Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

I was most impressed with Occupation 101.

Heck while we're at it I'll throw American Radical at it. Less about the hard reality of occupation itself, but more about how an American academic gets ostracized for speaking the truth about occupation in mainstream media in USA.

 

[theignoramus]

Yes they would, they would continue to strike Hamas leaders, contraband tunnels and sites where they suspect rockets are prepared regardless how long have been since the last missile from Gaza.

Another problem is that even if a leader from Hamas is willing to negotiate (before being killed by Israel or by Palestinian radicals) there are other fanatic groups in Gaza that will keep launching missiles.

The circle of violence will continue.

too right you are. The airstrikes would continue, though not with this level intensity, regardless of the volume of rocket fire.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I completely agree, Israel is basically the only side that actually has the power to stop this crap, but it doesn't negate the actions of the other party, it shouldn't give them a free pass either. Innocent civilians should never be targeted by either side.

To stop what crap? People claiming that Hamas, a party whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, would stop targeting Israeli civilians if they stopped the settlements are delusional.

Nobody's arguing that the Israeli settlements aren't wrong, but the fact that 90% of the people in this thread only address the people shooting missiles at civilians with a brief "Not that this justifies that lol" is bizarre.

 

[TemplaerDude]

I'm sure the respective God's of whatever religions had this in mind.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm sure the respective God's of whatever religions had this in mind.

It's the same one and everyone's playing into His hands, wake up sheeple!

 

[RustyNails]

To stop what crap? People claiming that Hamas, a party whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, would stop targeting Israeli civilians if they stopped the settlements are delusional.

In this very own thread

Hamas supports the united Palestinian position calling for the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayam.

In a special interview with Wednesday's edition of the paper, Meshal said the Palestinian position had received a vote of consensus during the national accords of 2006 and that this position is considered acceptable to the Arab world at large.

Link

 

[theignoramus]

In my opinion, a child or an innocent civilian killed anywhere on earth is a giant painful loss.
Your conspiracy as if I.D.F "picks off" children just for the fun of it is a wild Incitement.
I.D.F before having any kind of airstrike drop off warning flyers to civilians to sway from Hamas areas for their own safety and broadcast warnings around the clock.

Bulldoze houses for the fun of it is Incitement too.
The houses searched were of Hamas leaders and terrorists which were packed with military capacity of weapons and ammo.

Im really annoyed with your posts in this thread, they're literally Israeli FM talking points, word for word.
anyway, I would encourage anyone who hasnt already to read the Goldstone report on Israel's last ground invasion of Gaza. Read about the water treatment plant bombed with no apparent Hamas operatives anywhere near it or the missile fired into a mosque with neither weapons nor enemy combatants found in or around it, or the white phosphorus artillery shells fired near a UN refugee shelter.
Theman2k's posts are flat earther style nonsense that reflect neither truth nor reality.

 

[benjipwns]

I.D.F before having any kind of airstrike drop off warning flyers to civilians to sway from Hamas areas for their own safety and broadcast warnings around the clock.

How do they make sure only civilians get the warning flyers?

 

[RustyNails]

How do they make sure only civilians get the warning flyers?

It's PR. The leaflets do nothing. Gaza is only 139 Sq Miles big, smaller than Wichita, Kansas. No matter which part you go to, you will be exposed to artillery strikes.

 

[DanteGhost]

Guys is there any unbiased news outlet where I can follow the news of the conflict? BBC and Reuters are a disgrace to follow.

 

[curlyfriski]

of course you never mentioned America, because the fact that racism exists everywhere else in the world hurts your argument. Numerous posters showed your claims that Israeli Arabs face institutionalised discrimination were untrue and so you changed your approach to 'well those who uphold the law are racist then', a much softer, and yet so far unsubstantiated claim that could be levelled at pretty much any modern democracy, certainly all of those I've lived in (UK, Holland, japan)

As far as I know, there are no members of the British cabinet who have advocated ethnic cleansing or executing nonwhite members of parliament like Avigdor Lieberman has. And I hope that 2/3 of American teens don't see a different ethnic group as "less intelligent, uncultured, and violent," like Israeli teens do. Nor is it a common sight to see gangs of right wing thugs running the streets of New York shouting "death to Arabs" and assaulting any they can find. Also, you might want to tell the US State Department that institutional discrimination against Arabs doesn't exist, considering that in their 2012 report on Human Rights Practices in Israel and the Occupied Territories they said "Arab citizens faced institutional and societal discrimination."

