Israel to World: "Suck It."

In other words, for all of the Israelis and Palestinians who support the two-state solution, I think the situation is under the control of people who want either no Israel or no Palestine.

Hurting, do you believe that Israel is bombing Gaza right now because they "do not really want a Palestinian state" or because they're responding to prolific rocket fire on southern Israel?

Obviously history is complex and events have many causes, contingency, etc, but one of those reasons seems indicated by the facts and history and other seems like a conspiracy theory.

phrasing the question that way takes the whole thing out of context. Yes, in the immediate sense they are responding to rocket fire, but I don't believe that bibi wants a palestinian state either. The larger thrust of Israeli policy has undermined the possibility of a palestinian state and actually provided fuel for Hamas.

I'm not sure I entirely disagree but I'm curious which Israel policies you feel have specifically undermined Gaza's ability to function as a state?

And how have they "provided fuel for Hamas?"

u trollin now dog

I think Abbas + Fatah have much more legitimate complaints about Israel, after all they have basically shut down violent resistance to Israel, they are building infrastructure in the West Bank, and have to deal with settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. By contrast, Israel has stayed out of Gaza. Now, the blockade is restrictive (though I think understandable, was eased after the flotilla incident, and would continue to be eased if a long period of peace occurred), but also has been almost entirely circumvented by the tunnels into Egypt. So I don't think it's 'trollin' to ask what the specific policies are that have 'provided fuel for Hamas,' outside the policy of being a Jewish State in the area previously known as Palestine.

Bibi's a pretty bloodthirsty dude, but imagine if his oh-so-different US presidential candidate had won.

I think the settlements in the West Bank are a legitimate Palestinian complaint. Israel shutting down violent resistance less so.

from a few days ago:

But Hamas has not been the principal one firing the rockets at Israel, at least not lately. Other, smaller militant groups in Gaza like Islamic Jihad and the popular resistance committees in the strip do much of the shooting, though the Al Qassam Brigade that Mr. Jabari headed until his death has taken credit for some attacks in recent weeks.

This may be a distinction without a difference to Israeli officials. They frequently argue that Hamas is the governing authority in Gaza, and therefore is de facto responsible for all rocket fire.

But Hamas has in fact been trying to keep rocket fire under control in the years since Israel's Operation Cast Lead in the territory in late 2008/early 2009. One of their most important men in keeping militancy under wraps? Mr. Jabari, who was powerful enough and respected enough to prevent a major outbreak of violence from Gaza that could have invited powerful reprisals.

idk I kind of think you're a sucker if you take that at face value.

xposts Josh, I don't think Mordy was referring to Israel, but to Abbas, when he wrote of "shut(ting) down violent resistance to Israel".

Regardless of whether Hamas has been firing them, they've been claiming them, no?

I mean "keeping militancy under wraps" = only 800-some-odd rockets fired into Israel so far this year.

Ah, OK.

also the rest of that article is kind of questionable. In the same breath we hear that hamas wants to stop the rockets, but also that Palestinians are 'understandably reluctant' to stop them (with a little not-excusing-it-but nb that the rockets are falling on areas that used to be palestinian -- thx for that), and then it actually turns out that trying too hard to stop the rockets would be a political problem. So....

http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/11/second-thoughts-about-defensive-means/

AP - Raw: Israel Shoots Down Tel Aviv-bound Rocket (Iron Dome footage):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BHpXGTi3kv4#!

i have nothing to offer to the discourse here but dang i just cannot imagine living anywhere (gaza, tel aviv, or w/e) that has to deal with the angst of impending missile strikes

Oh definitely. I would have peaced out of there so long ago. But you know, some people play beach volleyball under those conditions.

Stiff upper lip, England, WWII, etc.

God said this was my apartment 5000 years ago

I'm not sure I entirely disagree but I'm curious which Israel policies you feel have specifically undermined Gaza's ability to function as a state?
--Mordy

Is this a joke?

It's a tiny strip of land militarily occupied by Israel who prevent them from having anything approaching a functioning economy. They are basically impeding the creation of anything approaching what most people would consider real statehood in Gaza.

