>> ^Yehoshua:
First pull out, bulldoze the checkpoints and the walls, open the borders, remove all of the settlements, release all of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, call off any pending assassinations, restore the borders to where they were in '67, then peace?

That would be a good start but this will never be initiated by the Israelis or the Palestinians, the only real power broker that could bring both parties to the table and diplomatic relations would be the US and the EU, without taking the sides of either party.

The US is too pro-Israel and too politically stubborn to stand up to Israel even though bringing this to a finality would resolve alot of middle eastern hostility to America. The Arabs see Israeli pilots in American planes dropping American bombs (even though most GCC states buy arms wholesale from the US themselves a fact under reported in local arab media).

The US should bring forward GCC states to the table as well and enforce their acceptance of Israel as a state. The sheer idiocy imposed in the Middle East against Israel is retarded Kindergarten stuff, simply used to divert public attention away from their own corrupt governments something especially seen in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

UN forces would be needed to arrange security zones and provide disengagement, neither Israel nor Hamas would accept either as a security component in any shape or form. UN Peace keeping forces could be brought in and provide the same middle man entity as it did in the Balkan conflicts. Jerusalem would be best created as a separate state within a state along the lines of the Vatican to prevent religious tensions between both religious groups as there extremist orthodox Jews and Muslims.

With such imposition attacks would be far more rare as the majority of the population would be accepting of these terms and thus these attacks would gain no political or social traction, an unwilling population who sees no benefit and loss of hope through attacks becomes friendly and would oust terrorist themselves, this is not the case clearly now, as IDF bombs them so they support retaliation. Though it would not guarantee it as too much blood has been split, on both sides. But this is what happens when you let a conflict fester for 60 years.

Am surprised you think that hostile actions could only come from Palestine and not Israel. Israel is not exactly saintly when it comes to being rational in its application of force.

Even within Israel and Jewish communities around the world there is large dissent over IDF actions in Gaza as they have seen this happen time and time again and know that such hostile actions coupled with large civilian deaths (a third of which are children) would only create blow back.

The problem with Israel's arsenal of Nukes is that its a secret and was only discovered when an Israeli brought forth information about it. Your claim later on is false I believe, I don't trust any nation with nukes I do not believe one nation or the other is more sensible when it comes to the application of nuclear weapons.

To say Iran would detonate a nuke is to take that situation and not go into the details of what actually occurred, the IAEA has stated time and time again that Iran has no nuclear weapons programs. Iran as a whole is in economic straits and possess none of the technology to actually create a nuclear weapon. Iran's stance and progression and threats towards those means however is simply a symptom of the hypocritical notion that some nations can be trusted with nuclear technology and not others, not to mention the sudden international attention acquisition of nuclear arms creates. Look at how the US rushed to North Korea to placate it to disarm its nuclear programs. But I digress.

However I know full well that the scenario you and I propose will never see the light of day. Because no one gives a shit really.

So...ok. What's the other option for Israel? What's the plan?

First pull out, bulldoze the checkpoints and the walls, open the borders, remove all of the settlements, release all of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, call off any pending assassinations, restore the borders to where they were in '67, then peace?

I suppose the flip answer is "that's a good start," but I think you'll agree that there isn't a hell of a lot of trust on either side.

Let's say for the sake of discussion Israel did all of those things, and then there were a couple of rocket attacks and a suicide bombing in the space of a month.

What do you think the right response for Israel would be then? I'm not saying that I know, and I realize that this is a rather extended hypothetical, but I'd rather have a relatively friendly discussion about how all this is going to end than an endless discussion of blame assignment.

Everyone else has the finger-pointing covered, I think.

I would add that I found one semi-decent pro-Israel clip (not the one I posted this evening) that wasn't war-porn, Faux News, lame propaganda, or softcore of Israel's fighting chicks in 15-odd pages of YouTube. Certainly the "grassroots" media is with the Palestinians, whatever the credentialed journos think.

Edit: Oh, and do I think Israel should have or needs nukes? No. There's no one to use them on, anyway. Do I think they'll give them up, any more than I think India, Pakistan, or China will? No. Do I think they'll ever use them? No. Do I think that there's a far greater possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon going off? Uh, yes.

Another Edit: As to comparisons with those colonial wars. The salient difference between the colonial struggles you mentioned and the conflict in Israel is that neither side in this conflict has anywhere to go back to. I'd say a closer comparison are the U.S./Native American wars, unfortunately.

Maybe that's a philosophical difference between the typical American response to Israel's actions and the typical European response - some Europeans view the conflict through the prism of their colonial experience, and therefore see the struggle as between colonizer and native population, and most Americans...don't.

