"Apprehension" is not a legitmate reason to take Palestinian land and deny Palestinian rights particularly given the massive inequality of power. The benefit of launching rockets at the moment is that it is some resistance against the Israeli occupation and some retribution for the deaths of the innocent Palestinians. The alternative appears to them to be quiet capitulation and an abandonment of any hopes of freedom. Having said thst I do not condone the killing of civilians by either side at all. If rockets were launched after the Palestinians attained independence then Israel could respond as they do now but the Palestinians have stated many times that the occupation is reason for the rockets.

You don't answer the question ; if the Israelis want a two state peace why do they keep taking and colonising more and more of the West Bank ? It's not for "security" because they move their civilians in to live there and it has made the two state solution impossible without dismantlement. Why would they build houses they intend to demolish ?

The obvious conclusion is that Israel does not want a two state solution it wants things to continue as at present and for the last forty-five years. It is almost cost-free for them, life is reasonable for most Israelis, and they can refuse to accept responsibility for the Palestinians when there is nothing left for the Palestinians because Israel has taken it all. That was their original solution and it appears to have remained constant over time.

ok so your not going to answer my question I take it?

Your expectation that the Palestinians will end violent resistance is summed up by you stating "it will no longer benefit them". I asked you what benefits come from present day rocket/mortar attacks.

Your basis is a cost benefit analysis. Your saying continued resistance wouldnt be worth it to them. I'm telling you firing rockets now is not worth it to them. I didnt give any imput on why it's understandable or expected. My point is if it's not worth it for them now why should I expect that sovereignty obligates them to do what benefits them.

WTF. You keep saying this and it's just completely wrong. Israel knows it has to figure out a solution sooner, rather than later. They see the demographic information, they aren't stupid. The demographics have been an issue for over 50 years FFS.

It also most certainly isn't cost free for them. You think Israel likes being essentially a pariah state? You think they like having to spend millions on defense systems? I don't think so. I'm not justifying or commenting on anything other than to say that Israel is perfectly happy with the current situation is an absolutely incorrect statement.

I have answered your question but I will again.

1. It shows their own people that they have not capitulated to the Israeli aggression and occupation.

2. It increases the international pressure on Israel by spotlighting their treatment of the Palestinians.

3. It shows Israel that their current behaviour is not totally cost-free. In this regard the rocket that reached Tel Aviv was important.

4. They have not found any other strategy of resistance.

Having said the above I do not condone killing civilians.

The Hamas leadership actually started to agree with you on cost-benefit and the one (Al Jabari) the Israelis killed before their last Gaza massacre was negotiating a long-term ceasefire.

To answer your last point they have considered it to be worthwhile whilst they are blockaded and being colonised (in the West Bank) because it is impossible for them to live like human beings with dignity at the moment. On his recent visit Noam Chomsky described it as "living like caged animals" and said that no-one could live like that. If they were free in their own independent state then they would have far more to lose and no need to continue fighting for their freedom.

No, you just condone firing rockets at them.

Or they would get more and more backing from Iran and Syria, and use that to launch even larger and more powerful weapons at Israel.

I do not condone violence or occupation on either side. I would like to see self-determination for both sides. This or that might happen is not a good excuse to deny either side their rights. Israel is more powerful than all three countries put together so it's an unlikely scenario to say the least.

yes you do, because in the usual anti-israel activist (and terrorist, for that matter) mangling of the english language, you have repeatedly affirmed the declared intentional targeting of israeli civilian cities as "resistance."

And since you also insist that the Palestinians have the "right to resist", you do condone violence against israeli civilians.

Which is fine if that's your position. after all, hamas, your preferred peace partner, feels the same.

just don't lie about it, so we know where you stand when you copy/paste your next post from mondoweiss or electronic intifada

Everyone has the right to resist if they are invaded and occupied by a hostile military force. That's international law. We would have had the right to resist the Italians if they had succeeded in invading some of the UK in World War Two. It's a moot point how far this resistance is allowed to go. I would say it depends on what the invaders do. I am against all violence so I think Israel should end its occupation and the Palestinians should stop its violent responses in return.


I dunno what those are. My sources tend to be Haaretz, the Guardian, wiki, HRW/UN, respected experts etc etc. I have no axe to grind it just looks like a much worse version of South African apartheid. The South African "massacres" weren't as bad. The famous "Sharpeville Massacre" only killed sixty-nine people.

At the famous 47% dinner, Romney also took a question on Israel/Palestine. He said there is no solution. It will go on like it has for another 50. Was he not channeling Likud?

Is Likud's intransigence just a bargaining ploy before final status negotiations? They sure don't act like two states are inevitable.

The people making the decisions accept it.

You do seem to think necessity will prompt a solution.

But the current arrangement has shown itself to be sustainable.

If nothing else, I think Americans' attitudes are starting a shift on the whole thing, primarily due to weariness and the end of the Cold War (when the argument for strategic partnerships of the U.S.-Israel kind carried more rhetorical and tactical weight.) I'm speaking anecdotally, though. But I have been hearing more noises "lately," from younger people especially, both left- and right-of-center, about how the U.S. should dial down its involvement, and/or degree of support for Israel, and how they don't understand the why of it or how it benefits America. Granted, these noises may mean little to current government policy, but who can say for the future? Israel counting on eternal assistance and backup seems risky to me.

