7 ms·

> Israel has no interest in Gaza, they just want them to stop trying to attack This is false and one-sided. Likud, the ruling party in Israel, has in its platf

by abalone 10y ago

> Israel has no interest in Gaza, they just want them to stop trying to attack This is false and one-sided. Likud, the ruling party in Israel, has in its platform an explicit denial of the right for a Palestinian state to exist west of the Jordan river.[1] Everything you've heard about Palestinians/Hamas denying Israel the right to exist is actually true about Israel as well towards Palestine. (In fact Hamas has stated they would respect a two-state solution; not the case for Likud.) There are atrocities back and forth, for example "A month before [the murders of Israeli boys that set off the attack], two Palestinian boys were shot dead in the West Bank city of Ramallah."[2] However the scale of Israel's atrocities in military operations is massively larger, and the conditions they maintain in Gaza through sanctions and violence are unconscionable. One could argue the conditions are calculated to foment discontent and keep the conflict on the military field, because politically the settlements and occupation have no standing, as regularly condemned by the whole world in U.N. resolutions.[3] [1] http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestin... [2] http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25343-noam-chomsky-%7C-nightmare-in-gaza http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25343-noam-chomsky-%7C-ni... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_con...

berntb 10y ago
Regarding the killed children -- wasn't the people doing a revenge murder of a Palestinian teenager sentenced to long jail sentences when they got caught? The Palestinian terrorists are declared martyrs, mural paintings are done, their relatives get a pension from PLO -- while caught Israeli murderers are sent to jail..? It do seem like equivalent sides, as you claim... :-)
- justin66 10y ago
  > The Palestinian terrorists are declared martyrs, mural paintings are done, their relatives get a pension from PLO -- while caught Israeli murderers are sent to jail..? Judging from the public reaction in Israel to the manslaughter conviction of Elor Azaria (polling suggests something like 67% want him pardoned), some segment of the Israeli public isn't above sticking up for its murderers.
  - mattip 10y ago
    Yes things are getting worse, the cinfkuct is wearing patience thin, and, as of today, he had not been pardoned. But there will be no streets named after him, he will be dishonourably discharged from the military, and he will not be generally celebrated as a hero. He is viewed as yet another victim, except by some extremists who get a lot of screen time. Now can we get back to discussing supporting the coding academy in Gaza?
    - justin66 10y ago
      Wow, yes. Point taken.
  - cnlevy 10y ago
    I personally want him pardoned because of the context (recurring knife attacks on military and civilians), but he is certainly not an hero in my view. Being discreetly discharged from the army for miscondcuct is probably what would have happened if not for the filming that triggered a PUBLIC trial. After all, the state gave him a weapon, and indicts him when he uses it ? Part of the responsibility is on the state itself. There are precedents to these kind of incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker): The army did say that the soldier would be disciplined for violating the rules of engagement and for changing his account of the incident.
  - berntb 10y ago
    You are not contradicting my point. He is still going to jail. The sympathy for due process of terrorists will wear thin in most democracies. Afaik, most countries with continuous terror problems throw out the law book. This is a quite logical result, since the point of terror is to get a fear and horror reaction from the civilian population to influence them. Scared voters make politicians hysterical, so everything is done to stop the situation. (Democracies seems to be even worse here, since voters are more important than non democracies.) Afaik, this goes for USA, Germany, Israel, Britain, Spain, etc. (I saw claims from some English guy that they did it different regarding IRA, then some other GB guy contradicted and listed some English laws. Let's call that example uncertain.)
gertef 10y ago
This comment fails to distinguish clearly the differing situations and attitudes in re West Bank vs Gaza. Israel (including Likud) is far along a path of disengagement from Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...
- abalone 10y ago
  The International Criminal Court still recognizes Israel as the occupying power in Gaza "based on the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement."[1] [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Report-06Nov2014Eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Re...
  - YZF 10y ago
    No it doesn't. The linked article which is not a court ruling, it's a report from the "Office of the Prosecutor", says: "While Israel maintains that it is no longer occupying Gaza, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power under international law, based on the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement. In accordance with the reasoning underlying this perspective, the Office has proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel. The analysis conducted and the conclusions reached would generally not be affected and still be applicable, if the Office was of the view, alternatively, that the law applicable in the present context and in light of the Israel-Hamas conflict is the law of non-international armed conflict. Given the crimes of possible relevance to the present situation, which are substantially similar in the context of both international and non-international armed conflicts, it is not necessary at this stage to reach a conclusive view on the classification of the conflict. Additionally, as the protection accorded by the rules on international armed conflicts is broader than those relating to internal conflicts, it seems appropriate, for the limited purpose of a preliminary examination, in cases of doubt, to apply those governing international armed conflicts." So they're basically just discussing the context for this (whether the situation meets some legal criteria to get to the next stage, by the way it didn't). They say it's not really necessary to reach a conclusive view (i.e. at least the prosecutor has no conclusive view, not to mention the court) because it doesn't affect the outcome of this legal analysis.
serge2k 10y ago
> In fact Hamas has stated they would respect a two-state solution Sure, but will they agree to actual terms? Terms that Israel won't instantly reject?
- shmulkey18 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[2] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[3][4] It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."[5]"
  - abalone 10y ago
    Likud platform of 1999: a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.” b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem” c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” d. "Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel... The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."[1] So both parties are rejectionist in principle. However in practice Hamas has indicated they would accept a two state solution. Likud has not.[2] [1] http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestin... [2] http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.587047 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.587047
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
YZF 10y ago
The Likud is not the "ruling party" in Israel. Israel's government is a coalition of multiple parties. The platform of any individual party does not equate to the official position of the state of Israel. Israel had right wing and left wing governments and the path towards a solution giving Palestinians control over the the west bank and Gaza goes back to Menahem Begin who was a prime minister from the Likud who signed a peace agreement with Egypt that included the path forward to solving the Palestinian conflict and the return of the Sinai peninsula to Egypt. During the many years of this conflict Israel had right wing and left wing governments with various different approaches. Ehud Barak has offered Yasser Arafat a two state agreement very close to what John Kerry has recently described and was rejected [1]. Earlier while Rabin and Arafat were attempting to make progress towards peace Hamas was busy blowing up buses and malls with suicide bombers which eventually lead to the rise of the right, the assassination of Rabin and the collapse of the process. EDIT: Also worth mentioning that the withdrawal of Israel from the Gaza strip which included tearing down Israeli settlements and evicting them forcefully, was done by Arik Sharon, prime minister from the Likud. I don't think there's any factual basis to a comparison between the Likud party and Hamas. I'll agree there are definitely opinions in the Israeli right who feel strongly that the Palestinians should not be given their own state for various reasons. Some practical (see Gaza) and some religious/ideological. However that is not the official position of Israel. No doubt there is various political maneuvering going on but the source of the trouble is the Palestinians refusal, or inability, to negotiate in good faith and compromise something they've had many opportunities to do and their insistence of using violence as means of addressing their grievances. The majority of the world is not fully democratic[2] (well, it's a mess) and doesn't share our values so decisions made in the UN by the "whole world" aren't exactly a yard stick of humanity. The UN is systematically biased against Israel. Where are the condemnations of US, Russian, Turkish involvements in Syria? MORE on Israel's official position, one of many instances of Israel's willingness to make progress: April 2003: A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict[3] May 2003: Israel accepts the roadmap[4] You keep saying Hamas has accepted a two state solution but I haven't seen an official link. In fact Israel's insistence that the Palestinians accept its right to exist wouldn't be a problem if the Palestinians indeed accepted a two state solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index [3] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/a%20performance-based%20roadmap%20to%20a%20permanent%20two-sta.aspx http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/a%... [4] http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2003/Pages/Goverment%20meeting%20about%20the%20Prime%20Minister-s%20state.aspx http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2003/Pages/Goverment%20m...