Guys is there any unbiased news outlet where I can follow the news of the conflict? BBC and Reuters are a disgrace to follow.

Unbiased news is a fiction.

 

[RustyNails]

Guys is there any unbiased news outlet where I can follow the news of the conflict? BBC and Reuters are a disgrace to follow.

http://america.aljazeera.com/

BBC is biased towards Israel. There's documentation to prove it.

 

[DanteGhost]

Unbiased news is a fiction.

Well I know, but at least closer to reality.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

In this very own thread

Link

How many times? They don't support an Israeli state with those borders, only a Palestinian one. From where to continue their stated goal of destroying Israel. Hamas consistently say they will not recognise Israel.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Im really annoyed with your posts in this thread, they're literally Israeli FM talking points, word for word.
anyway, I would encourage anyone who hasnt already to read the Goldstone report on Israel's last ground invasion of Gaza. Read about the water treatment plant bombed with no apparent Hamas operatives anywhere near it or the missile fired into a mosque with neither weapons nor enemy combatants found in or around it, or the white phosphorus artillery shells fired near a UN refugee shelter.
Theman2k's posts are flat earther style nonsense that reflect neither truth nor reality.

Goldstone himself has expressed his regret about how inaccurate and one sided that report was.

Edit regarding the BBC, if they are so biased towards Israel why did they launch an internal enquiry into claims of anti-Israel bias which they refuse to release the findings of? They aren't perfect but they are one of the most neutral sources. Certainly more neutral than Al jazeera, or someone on the other side like Fox News.

 

[Quotient]

In this very own thread

Link

You know whenever Hamas say something sensible to the western media, they turn around and tell Iranian press the opposite.

 

[dripdripsplash]

These are after the peace talks ended earlier this year.

Earlier this year ? They were build in honor of the killings that happened just a week ago. The article is from July the 4th.

 

[RustyNails]

How many times? They don't support an Israeli state with those borders, only a Palestinian one. From where to continue their stated goal of destroying Israel. Hamas consistently say they will not recognise Israel.

First of all, "destruction of Israel" is mutually exclusive with recognition of 67 borders. You either except 67 borders, or you destroy all of Israel making 67 borders moot. Secondly,
Hamas: We’ll recognize Israel within '67 borders
...He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights.

And many more sources. Besides, not recognizing Israel does not automatically mean you seek it's destruction. Lot of countries do not recognize Israel either. Cuba does not recognize Israel and neither does Venezuela.

Seems pretty reasonable of Hamas if you ask me. That is exactly what Irish Republican Army went through by the way. Unless Israel is pissing it's pants that a tiny country the size of Wichita, Kansas with TNT rockets can eliminate it from existence, there is no reason not to give Palestine it's own state.

 

[theignoramus]

Goldstone himself has expressed his regret about how inaccurate and one sided that report was.

Edit regarding the BBC, if they are so biased towards Israel why did they launch an internal enquiry into claims of anti-Israel bias which they refuse to release the findings of? They aren't perfect but they are one of the most neutral sources. Certainly more neutral than Al jazeera, or someone on the other side like Fox News.

The report merely corroborated the slew of other reports from such partisan groups as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Doctors Without Borders.
As for Goldstone himself, I recall him being subject to a tremendous defamation campaign from Israel supporters, Alan Dershowitz calling his report "blood libel" and even a rabbi in his own synagogue denouncing him.

I thought the poor man's retraction was unfortunate and cowardly, but irrelevant anyway, since the major allegations of that report, namely that Israel was responsible for the disproportionate use of force and collective punishment, were backed up by other NGOs.
So you can dismiss that report, but there are half a dozen others from credible organizations, all of whom drew the same conclusion about Israel's activity in that two week period.

 

[RustyNails]

Edit regarding the BBC, if they are so biased towards Israel why did they launch an internal enquiry into claims of anti-Israel bias which they refuse to release the findings of? They aren't perfect but they are one of the most neutral sources. Certainly more neutral than Al jazeera, or someone on the other side like Fox News.

Read this:
Why is the BBC seemingly determined to shield Israel from bad publicity by withholding important news stories from its audiences, while pushing anti-Palestinian stories provided by the Israeli army?