Another variable is the Arab Spring, of course. It's hard to predict how that will play out with respect to Israel's position in the region, contra the fear-mongers yelling about Muslims coming for their blood. I expect tensions will rise, but this might paradoxically incentivize a more moderate approach by key figures on differing sides of the conflict, because the specter of actual war is a helluva spur.

Unless your core assumption is that one side or the other consists of mindless killer zombies incapable of rational thought.

ok. so you do support and defend palestinian violence against israeli civilians.

simply shocking.

also, its blatantly obvious your knowledge of "international law" is somewhere between a cockroach and that white stuff that accumulates at the corner of your mouth when you're really thirsty.



jesus. just unreal. whatever little credibility you had is now completely evaporated.

meanwhile, another teen dead

http://www.france24.com/en/20121213-...-killed-hebron

Christ, psychos all around.

[x] Carrying realistic toy guns near trigger-happy checkpoint guards = psychotic
[x] "I'm happy this ended with no injuries on our side and I'm sure any other officer in my situation would have done what I did," said the policewoman who shot the teen = psychotic way to feel afterwards

And yet.

I still have faith the majority are tractable.

Why didn't you feel it necessary to report the whole story?

And in an epic display of the kind of incitement and propaganda that fuels this conflict, here's how thePalestine Press Agency reported it:

Of course the real truth is so different you couldn't help but wonder if they were reporting the same story:

New York Times' bull**** headline said: Israeli troops kill Palestinian Youth and wait until the 5th paragraph, after flowery language about conflict and dead Palestinian Arabs, to tell us this key point:
Keep in mind also that "toy guns" in the middle east are not required to have the plastic orange caps. Captain Barak Raz tweeted a picture of the gun:


And the kicker? According to the Times of Israel, the incident is more than just a case of mistaken identity:

None of this, of course, will stop cwocwoc and other anti-Israel trolls from pinning the blame on any Israeli they can find.

neither side can be trusted. youve got 1 side using all kinds of flowery language and the other talking about training and procedure

stories like this, while tragic, are just background to the overall situation

Was he going to buy skittles?

From Gamblor's Times of Israel article: "Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said an investigation had been launched into the incident."

From Gamblor himself: Lying Palestinian liars with their lying mouths! You want the Real Truth™? Listen to the words spoken by the policewoman who shot the Palestinian. See? Case closed.

I mean, have you heard of reserving judgment? Your severe skepticism concerning articles and groups recounting the events in a manner favorable to the slain 20-year-old, while theoretically correct, is totally undercut when you apply zero skepticism to the words spoken by the shooter, embracing them as gospel truth before the police investigation into the matter is concluded.

How then are readers of this and similar threads supposed to trust your interpretations and framings and evaluations of various matters Israeli-Palestinian?

It gains favor/prestige for the groups actually doing it. agreed



It eliminates an "out of sight out of mind" international world. agreed

I don't know that this is a benefit. It suggests that attacks actually compel Israel to not do certain things it would otherwise be doing. care to give an example?

You don't have to in order to answer the question.

I have no comment other than to say it's easy to glorify dead people because they never disappoint.


Why don't the Palestinians in the WB seem to think its worthwhile? Would you say they are living like human beings?

The reasoning is that public opinion will force the poliicians to seek a solution if it affects them greatly. This has been true of other conflicts eg Vietnam.


It is well documented.

"Passing messages between the two sides, I was able to learn firsthand that Mr. Jabari wasn’t just interested in a long-term cease-fire; he was also the person responsible for enforcing previous cease-fire understandings brokered by the Egyptian intelligence agency. Mr. Jabari enforced those cease-fires only after confirming that Israel was prepared to stop its attacks on Gaza. On the morning that he was killed, Mr. Jabari received a draft proposal for an extended cease-fire with Israel, including mechanisms that would verify intentions and ensure compliance. This draft was agreed upon by me and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hamad, when we met last week in Egypt."

Gershon Baskin is a co-chairman of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and the initiator and negotiator of the secret back channel for the release of Gilad Shalit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/op...tion.html?_r=0

The Gaza attack looks like an election stunt.


There is no simple answer to that.

No. It looks like they are being treated much worse than the South African black people were under apartheid.

wtf? rosenfeld's version of events has been corroborated, least notably in the very article that sparked this discussion, but also, again, in the 5th paragraph of the New York Times article.

Of course, for people like you that don't, apparently, read past the headline, the NYT headline will tell you all you really wanted to know - that there's a dead Arab teenager, and Israeli troops did it.

Don't play dumb, Gamblor. And please don't insult my intelligence and yours by responding to my post about reserving judgment with some recycled trash about "people like me" and how "all I really want to know" is something something anti-Israeli.

