14 ms·

As far as I know, the walls came up as security measures because of the second Intifada. Before that, people lived in Gaza and worked in Israel and people trave

by berntb 10y ago

As far as I know, the walls came up as security measures because of the second Intifada. Before that, people lived in Gaza and worked in Israel and people travelled between for shopping, etc. (This isolation gave serious economic problems in Israel too.) So the isolation and security came up because of violence, the terror against civilian Israelis is not an original reaction to the wall. But I suspect you know this.

Cyph0n 10y ago
So when a population misbehaves, you setup a ghetto to isolate it? We're talking about upwards of a million people here by the way. Is that really the right way to handle things? Looking at the whole picture, I maintain that resistance is justified.
- berntb 10y ago
  You don't contradict that you were aware of my points..? If e.g. Finland or Estonia started to shoot rocket artilleri towards St Petersburg, the reaction would certainly be much worse than Israel's at Gaza... (And because of Karelia etc for Finland and generations of slavery for Estonians, they have as good reasons as the Gazans.) The situation is: Side A attack side B's civilians. You only complain about side B's quite moderate defense against A's attacks. (Again, installed to stop the attacks.) Then you motivate that further attacks from A are understandable, because of B's defense. It is such a sad case of hypocritical and hateful circular logic I get vertigo. :-(
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    I did not respond because you are oversimplifying the issue. The history of the Israel-Palestine conflict is long and bloody. Claiming in such a confident and final manner that the building of the wall was because Gaza started is very narrow-sighted. Your analogy is incorrect. When a sovereign nation attacks another, war ensues. That is very clear. But when resistance elements arise within a city that is supposedly part of a sovereign nation, you don't build a wall around the city. That's how you would handle it in the Middle Ages. But the issue is even more complex than that, since the resistance aims to gain independence from the state. So I would say that the Gaza situation is somewhat similar to that of the IRA and the UK. I don't recall the UK building a wall around Ireland and carpet bombing it every few years? Woah woah woah man... quite moderate? The destruction of a third of Gaza and the death of thousands of people is quite moderate? I give up. This discussion is going nowhere :(
    - berntb 10y ago
      What I've read, is that the border to Gaza was open enough for commuting and shopping trips -- until the systematic attacks on civilians. You had no problem with that description in your previous comment. But good references to non partisan sources would be interesting? (AGAIN: If the ones controlling an area -- including doing elections, defense, police and taxes -- put all their economy into rocket artillery against another country's civilians, the reaction will not be mild... And Gaza is not part of a city, it was a free area.)
    - wslh 10y ago
      If Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist, the walls will be broken and the major part of the settlements moved. Israel has shown several times that they can exchange land for peace, even within right wing governments.
      - ghostDancer 10y ago
        No one can believe that. That's one of the big lies of the Israeli government. Settlements will never be given back and the mission is to get all the land. That was the idea from the beginning and they think they have their god on their side.
        berntb 10y ago
        So the basic problem is that the Jews and/or the democratic country are evil? Sigh... :-( Arafat got at least two offers for a Palestinian state (at Camp David and once later), with about 91% of the West Bank iirc. The later offer was when Barak needed Arafat's support of a peace agreement before an election (so the Palestinian side had a good negotiating position). Arafat didn't accept either -- which was one thing. But there was no counter offer like "Give us XX and YY and customs advantages ZZ and ...". Instead Arafat started a terror campaign. But there is no blame for all that refusal to even give a counter proposal; it is all a big Israeli conspiracy. (Seriously, I feel a bit sick when I chat with hateful people.)
        10y ago
- serge2k 10y ago
  When they are actively trying to murder people, yes. It's not right, but neither is sending in suicide bombers.
  - iblankm 10y ago
    I doubt any of THESE people are actively trying to kill people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJtZekhROE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJtZekhROE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_w1aoJgO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_w1aoJgO8

by berntb 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago

So when a population misbehaves, you setup a ghetto to isolate it? We're talking about upwards of a million people here by the way. Is that really the right way to handle things? Looking at the whole picture, I maintain that resistance is justified.

berntb 10y ago
You don't contradict that you were aware of my points..? If e.g. Finland or Estonia started to shoot rocket artilleri towards St Petersburg, the reaction would certainly be much worse than Israel's at Gaza... (And because of Karelia etc for Finland and generations of slavery for Estonians, they have as good reasons as the Gazans.) The situation is: Side A attack side B's civilians. You only complain about side B's quite moderate defense against A's attacks. (Again, installed to stop the attacks.) Then you motivate that further attacks from A are understandable, because of B's defense. It is such a sad case of hypocritical and hateful circular logic I get vertigo. :-(
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I did not respond because you are oversimplifying the issue. The history of the Israel-Palestine conflict is long and bloody. Claiming in such a confident and final manner that the building of the wall was because Gaza started is very narrow-sighted. Your analogy is incorrect. When a sovereign nation attacks another, war ensues. That is very clear. But when resistance elements arise within a city that is supposedly part of a sovereign nation, you don't build a wall around the city. That's how you would handle it in the Middle Ages. But the issue is even more complex than that, since the resistance aims to gain independence from the state. So I would say that the Gaza situation is somewhat similar to that of the IRA and the UK. I don't recall the UK building a wall around Ireland and carpet bombing it every few years? Woah woah woah man... quite moderate? The destruction of a third of Gaza and the death of thousands of people is quite moderate? I give up. This discussion is going nowhere :(
  - berntb 10y ago
    What I've read, is that the border to Gaza was open enough for commuting and shopping trips -- until the systematic attacks on civilians. You had no problem with that description in your previous comment. But good references to non partisan sources would be interesting? (AGAIN: If the ones controlling an area -- including doing elections, defense, police and taxes -- put all their economy into rocket artillery against another country's civilians, the reaction will not be mild... And Gaza is not part of a city, it was a free area.)
  - wslh 10y ago
    If Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist, the walls will be broken and the major part of the settlements moved. Israel has shown several times that they can exchange land for peace, even within right wing governments.
    - ghostDancer 10y ago
      No one can believe that. That's one of the big lies of the Israeli government. Settlements will never be given back and the mission is to get all the land. That was the idea from the beginning and they think they have their god on their side.
      - berntb 10y ago
        So the basic problem is that the Jews and/or the democratic country are evil? Sigh... :-( Arafat got at least two offers for a Palestinian state (at Camp David and once later), with about 91% of the West Bank iirc. The later offer was when Barak needed Arafat's support of a peace agreement before an election (so the Palestinian side had a good negotiating position). Arafat didn't accept either -- which was one thing. But there was no counter offer like "Give us XX and YY and customs advantages ZZ and ...". Instead Arafat started a terror campaign. But there is no blame for all that refusal to even give a counter proposal; it is all a big Israeli conspiracy. (Seriously, I feel a bit sick when I chat with hateful people.)
        10y ago
serge2k 10y ago
When they are actively trying to murder people, yes. It's not right, but neither is sending in suicide bombers.
- iblankm 10y ago
  I doubt any of THESE people are actively trying to kill people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJtZekhROE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJtZekhROE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_w1aoJgO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_w1aoJgO8