading a little history of the situation before you chime in with this ignorance. You have in the past justifiably mocked those who offer gun control solutions with no knowledge of firearms. You're guilty of the same thing here.Let's give israel back to the palestinians
Sorta lame that the west just came in and shoehorned them in there. Pretty sure we can find somewhere out in montana for all the jews to hang out.
timschochet
Footballguy
Short Corner, you're wrong in so many ways (including my supposed lack of knowledge about the Oslo accords, though that's incidental.) Unfortunately I'm tied up and can't respond at the length that I'd like. But regarding the Jews getting most of the fertile land- that's because it was purchased by the Jews to begin with. When they purchased it, it wasn't fertile. They made it fertile through hard work and effort. Palestine was basically a swamp before the modern Jews got there.
timschochet
Footballguy
WTF?
Gatorman wasn't referring to the Bible or anything religious. He was describing historical events in the 20th century. The Jews he described were mostly secularists and non-religious anyhow. I have no idea what you're referring to.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Exactly!That and the suggestion of a Jewish Establishment in Montana might as well have a flickering neon light that says "Live Bait"Kinda tough to call someone ignorant on the issue when you yourself had no clue about the Oslo Accords until recently.You might try reading a little history of the situation before you chime in with this ignorance. You have in the past justifiably mocked those who offer gun control solutions with no knowledge of firearms. You're guilty of the same thing here.Let's give israel back to the palestinians
Sorta lame that the west just came in and shoehorned them in there. Pretty sure we can find somewhere out in montana for all the jews to hang out.
Arizona is far more like Israel than Montana ever could be.
Last edited by a moderator:
