I doubt that. ;-)

Except for territory they hold, I agree, Palestinian suffering is their only influence, and that's not much.

I agree, because we back them, Israel does as it pleases. I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints beyond Palestinian suffering, like constantly expanding borders and expulsion from historical holy sites.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state (where only barren desert is Palestinian with all water and access controlled by Israel, shut off at any hint of complaint).

The Palestinians do want a two state solution, just not one where any land worth having is Israel and the leftovers are Palestine.

Israel gains nothing from negotiating when they can get what they want, like recognition of another land grab (Jerusalem) without negotiating. That's why this move is horrendous, it gives them incentives to not negotiate and just act unilaterally.

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed. Given that, what's the option? Outright war? With us backing Israel, that's a no go.

I think, if given a solution that didn't give everything to Israel, the Palestinians would jump at it (maybe not Hamas, but the people). Being offered second class citizenship after having all their land and possessions taken is not workable, and it's what they seem to get.

If N Korea sells Iran a nuke, I hope we can we go back to negotiations instead of genocidal one sided dictations.

Trump's a buffoon randomly dancing around from one tire fire to set off another. This is no defence of him or any 'thought', motive or goal behind anything he does.

I'm just pointing out that the world's reaction of horror and outrage to moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is naive and hypocritical. It is naive in that clearly the peace process has been dead since WW2.

I'm going to list points that seem to clearly indicate the peace process didn't exist and tell me anything you disagree with cause I suspect we are working from different 'facts'.

Israel clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Hamas clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
Fatah clearly doesn't want a two state solution.
The Muslim world clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with an Israeli state.
The Israeli state clearly doesn't want to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state.

With the above, and Israeli's militarily dominant position over the Palestinians the only 'peace' process is going to be whatever Israel decides it wants that to be. Morality, wishes, blundering American 'presidents' and anything else we want to pull out doesn't really matter in the face of that. Israel has the might and the ability and so they will do what they want. My hope is to influence the Israeli state towards equitable, fair and compassionate treatment of Palestinians. If Israel decides to create a one state solution, but abides by that fine. Two states with borders unilaterally laid out by Israel, fine. So long as popular opinion in Israel can be won in favour of fair, equitable and compassionate treatment of Palestinians then that's the most I hope or wish for. I think it's a realistic goal that can be realized.

Syria had a fractured military, where part went with Assad, and part went with the [effectively "Neo Hama"] rebellion (i.e. anti secularist rebellion).
Russia supported Assad.
Militants from the region came to support the rebellion and were given shelter and resources by rebels.
(Which is why moderate Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc, are now hiding on Assad's side of the conflict (or running to Europe))
That place really sucks. If you're a regular person, the options are bad and worse.

Land and buildings don't produce wealth and taxes without people.

-scheherazade

Here, have a bit of optimism:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-linked-imam-israel-chief-rabbi-unite-in-call-for-peace/

Then you end up with people taping mags together and reloading within a second or so.
Even faster if they count shots and stop firing at capacity-1 before reloading.
There are work-arounds...




Realistically, the end game of the political left is a gun ban + confiscation. The end game of the political right is total gun deregulation.
Each side needs something to argue to excuse their existence, so they will argue in their direction so long as there is anything left to argue, and those are the natural consequences.
Gridlock is literally the best thing that can happen for folks in the middle.




Syria isn't the best example. The people were not armed, and they turned to foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. They invited and gave shelter to all sorts of foreign militants to fight against their government, and made a mess of things. They would have been better off with a home-grown insurgency.

Not like a home grown insurgency would have done much good either way. The Syrian Arab spring was a democratic call for ... Islamic law. It originated in Hama, where an earlier Islamic insurgency was put down (the muslim brotherhood) by Assad's father. Half the country didn't support the insurgency against Assad, and anyone who is non-muslim or secular, or even moderate, is sitting on Assad's side of the country hoping he holds out.

But generally speaking, insurgency with small arms is what defeats occupiers over time. Not in pitched battles, but by making occupation so expensive and tedious that the occupier loses interest over time.


-schehearazde

Some bits it glosses over :

Puppet dictatorship is basically a description of every US and Soviet backed b-list nation on earth back then. The fact that it's a puppet state shouldn't be used to imply anything.
For example, the U.S.S.R. had modernization programs for its satellite states, building power plants, roads, hospitals, universities, etc, in an attempt to fast forward development and catch up with the west asap. They also did this while spouting secular rhetoric.
In a general attempt to undermine soviet efforts (*both sides tried to contain each other's influence world wide), the U.S. looked for any groups within the U.S.S.R. satellite nations that would be an 'in' for U.S. power/influence. For Afghanistan, this was the people most offended by the U.S.S.R.'s [secular] agenda, and most likely to make good on foreign anti-soviet backing - the religious Jihadists. Everyone knew very well what it would mean for the local people if Jihadists took over Afghanistan - but at the time, the soviets were considered a bigger problem than Jihadists (possibility of nuclear annihilation), so better to have Jihadists in power than soviets.

Also, Assad's release of prisoners was officially part of an amnesty for political prisoners - something the people and foreign groups were asking for.
Saying that Assad tolerated AQ or Isis is misleading. These groups gained power during the Arab spring, when a large portion of the civilian population wanted a new government, but lacked the military power to force change. Militants stepped into the situation by /graciously/ offering their military strength, in exchange for economic/resource/political support to help make it happen. After a short while, these groups coopted the entire effort against Assad. Once they were established, they simply put the people under their boot, effectively replacing Assad with something even worse within the regions they held. Assad lacked/lacks the military power and support to expel the militant groups, so they fight to a stalemate. But a stalemate is by no means tolerance.
One similarity that Syria has to Afghanistan, is that the anti-government kernel within the population that birthed the revolt, did so for anti-secular reasons. In Syria's case, it was in large part people from the region that had earlier attempted an Islamist uprising during Assad's father's reign (which was put down by the government, culminating in the 'hama massacre', leaving some intense anti-government sentiment in the region).
In any case, the available choices for power in Syria are 'political dictatorship' or 'religious dictatorship'. Whoever wins, regular people lose. It's not as if regular people have the arms necessary to force anyone to listen to them. Anyone with any brains or initiative knows that their best option is neither, so they leave (hence all the refugees).

The video also omits the ambiguous alliances in the region. Early on, you had the UAE, Saudis, and Turks supporting ISIS - because an enemy of your enemy is your friend. It wasn't until ISIS started to encroach on them that they tempered their support. Turkey remains ambiguous, by some accounts being the gateway/laundromat for ISIS oil sales... because ISIS is a solution to the 'Kurdish problem' for Turkey.
If you watch some of the VICE documentaries, you can see interviews where locals on the Turkish border say that militants and arms cross form Turkey into Syria to join ISIS every night.
Then you have countries like Iran and Syria fighting ISIS, but by official accounts these countries are the west's enemy. Recently, French leadership (after the Paris bombings) has stated that they are done playing politics, and just want to get rid of ISIS in the most practical manner possible, and are willing to work with Russia and Assad to do it.

It's worth noting that ISIS' main enemy/target is 'non Sunni Islam'. U.S./Europe tend to only mention ISIS attacks on their persons/places, and it leaves western people thinking that ISIS is against the west - but in fact the west is merely an afterthought for ISIS. For every one attack on a western asset/person, there are countless attacks on Shia, etc.

-scheherazade

I would say that example is a false dichotomy. You're never going to find a case in Palestine or elsewhere in the world that someone blows themselves up purely for the religious reasons. There are clearly political and social motivations at play in every terrorist attack.

This relates directly to my main point though. Some some pundits want to use a suicide bombing in the West Bank as proof that Islam is "evil" or "dangerous" without addressing the elephant in the room--that the Palestinians are living in the world's "largest open-air prison" (to use Chomsky's words) and are resisting what they see as occupation of their lands in any way they can. It is no where near as simplistic as the "Muslims good/infidels bad cuz Koran says so" argument that some people seem to want to make.

And let's be clear, I'm not saying there aren't passages in the Koran that are being interpreted by Hamas and others as justification for the use of terrorism as an acceptable form of resistance. I'm saying this isn't unique to Islam. During the height of fighting in Northern Ireland both sides were using the Bible to justify the car bombs, assassinations, and other violence that occurred during The Troubles (another complex conflict where religious, political, and social issues intertwined). Yet I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would claim that Christianity is "evil" or "dangerous" based on what went down in Northern Ireland. It is a great example, though, of how any organized religion can be mobilized to support evil acts.