>> ^Yehoshua:
You're ignorant, Farhad. Yehoshua is Joshua. Which is my name. Yeshua, on the other hand...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

There is debate about the Hebrew phrasing of Jesus between Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu by references from Numbers, the old testament and writings of the time. But that's besides the point. But lets not get into a theological discussion here.

Do you disagree that the elections that put Hamas in power were free?

Elections are the only form of expression the Palestinians had in opposing the Fatah government, it was their way of showing a loss of confidence in Fatah which at the time was in utter turmoil. Remember at the time Condi Rice and Bush as a whole were pushing for democratic action in the Middle East as a whole (ironically not with Egypt or Saudi Arabia).

When Hamas won Israel and the US basically went around Hamas and started to reinstate Fatah as the power representation of Palestine. Hamas isn't wholly compromised of terrorists, as its cell based, negotiations and concessions would have been better then outright ignoring Hamas and further imposing a blockade on Gaza. Which only solidified extremist elements within Hamas.

The lack of dealing with your enemies is a severe strategic failure shown by both the US and Israel, even during the height of the Cold War there was constant contact and negotiation to avert a possible third world war. Talking to Hamas would have been difficult as Israel does not claim responsibility for many hostile actions over the last 60 years as it never gives a platform to Palestinian interests, its always wanted to deal down concessions to Palestinians.

As to Lebanon, it's my understanding that the head of Hezbollah apologized for the war in Lebanon, until he heard that the Israelis considered it a defeat. Then he proclaimed that it was a tremendous victory for Lebanon. As a matter of fact, the Lebanon border had been very quiet up until this latest conflict, and still remains relatively quiet.

Hasan Nasrallah is an idiot, but one cannot simply brush aside the massive excessive and needless military campaign Israel brought down on Lebanon. This is where the 2006 war was a failure because it painted Israel in entirely the wrong light, when it basically decapitated Lebanon's social and economic structure. Israel won the battle but lost the war.

Israel sets very high goals for itself, and when it does not meet them, it considers that a failure. I don't think that's wrong, but I don't think that means that Israel should stop protecting itself.

On this point I disagree with you as what Israel claims on political channels is disconnected with the reality on the ground, by treating the Palestinians as prisoners, by constantly forcing them through countless check points, taking pot shots at them and over watching them with large towers, bulldozing their homes to build settlements it only further marginalizes and drives Palestinian people to terrorist act which it then claims it defends itself from.

Israeli policy on the ground provokes the very attacks it then uses as a pretext to occupy Palestinian lands. The most apparent of which can be seen on US media which so commonly shows Israeli soldiers fighting civilians with rocks, defending Isreali 'settlements' which they never explain to say that its Palestinian homes bulldozed over. This skewed perception is the reason a recent poll showed that almost half of the US population supports Israeli actions because of differing Media narrative provided.

Something that is explored in this sift http://www.videosift.com/video/Global-Pulse-Analysis-of-Gaza-Media-War-and-Reportage

I say this again and again, terrorist actions in Palestine towards Israel is a symptom not a disease, which can be found in parallel with the independence wars fought by Algerian rebels with France and Americans with the English and many others.

I thought the whole problem with Hamas was that wipe-them-off-the-planet attitude. So would that make these people hypocrites for saying the exact same thing into a tv camera?

Those settlers are excited because they are eyeing more land they can have once the bulldozers flatten out all the bodies fertilizer.

Apologies in advance for the disection.

"Ok, then Palestinian militants aren't anti-semitic, they just want to get rid of the political and military entity of Israel."
This is an irrelevant analogy. You can be anti-semitic just by your words or thoughts. However, you cannot be genocidal or engage in ethnic cleansing without doing something physical. One is an emotion or opinion, and the other is an action. My comment was about ACCURACY of these terms, not about a JUDGEMENT regarding them.

"And the problem isn't really Israel taking out Hamas fighters or leaders, it's the hundreds of civilians and children being bombed and bulldozed in their houses and schools."
I totally agree with this. I inferred as much in my post.

"occupying illegal lands"
Honestly, so much of the recent mutual behaviour between the two factions is illegal by international law, I'm not sure that "legality" means anything to the situation any more. If this is going to ever be fixed, historical prosecutory claims have to be dumped out the window.

"Imagine if you were in control of a million people's lives who are walled in by your tanks and F-16 and war ships and they have no clean water and little electricity and food. Certainly it's not like your are trying to kill them all by blocking all aid and food and water..."
I agree with this point. Israel has been blocking aid and this is deplorable. If it were to go on for a few weeks, I'd agree that it's passive genocide, but I'm not sure that's the case yet. Anyone know if supplies were successfully delivered to Gaza in the recent short ceasefires?

"...and then dropping bombs on the refugee shelters"
I haven't seen this anywhere in the media, admittedly not that I've looked too hard. Can someone please point out where this has been occurring?