Over the last five weeks, the trend in BBC reporting to ignore events that show Israel in a negative light, while affording coverage to tenuous claims from the Israeli army that it has uncovered Palestinian “terror” plots, has become quite glaring.

On 19 March, a 14-year-old Palestinian child, Yussef Shawamreh, was shot in the back and hip by Israeli soldiers as he foraged for edible wild thistles on his family’s land in the occupied West Bank.

The child bled to death. His two friends, aged 12 and 17, were seized by soldiers dressed in black fatigues and wearing black face masks, and taken to a nearby illegal settlement, in handcuffs and blindfolds. There they were beaten for failing to answer questions in Hebrew, a language neither understands.

By any standards, the cold-blooded killing of a 14-year-old by soldiers, and the subsequent abuse of his young friends, is appalling. The media outcry if the boy had been Israeli and his killers Palestinian can only be guessed at.

As it is, with the dead child being Palestinian, the BBC ignored the story. The previous week, the BBC also failed to report on the killing on 10 March of university student Saji Darwish, also in the West Bank. Saji, a university student, was shot in the head by Israeli forces as he tended his goats.

When challenged by Palestine Solidarity Campaign on its failure to report on the killings of young Palestinians by the Israeli army – two in nine days – BBC Online’s Middle East desk wrote back saying: “There is no mandate to report every killing.” And so killings of Palestinians went by with the BBC’s journalists feeling under no obligation, or mandate, to report any of them.

Pressed further, the Middle East desk wrote back again to say: “The fact that we did not report the death of Yusef Abu Aker Shawamreh [sic] should not be construed as evidence of bias. There can be occasions where an incident does not get mentioned, possibly as a result of the prevailing news agenda.”

So what was the prevailing news agenda around the time of these youths’ deaths? According to BBC Online, it would appear to be an overwhelming concern with Israel’s security, and the threat the state claims it faces from Palestinians.

On 5 March, BBC Online ran with the story “Israel ‘halts weapons shipment from Iran.’” The article begins: “Israel says it has seized a ship carrying advanced Iranian weapons made in Syria that was heading towards Gaza.” The alleged weapons were surface-to-surface missiles.

The story continues: “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the shipment was a ‘clandestine operation’ by Iran, and added that the weapons would have been used against Israel.”

The BBC’s source for the story is, in its own words, “the Israel Defense Forces.” There is a link from the BBC’s page to the story on the Israeli army’s website.

However, while the BBC remained oblivious to the absurdities of claims that a missile-loaded ship might be headed to Gaza, under land, sea and air blockade, and to the possibility that it was acting as a pliable conduit for Israeli propaganda, more sceptical news organizations challenged Israel’s allegations.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran a story headlined: “Netanyahu’s display of seized ship: meaningless Hollywood-style propaganda.” Columnist Amir Oren writes: “From David Ben-Gurion’s time to the present, Israel has lied when it believed it had to.”

In its report “Doubts surface on Gaza destination of rockets seized by Israel,” the respected news agency Reuters quotes an unnamed US official as saying: “You look at those things and it’s obvious they couldn’t have been slipped into Gaza.”

Even the right-wing Times of Israel chose to cover the story from all angles, and not just from Israel’s perspective, as the BBC had done. Its report is headlined: “Iran arms ship may have been bound for Sinai, not Gaza.”

Correspondent Marissa Newman refers to investigations by US and Middle East intelligence analysts which concludes that: “Israel may have obfuscated [the ship’s] real destination in order to spare Egypt the humiliation of conceding the security unrest in the peninsula.”

Questioned on why the BBC is so willing to believe and report on all Israel has to say, the online Middle East desk replied: “The veracity of all stories can be called into question if there is not independent verification, but this depends on the reliability of the source and the credibility of the available information.”

And who is the source for this story? Back to the Middle East desk: “The article makes it clear that the announcement has come from Israel, i.e. that is the source.”

In other words, the BBC’s news teams are willing to throw journalistic values to the wind and accept Israel – a country which remains implicitly dishonest about its nuclear arsenal – as a credible and reliable source, in a way it probably wouldn’t do with any other country.

The Middle East desk certainly places what Israel has to say above what US and Middle East analysts have to say. Asked to follow up its original story by reporting on their doubts about the arms shipment, the Middle East desk replied that “to comment further would be purely speculative.”

So, according to the BBC, what US officials have to say is speculation, but what comes out of the mouths of Israeli officials is fact.