by abalone 10y ago

berntb 10y ago

Regarding the killed children -- wasn't the people doing a revenge murder of a Palestinian teenager sentenced to long jail sentences when they got caught? The Palestinian terrorists are declared martyrs, mural paintings are done, their relatives get a pension from PLO -- while caught Israeli murderers are sent to jail..? It do seem like equivalent sides, as you claim... :-)

justin66 10y ago
> The Palestinian terrorists are declared martyrs, mural paintings are done, their relatives get a pension from PLO -- while caught Israeli murderers are sent to jail..? Judging from the public reaction in Israel to the manslaughter conviction of Elor Azaria (polling suggests something like 67% want him pardoned), some segment of the Israeli public isn't above sticking up for its murderers.
- mattip 10y ago
  Yes things are getting worse, the cinfkuct is wearing patience thin, and, as of today, he had not been pardoned. But there will be no streets named after him, he will be dishonourably discharged from the military, and he will not be generally celebrated as a hero. He is viewed as yet another victim, except by some extremists who get a lot of screen time. Now can we get back to discussing supporting the coding academy in Gaza?
  - justin66 10y ago
    Wow, yes. Point taken.
- cnlevy 10y ago
  I personally want him pardoned because of the context (recurring knife attacks on military and civilians), but he is certainly not an hero in my view. Being discreetly discharged from the army for miscondcuct is probably what would have happened if not for the filming that triggered a PUBLIC trial. After all, the state gave him a weapon, and indicts him when he uses it ? Part of the responsibility is on the state itself. There are precedents to these kind of incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Miller_(filmmaker): The army did say that the soldier would be disciplined for violating the rules of engagement and for changing his account of the incident.
- berntb 10y ago
  You are not contradicting my point. He is still going to jail. The sympathy for due process of terrorists will wear thin in most democracies. Afaik, most countries with continuous terror problems throw out the law book. This is a quite logical result, since the point of terror is to get a fear and horror reaction from the civilian population to influence them. Scared voters make politicians hysterical, so everything is done to stop the situation. (Democracies seems to be even worse here, since voters are more important than non democracies.) Afaik, this goes for USA, Germany, Israel, Britain, Spain, etc. (I saw claims from some English guy that they did it different regarding IRA, then some other GB guy contradicted and listed some English laws. Let's call that example uncertain.)