"but it is a political and military entity - Hamas - that is Israel's stated target, not an ethnic one."

You can't understand how stupid this is? Ok, then Palestinian militants aren't anti-semitic, they just want to get rid of the political and military entity of Israel.

And the problem isn't really Israel taking out Hamas fighters or leaders, it's the hundreds of civilians and children being bombed and bulldozed in their houses and schools. That's sounds like war crimes and genocide, especially when it is done to an occupied apartheid open air prison camp.

And no, there is only evidence that Israel is interested in occupying illegal lands and killing as many Palestinians as it takes to accomplish this. Imagine if you were in control of a million people's lives who are walled in by your tanks and F-16 and war ships and they have no clean water and little electricity and food. Certainly it's not like your are trying to kill them all by blocking all aid and food and water and them dropping bombs on the refugee shelters. Really?

Trivia question... how long has Hamas been elected? And how long have rockets been fired? And how long had Israel been using bombs, tanks and bulldozers?

Also, what i learned from the comments is that Palestinians should GTFO the Earth (huh, sounds familiar).

And that thousands of Muslims are living happily. Too bad that over a million Gazans are trapped in a prison camp. What kind of travel papers do you need to get to the happy Israel?

And harvey again hates facts or anything logical. You got the wrond UN school bombing video. I know there are so many because Israel loves bombing these schools while kids are in the bldg, but this was more recent bombing then your drone video was released.

Ha.

You guys are ridiculous, you think the IDF bombing Gaza will eliminate Hamas? Did the Lebanon war eliminate Hezbollah? Both these entities came forth from Israel aggression and injustice in dealing with Palestine. Jewish people themselves resent the Zionist actions of the military forces knowing full well that everything that is wrought now will back fire in new groups, new individuals and new suicide bombers.

But you know maybe it will! Who knows! It definitely has worked in Afghanistan and Iraq! Not COIN or hearts and minds but simply we have to bomb Gaza to save it!

Gaza has been under blockade for 2 years, continuous apartheid has been in effect for far longer, its economical, socially and politically been coerced into fighting in any means it can, the Israelis have gone into the West Bank and Gaza countless times to seek out terrorists only to see them rise again like hydra heads because the essential underlining policy of achieving peace is flawed in design to propagate continuous hostility and conflict with the Palestinian people. You know so Israel can claim victim, build walls all over, sniper towers while pushing settlements out and claim a bit more land.

Zionism wants Israel to occupy West Bank and Gaza with no Palestinian state, so in effect Hamas wants the elimination of Israel. The two policies are mirrors of one another.

The Palestinian areas have hand every building bombed, bulldozed and blown through so many times and you guys are saying Hamas should act like uniformed forces against the IDF. It's asymmetrical warfare, the same kind the Fedayeen employed against US forces after seeing how the Taliban got bombed to shit in Tora Bora.

That's just plain military tactics, its unfortunate they use suicide bombing and rocket attacks but hey you know they don't have obligatory military service, Merkava Tanks, F-16s, Apaches or a steady supply of Military Aid from the US.

The US achieved peace with a hostile enemy by employed the methodology of COIN and hearts and minds to allow Iraqis to govern themselves, though years late cooperation and dialog in parts of Iraq have shown that soft contact with the local populace has meant that Iraqis actively gave up insurgents themselves.

Contrast this methodology with Israel hostile stance against all Palestinian people and you quickly realize that peace is not what Israel is striving for. It's a political process of land acquisition through the guise of fighting terrorism.

mharvey, you are either a good troll or you like remaining ignorant.

Going back to 2000. Whenever there was a lull in the violence, guess which side alway started up the killings first? Just like in this last bit of violence, Israel is the one who starts killing Palestinians.

It's not because they want peace, they do it to justify bulldozing and bombing and keeping their apartheid strong, and possible the extermination of a race of people.

I recommend this post which has some illustrative graphs and links to show Israel breaking the peace.

WTF is your point QM? Gazans have not had military bases or bomb shelters or anything for a long time. Israel bombs or bulldozes almost all the important structures in Gaza. I don't think there is any honor or bravery or noble fighting for this David v. Goliath. It's insurgent peasant fighting for survival.

You can't even question what drives a people to blow themselves up or hide munitions in the schools? The literally have nothing to lose. THey have been choked and strangled out of any jobs, economic, food, water, electricty, self-governance, any freedom to travel, medicine, salaried doctors.

You know if it was your country fighting the british they would be freedom fighters. And you might want to review some Revolutionary war tactics before you say how disgusting these heathen Palestinians are.

>> ^MINK:
^the invasion itself is what he did, forcing far too many civilians to move, or die, or live without water for days, or be accidentally bombed and killed, or be recruited into terrorist forces that you would call patriots if the situation were reversed.
i know bulldozering graves is a sick image, but just try to imagine a starving baby that had plenty of food before the invasion, and think about how you would assess world politics if you were the father.