This week, BBC Online airbrushed another historical moment from its news pages. This time it was the comments of US Secretary of State John Kerry, blaming Israel for the breakdown of talks with the Palestinian Authority, which the BBC decided to withhold from its licence fee-paying audience.

Incredibly, the BBC begins its article in a way that placed the blame on the Palestinians for the collapse of the talks, a claim made by Israel. Once again, the BBC reported from the viewpoint of Israel. The US perspective that Israel precipitated the breakdown was not reported.

So why is BBC Online’s Middle East desk seemingly so determined to shield Israel from bad publicity by withholding important news stories from its audiences, while, on the other hand, pushing anti-Palestinian stories provided by the Israeli army?

Could it be anything to do with the desk’s editor, Raffi Berg, who took up his post in August 2013, and was exposed by The Electronic Intifada for having sent emails to BBC journalists asking them to promote the Israeli perspective in their reporting?

And then there is this video of Galloway vs BBC (actually this is Sky. Confused my UK news channels)

 

[Valhelm]

While BBC may be generally be biasaed toward Israel, a BBC anchor is tearing an Israeli politician a new one right now as he claims that "Hamas is built on the murder of Jews and Israel is only defending its people." He says that "the Palestinians as a nation support the murder of Jews".

 

[theignoramus]

I used to read Haaretz before they went to a paywall. They were very fair about presenting the Palestinian situation with their reporters embedded in the OT.
every network has a bias, but you will not get accurate reporting on the conflict by reading the major American or Canadian newspapers, they are shamefully biased towards Israel.
try the Guardian or the Independent or the Irish Times

 

[RustyNails]

I used to read Haaretz before they went to a paywall. They were very fair about presenting the Palestinian situation with their reporters embedded in the OT.
every network has a bias, but you will not get accurate reporting on the conflict by reading the major American or Canadian newspapers, they are shamefully biased towards Israel.
try the Guardian or the Independent or the Irish Times

Yeah Ha'aretz is pretty good. Their website is annoying though, with ads and weird layout. Their opinion pieces are awesome.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Read this:
Why is the BBC seemingly determined to shield Israel from bad publicity by withholding important news stories from its audiences, while pushing anti-Palestinian stories provided by the Israeli army?

And then there is this video of Galloway vs BBC (actually this is Sky. Confused my UK news channels)

I can't believe you even brought up Galloway in a discussion about bias.

 

[Chichikov]

+972 Magazine is really good.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I can't believe you even brought up Galloway in a discussion about bias.

Because it's not like he made a valid point prior to that being mentioned with fully cited sources. No, just attack the weaker section of the argument to distract from having no valid response to the stronger section.

 

[dripdripsplash]

+972 Magazine is really good.

This.

972 Always bring well articulated and well sourced articles. One of my go to sites for thoroughly researched articles on the conflict.

 

[GamerSoul]

That word right there is the sticking point mate. For Israel does NOT want peace. It is an irrefutable proof if looking at the actions of the state and even in it's inactions (when dealing with settlers for example)

This article by Gideon Levy, writing for Hareetz explains it very well:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601112


EDIT: And I just realized I bolded most of the article, just read the whole damn thing!

I read the whole thing. It's a very interesting perspective that in my opinion makes sense in most regards. thanks for sharing. Time to find another article on here. :3

 

[yarden24]

Yeah, used the last time during an "Israeli onslaught on the besieged territory from November 14 to 21, 2012, in which over 160 Palestinians, including women and children, were killed and about 1,200 others were injured."

So, again, used in a defensive position. Why doesn't Hamas use them when Israel is not conducting an invasion of Gaza?

because Hamas knows that using the more advanced rockets would elect a big response from the israeli government due to public pressure, that doesn't mean there aren't smaller 40km rockets that are fired relatively regularly,that the israeli majority in general as accepted already, and as such doesn't elect a public outcry.

 

[MistakenMobius]

Only solution would be to evacuate the israelis somewhere and just dismantle the Zionist state.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Because it's not like he made a valid point prior to that being mentioned with fully cited sources. No, just attack the weaker section of the argument to distract from having no valid response to the stronger section.

His 'stronger section' still isn't as strong as the BBC themselves launching and withholding the results from an inquiry. I remember many people being pissed off that the BBC didn't mention on the TV news that a Jewish family had been murdered in their sleep by a Palestinian a couple years ago. If I had a penny for every time someone moans about perceived bias of the BBC, one way or the other, I'd be raking it in from both sides.