gertef 10y ago

This comment fails to distinguish clearly the differing situations and attitudes in re West Bank vs Gaza. Israel (including Likud) is far along a path of disengagement from Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaz...

abalone 10y ago
The International Criminal Court still recognizes Israel as the occupying power in Gaza "based on the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement."[1] [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Report-06Nov2014Eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Re...
- YZF 10y ago
  No it doesn't. The linked article which is not a court ruling, it's a report from the "Office of the Prosecutor", says: "While Israel maintains that it is no longer occupying Gaza, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power under international law, based on the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement. In accordance with the reasoning underlying this perspective, the Office has proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel. The analysis conducted and the conclusions reached would generally not be affected and still be applicable, if the Office was of the view, alternatively, that the law applicable in the present context and in light of the Israel-Hamas conflict is the law of non-international armed conflict. Given the crimes of possible relevance to the present situation, which are substantially similar in the context of both international and non-international armed conflicts, it is not necessary at this stage to reach a conclusive view on the classification of the conflict. Additionally, as the protection accorded by the rules on international armed conflicts is broader than those relating to internal conflicts, it seems appropriate, for the limited purpose of a preliminary examination, in cases of doubt, to apply those governing international armed conflicts." So they're basically just discussing the context for this (whether the situation meets some legal criteria to get to the next stage, by the way it didn't). They say it's not really necessary to reach a conclusive view (i.e. at least the prosecutor has no conclusive view, not to mention the court) because it doesn't affect the outcome of this legal analysis.

serge2k 10y ago

> In fact Hamas has stated they would respect a two-state solution Sure, but will they agree to actual terms? Terms that Israel won't instantly reject?

shmulkey18 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[2] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[3][4] It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."[5]"
- abalone 10y ago
  Likud platform of 1999: a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.” b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem” c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” d. "Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel... The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."[1] So both parties are rejectionist in principle. However in practice Hamas has indicated they would accept a two state solution. Likud has not.[2] [1] http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestin... [2] http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.587047 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.587047
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

YZF 10y ago

The Likud is not the "ruling party" in Israel. Israel's government is a coalition of multiple parties. The platform of any individual party does not equate to the official position of the state of Israel. Israel had right wing and left wing governments and the path towards a solution giving Palestinians control over the the west bank and Gaza goes back to Menahem Begin who was a prime minister from the Likud who signed a peace agreement with Egypt that included the path forward to solving the Palestinian conflict and the return of the Sinai peninsula to Egypt. During the many years of this conflict Israel had right wing and left wing governments with various different approaches. Ehud Barak has offered Yasser Arafat a two state agreement very close to what John Kerry has recently described and was rejected [1]. Earlier while Rabin and Arafat were attempting to make progress towards peace Hamas was busy blowing up buses and malls with suicide bombers which eventually lead to the rise of the right, the assassination of Rabin and the collapse of the process. EDIT: Also worth mentioning that the withdrawal of Israel from the Gaza strip which included tearing down Israeli settlements and evicting them forcefully, was done by Arik Sharon, prime minister from the Likud. I don't think there's any factual basis to a comparison between the Likud party and Hamas. I'll agree there are definitely opinions in the Israeli right who feel strongly that the Palestinians should not be given their own state for various reasons. Some practical (see Gaza) and some religious/ideological. However that is not the official position of Israel. No doubt there is various political maneuvering going on but the source of the trouble is the Palestinians refusal, or inability, to negotiate in good faith and compromise something they've had many opportunities to do and their insistence of using violence as means of addressing their grievances. The majority of the world is not fully democratic[2] (well, it's a mess) and doesn't share our values so decisions made in the UN by the "whole world" aren't exactly a yard stick of humanity. The UN is systematically biased against Israel. Where are the condemnations of US, Russian, Turkish involvements in Syria? MORE on Israel's official position, one of many instances of Israel's willingness to make progress: April 2003: A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict[3] May 2003: Israel accepts the roadmap[4] You keep saying Hamas has accepted a two state solution but I haven't seen an official link. In fact Israel's insistence that the Palestinians accept its right to exist wouldn't be a problem if the Palestinians indeed accepted a two state solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index [3] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/a%20performance-based%20roadmap%20to%20a%20permanent%20two-sta.aspx http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/a%... [4] http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2003/Pages/Goverment%20meeting%20about%20the%20Prime%20Minister-s%20state.aspx http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2003/Pages/Goverment%20m...