That doesn't overwhelm the starving babies from before the invasion that died of malnutrition in their mothers arms in Saddam's concentration camps. Their father's never had a chance to re-assess world politics though as they were executed before they had the chance.

I'm sorry if that sounds calloused about the current plight of Iraqi's, it honestly isn't meant to be. The conditions there ARE still horrific, and for many are worse than before the invasion. But no longer is it because their own leadership is actively trying to starve or kill them.

It is the terrible sectarian violence and hatred causing the grief, and blaming that on the invasion is damagingly naive. The decades of brutal repression and encouragement of sectarian hatred that Saddam imposed did infinitely more to create the hate that is the problem in Iraq today. It's not as though Shia and Sunni factions were dancing in the streets holding hands before the invasion turned them into mortal enemies. America's greatest guilt in all of it is not the invasion, but the decades of support given to Saddam prior to the 90's.

^the invasion itself is what he did, forcing far too many civilians to move, or die, or live without water for days, or be accidentally bombed and killed, or be recruited into terrorist forces that you would call patriots if the situation were reversed.

i know bulldozering graves is a sick image, but just try to imagine a starving baby that had plenty of food before the invasion, and think about how you would assess world politics if you were the father.

>> ^rougy:
It's bullshit saying that the world is better off without Saddam.
Total fucking bullshit.
He was a paper tiger by the time we invaded, and his crimes pale in comparison to what Bushco has done to that country.
You're an apologist.
You will always sugar coat our invasion to suit your contrived conclusions.


Then I must be ignorant of the crimes that Bushco has done that make the following crimes described by Human Rights Watch pale by comparison:

With only minor variations ... the standard pattern for sorting new arrivals [at Topzawa was as follows]. Men and women were segregated on the spot as soon as the trucks had rolled to a halt in the base's large central courtyard or parade ground. The process was brutal ... A little later, the men were further divided by age, small children were kept with their mothers, and the elderly and infirm were shunted off to separate quarters. Men and teenage boys considered to be of an age to use a weapon were herded together. Roughly speaking, this meant males of between fifteen and fifty, but there was no rigorous check of identity documents, and strict chronological age seems to have been less of a criterion than size and appearance. A strapping twelve-year-old might fail to make the cut; an undersized sixteen-year-old might be told to remain with his female relatives. ... It was then time to process the younger males. They were split into smaller groups. ... Once duly registered, the prisoners were hustled into large rooms, or halls, each filled with the residents of a single area. ... Although the conditions at Topzawa were appalling for everyone, the most grossly overcrowded quarter seem to have been those where the male detainees were held. ... For the men, beatings were routine.

After a few days in the camp, without a single known exception, the men were sent out and executed:

Some groups of prisoners were lined up, shot from the front, and dragged into predug mass graves; others were made to lie down in pairs, sardine-style, next to mounds of fresh corpses, before being killed; still others were tied together, made to stand on the lip of the pit, and shot in the back so that they would fall forward into it -- a method that was presumably more efficient from the point of view of the killers. Bulldozers then pushed earth or sand loosely over the heaps of corpses. Some of the grave sites contained dozens of separate pits and obviously contained the bodies of millions of victims. (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, p. 12.)


If you'd like to enlighten me on what exactly it is Bush has done since the invasion that matches that please tell me, I'd hate to be defending something that horrific.

If you really think Hitchens is that cool, try to find anything that supports his 10 points of "positive accounting" in the article Cole responds to:
...
Actually, I can agree (a little bit) with his # 7: the immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.


"a little bit"
Go look at Saddam's Al-Anfal Campaign and see what he did to the Kurds.

Dropping mustar,sarin and VX gas on villages like Halabja wasn't the worst that he did. He just used that to push back the Peshmerga so his troops could round up more Kurds. Every Kurd his army could find was sent to be sorted, males age 15-50 where separated from the rest. The women, children and elderly were sent to concentration camps. There they were regularly beaten and raped, and many died of starvation and neglect, mother's lost virtually every child under age 3 to starvation and disease, while being raped and beaten. Life in the camps also sometimes ended in being executed or gassed. For the men, they only stayed in the camps a few short days before, without a single known exception, they were bussed to pre-dug mass graves to be executed and buried by bulldozer.

If you can only agree "a little bit" with the gains of the Kurdish people as justification for Saddam's removal I'm thinking you've set the bar for intervention too high.

edit:
and thanks for all the down votes, I'll stick to posts that only show the pro-war side in a bad light in the future. If he was owning Palin or McCain instead...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'caterpillar, flip, runaway, escape, downhill' to 'caterpillar, bulldozer, flip, runaway, escape, downhill' - edited by calvados