If you want to know why Gaza hasn't been rebuilt, you need to ask who exactly is supposed to do the work and buy the materials? Presumably, Hamas being the strongest faction and nominally ruling government of Gaza, it would be on them to rebuild. The answer then IMO, is that Hamas is too busy rebuilding what really matters to them, their military capacity to continue to wage more attacks on Israel.

To be fair, Israel hasn't done much to help rebuild Gaza either, but I still must insist that the biggest burden of failure is on the leadership in Gaza who are seemingly far more successful in acquiring small arms, rockets and fighters than concrete and construction crews.

Even if viewed from that angle, Hamas' actions have only worsened their own situation. When they won the election in 2006, they were given the opportunity to accept Israel's conditions in return for aid and support. They refused. Were Israel's sanctions justified? Maybe, maybe not. But Gaza would most certainly be better off simply accepting them. The alternative is what we have now.

There comes a point where you just need to swallow your pride and accept defeat. Hamas is never going to win a war against Israel. Their continued efforts have achieved nothing but the destruction of their own country and the people within. Politics and religion are not worth the death toll.

Now, someone is inevitably going to rant about sovereignty and freedom and all that. Tell me... should Germany have continued fighting after the fall of Berlin? Should Japan have continued fighting after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should Native Americans be launching rockets and bombing government buildings? No. You accept defeat and start taking the road to recovery.

Thanks for the *promote

I expect it would be a waste of keystrokes to point out that Hamas, although often unhelpful to the peace process, is not the only party to the conflict.

Lately the media seems to have been obsessed over Daesh, although there have been two vids on Gaza posted here in the past 24 hrs.

<retracted>
Edit: I find that position a disgusting hateful ignorant position to hold.
Ever consider maybe Hamas needs to take their land back? It was theirs first.

At this point, Israel are basically holding a midget at arm's length, kicking him in the balls with steel toe caps whilst Palestine slap ineffectually at their hand.

Israel has the capability to deal with the attacks on "their" land (let's not forget the UN recognise much of their occupation as illegal) without indiscriminate shelling of areas populated by MOSTLY innocent civilians. They are basically investing in future terrorism by choosing not to do so, giving themselves an excuse to elaborate on their prison camp which we refer to as Palestine.

You don't have to be FOR hamas to be AGAINST the killing of innocents, and i'm afraid Israel does the lion's (and the lioness', and the cubs') share of that. They can and should be better than retaliation.

I'm not a fan of Hamas at all.

If you were being extremely generous, you could argue that they have some extremist elements with some very unsavory views.

A more reasonable appraisal is that they are a pretty fucking awful organisation with a horrific humans rights record* who genuinely do want the jews annihilated.

But hey, do you know what will help the situation? Israel bombing schools! That will absolutely make the people of Gaza realise that israelis aren't bad guys at all. In no time at all, that will help foster a culture of understanding and harmony.

* And let's be honest here, the same is true for almost all Islamic states.

I wonder what sort of stuff would be on american television if they were imprisoned and illegally settled by another people? Are we also to call le resistance terrorists too? Polish ghetto uprising? They are similar to Hamas. But fortunately, that occupation didn't last long enough for children to grow into lifeless, soulless terrorists who had every shred of humanity ripped from them when they saw their childhood friends, pets, family ripped to pieces by indiscriminate shelling. God, if you didn't hate "the people" who did that beforehand, you would after. I don't support Hamas, but you can't possibly try to suggest they wouldn't exist anywhere else given the same circumstances. And furthermore you can't act like Israel's death tally is anything but an investment in MORE TERRORISM.

The numbers matter though - the numbers you see represents a massacre. If you took time to look it up, you'd find the majority of those killed in Palestine were women and children - something like 700, and it's rising, so even if you counted every Palestinian male above 18 was a terrorist using a child as a literal human shield, that's still more Palestinians than terrorists. This "human shield" thing hasn't been proven in any kind of article i've seen anyway, and i suspect it's simply to dehumanise them for western palatability.

It's the world's biggest concentration camp. Even the UN are beginning to say words to the effect now, do you think they go against American interests for fun?

Given the balance of women and children killed to men, and even allowing every man to be considered a terrorist, how can you think that 700 women and children to two is a matter of equality in everything but weaponry, and how can that be used to justify continuing on this path of destruction? Surely 700:2 has to be a good argument for a different approach?

I'm not after an argument here man, i'm trying to explain the other viewpoint.. More PEOPLE are dying by Israeli weapons than combatants, that is not a good way to end the hatred that leads to terrorist attacks..