The guy was shot Wednesday evening. The articles and reports and statements about it linked ITT appeared a day later. One day. From the NYT article: "Rosenfeld (the police spokesman) said an initial investigation indicated 'he (the teen) pulled a fake pistol. They (troops at the scene) thought it was real ... it's not clear why he did that." This is hardly sufficient or comprehensive. In fact, and again, from the Times of Israel article you quoted: "Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said an investigation had been launched into the incident." And additionally, also on Thursday, from Israel National News: "The Judea and Samaria Division of the Israeli police have launched an investigation into the incident."

You accuse me of putting blinders on and not caring about the truth, just 'soldiers shot some poor kid,' but you're the one not paying attention. That, or a one-day-later statement from the police spokesperson saying, 'Hey, early indications are x, y, z,' is enough for you to embrace it as truth. The police themselves are committing to a fuller investigation, but I ask you to reserve judgment rather than quoting the shooter as an unbiased source, and you lose it.

There's no getting around your crude cheerleading. You seem to think that one counters the awful propagandistic tripe published in that PPA article by overcorrecting in the other direction. Like, does it even arise in your mind, for example, to question the integrity and soundness of a police department that allows or sits idly by or encourages (for all I know) an officer involved in a shooting to take to the ****ing media the next day and give goddamn television interviews while there's a pending investigation? This is not madness to you? What kind of bush-league post-police-shooting protocol is this?

But you don't ask such questions or entertain such doubts or express such sentiments when you enter the spin zone. Your critical thinking goes to hell. A sober individual would say, "We do not yet fully know what happened. And looking at the actors and institutions involved, we may never know."

But not you, zealous defense attorney for all things Israeli, pitbull prosecutor of all things Palestinian.

The sad thing is this makes you part of the problem.

you said it detered israel from something. what?



I don't think I need to tell you the bio of this guy. He was in charge of the military wing of Hamas and responsible for suicide attacks. Yeah you can credit him for cease fires but it seems abit disingenious when he's also the guy responsible for whatever violence he approved/ordered in the first place. This narrative suggests that Israel took him out because he became too dovish. lets move on dude I mean wtf



I don't need a simple answer..any answer will do. I'm not asking you to speak for them obv. Why don't they feel as inclined to violence as those in gaza?

I can't find that quote you're going to have to address that post directly.


In any conflict the leaders of both sides end up with the blood of civilians on their hands and I would suggest that Netanyahu and co have more blood on their hands than the Palestinian leaders. That is why I am against ALL violent conflict. The narrative suggests that Israel did not want a ceasefire at that time. This was borne out by their subsequent attack on Gaza.


It's too complex an issue to give a good answer quickly. Maybe Abu Mazen managed to convince them there was still mileage in the "peace process" or maybe lots of other things.

i have never pretended to be anything other than an advocate for what I believe is right and just for myself and the people I care about.

On the other hand, you presume some sort of superiority and objective ability to arbitrate justice and truth because you have styled yourself as an independent judge.

And even worse, you presume to tell me what is best for myself. You are far more dangerous because not only do you judge based on some academic, theoretical position that doesn't represent what either side is interested in, you do not bear the consequences of your so-called "solutions". If you are wrong about Arab/Muslim intentions, and thousands of Israelis die, you sit back and say "whoops, I was wrong". Likewise, if you are wrong about "Israeli" intentions (and you are), Palestinians are left without land, your life goes on without interruption (and don't give me nonsense about Arab/Islamic hatred of America arising out of the existence of Israel - as if Israel's non-existence would change that; ditto American aid to Israel, which has virtually no economic impact!).

We don't have the luxury of being wrong.

So please: continue to rip apart my arguments from your pedestal of self-declared independence. But make no mistake - you have chosen a side (whatever side that is). I am arguing for myself, from a large part of my life within the conflict itself, and I have never been less than 100% honest about that.

Okay. I just wonder if it would better serve the people you care about to increase the size of the people you care about.

Come on, did I really go that far? Because I berated your flagrant lack of balance? That is, critical thinking applied equally to all actors, events, and institutions involved in the conflict, and not rushing to condemnation in one case and defense in the other.

Except, you're blindly guessing here. You're wrong, as it happens. Ask next time. I have immediate family living in the region, bordering Israel. I grew up next door, and suffered the consequences of various "solutions" undertaken by key parties mentioned in this thread, or their predecessors. This included the spread of Israeli-Palestinian warfare deep into my home country, with devastating results. And I may return to live there someday.

I understand that Israelis and Palestinians have the most direct stake in what happens. But a close second are the people living around them, people like me, and after that the wider region as a whole. And not far behind, though less certain, are potential ripple effects expanding outward, especially if a regional inter-state conflict erupts.

You say you don't have the luxury of being wrong, but I see many things wrong with the thinking, the acting, and the outcomes of the last forty-some years. My posts in this thread and others like it are my best attempt at rebutting or critiquing what I see as repetitions of these patterns, and suggesting alternatives. I do it from a position of considerable personal investment, and in what I hope is a frame that considers the welfare of everyone involved.

Honesty is good. Unwavering nationalist partisanship? Not as good. Use with extreme caution. Side effects may include: adopting zero-sum adversarial postures towards every issue, a blindness to win-win scenarios, reckless decision-making masquerading as risk aversion, and not seeing people as people.