"It's a tiny strip of land militarily occupied by Israel"

Isarel IDF left Gaza long time ago

also, Israel provides them electricity and water.
they do seige them by sea - to prevent them from getting weapons.
other goods are provided.

the problem of course is not the common people in Gaza, but Hammas and other militant groups.
Gideon Levi (far-left) said yesterday he got calls from Gaza residents telling him Israel should terminate the Hammas.

which, imo, they wouldnt do cause of the high price in casualties, and the fact that the vacuum will be filling itself anyway after awhile with other militants who wont accept the existence of Israel.

"Oh definitely. I would have peaced out of there so long ago"

easier said than done

what Israel should do is talk.
the question is do they have a partner they can trust and vice versa.
the scepticism from both sides is very high and Abu Mazen/Netanyahu arent the strongest leaders around.

Isarel IDF left Gaza long time ago
--nostormo

So you opinion is that the lack of permanent military bases is the only determinant here?

also, Israel provides them electricity and water.
--nostormo

Such amazing generosity and yet amazingly so much of the population is malnourished...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/red-cross-official-gaza-isn-t-experiencing-a-humanitarian-crisis-1.357268

easier said than done

― nostormo, Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:54 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There is so much vacant Florida real estate...

xp doesn't the IDF basically always deny that there is EVER a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Sorry if I don't talk a quote from their website (regardless of the original source) terribly seriously.

Here is the women quoted in that article btw ACTUALLY talking about situation in Gaza barely a month after that nonsense pull quote was widely disseminated.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm

I'm not claiming that Gaza is a first world country. It has numerous issues and the quality of life is not high at all. I feel tremendous sympathy for innocent civilians stuck in a horrible situation. That said, Gaza shares a border with Egypt - a country that supposedly supports Gaza unequivocally run by a political organization with a tight relationship to Hamas. The Rafah border is wide open, in addition to hundreds of tunnels allowing both imports and exports through Gaza. Case in point, Hamas has been able to smuggle thousands of rockets into the country.

Oh definitely. I would have peaced out of there so long ago. But you know, some people play beach volleyball under those conditions.

― Judah Ben Ghazi (how's life), Saturday, 17 November 2012 23:54 (Yesterday) Permalink

Huge numbers of Israelis have been peaceing out for years. Unfortunately/somewhat ironically, it tends to be the more moderate or left israelis that leave for NY or berlin or we.

It's very common for soldiers to travel abroad for a long period after leaving the army.

Did you even read that article? Open Egypt border /= Gaza is on some path to anything approaching prosperity/economic independence.

Being as how you only found out 5 hours ago that there isn't a military occupation of Gaza (tho it seems there will be one shortly) maybe you don't have the most sophisticated understanding of the situation currently unfolding.

Just because you want to pretend that what's occurring in Gaza is not a military occupation /= it's not a military occupation (I think people who get their news from non-IDF propaganda tend to see it a little differently).

Maybe you'll discover that five hours from now, but somehow I'm thinking not.

I get my news almost exclusively from Haaretz. Is that IDF propaganda?

If the IDF is already occupying Gaza, how come Bibi keeps threatening to invade? Presumably the IDF is already inside? Or is this a non-traditional definition of military occupation?

Because as I understand the term, it means to occupy a territory with your military, not to unilaterally withdraw all civilians and soldiers from an area.

"I get my news almost exclusively from Haaretz. Is that IDF propaganda?"

You just linked to an article which was pure IDF propaganda reproduced (you know everyone knows that--all the news sources fucked up the Red Cross lady's name... oops.)

"Because as I understand the term, it means to occupy a territory with your military, not to unilaterally withdraw all civilians and soldiers from an area."

The IDF controls the borders, has designated areas as security zones and reserves the right to re-enter at will. That kinda undermines the "it's not a military occupation argument" in most people's minds. Whether or not they still have established bases is pretty immaterial.

If Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel today, Israel would never send another soldier back into Gaza.

And this argument is a stupid distraction anyway. You way above were like "I don't get what Israel has done to undermine Gaza as a state". Your point that "well they don't have BASES and TROOPS there now" is a distraction to that question. Israel is doing/has done quite a bit obv.

xp they don't need to so again that's beside the point.

Your answer to what Israel has done to undermine Gaza as a state was that they are militarily occupying the area, except that they aren't unless you use the term to mean that they could militarily occupy the area if they decided to, which means they're also currently occupying Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iran.