Only solution would be to evacuate the israelis somewhere and just dismantle the Zionist state.

What have you got against the more than 1 million Muslim Israelis? Do they have to move?

 

[ramuh]

Im really annoyed with your posts in this thread, they're literally Israeli FM talking points, word for word.
anyway, I would encourage anyone who hasnt already to read the Goldstone report on Israel's last ground invasion of Gaza. Read about the water treatment plant bombed with no apparent Hamas operatives anywhere near it or the missile fired into a mosque with neither weapons nor enemy combatants found in or around it, or the white phosphorus artillery shells fired near a UN refugee shelter.
Theman2k's posts are flat earther style nonsense that reflect neither truth nor reality.

DIdn't the author retract parts of that report (don't know specifics) and said if he knew what he knows now, he would have written it differently.

 

[jakomocha]

And I hope that 2/3 of American teens don't see a different ethnic group as "less intelligent, uncultured, and violent," like Israeli teens do.

As a teenager who has teenage friends who live in Israel, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate your generalization.

 

[JohnDoe]

As a teenager who has teenage friends who live in Israel, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate your generalization.

Are you seriously calling a statistic on racism a generalization? LOL

 

[curlyfriski]

As a teenager who has teenage friends who live in Israel, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate your generalization.

It's not a generalization. It's a poll.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

As a teenager who has teenage friends who live in Israel, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate your generalization.

Those survey results don't imply your friends are racist.

I'm sure we could find surveys from Western countries which are equally disturbing. I remember a huge number of Polish teenagers saying they wouldn't want to live next to a Jew. Most of them don't have to because their grandparents gave them up to the Nazis but still.

 

[jakomocha]

It's not a generalization. It's a poll.

I somehow missed the 2/3rds part, and just thought curlyfriski was generalizing all Israeli teens (yes I did read the article though and know that it was a poll in there, I just thought curly was implying himself that all Israeli teens are racist). Sorry, I feel like an idiot . I guess I was just being defensive because I know these people well and I don't think they would ever look down upon someone because of their ethnic group. Sorry again.

 

[Chichikov]

Those survey results don't imply your friends are racist.

I'm sure we could find surveys from Western countries which are equally disturbing. I remember a huge number of Polish teenagers saying they wouldn't want to live next to a Jew. Most of them don't have to because their grandparents gave them up to the Nazis but still.

There are appalling levels of racism in Israel.
I do not know what in people's minds, but I have never been to a country that have such levels of racism in the public space.
Israelis tend to be taken aback by that (including my friends and family) but believe me, I traveled the world, it is not normal to have "death to [ethnic minority]" sprayed in graffiti all over your capital, nor is it normal to hear it changed in football matches and political rallies.

Yeah, it's not everyone, of course it isn't, but don't pretend like it's not a huuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, especially with orthodox Jews.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

There are appalling levels of racism in Israel.
I do not know what in people's minds, but I have never been to a country that have such levels of racism in the public space.
Israelis tend to be taken aback by that (including my friends and family) but believe me, I traveled the world, it is not normal to have "death to [ethnic minority]" sprayed in graffiti all over your capital, nor is it normal to hear it changed in football matches and political rallies.

Yeah, it's not everyone, of course it isn't, but don't pretend like it's not a huuuuuuuuuuuuge problem, especially with orthodox Jews.

I'm not pretending it isn't a huge problem. I'm saying it is a huge problem in many places, and that at least the law enshrines the rights of the minorities and makes racism against them illegal (most of the time...) I hate the orthodox racist idiots as much as you do, I promise.

In my country of residence, gangs of racists are free to drive convoys through areas where minorities live, blasting hateful nationalist propaganda like the graffiti you describe from megaphones. There are still signs outside some bars saying "no foreigners". I was once stopped by police to prove I am not an illegal immigrant 3 times in one week due to the colour of my skin. And I only live in fucking Japan.

And maybe you haven't been to enough football matches outside of Israel, lol.

 

[Vindicator]

All the infidels are just cattle that have to be led by the Superior Race.
Guess that would be World View of those ultra orthodox Settlers who seem to be quite influential in Israels politics.

Also, check out Michael ben Ari:

“For every one dead on our side, we need to kill 500 and not six.”

at least he's not in the Knesset anymore...

 

[Chichikov]

I'm not pretending it isn't a huge problem. I'm saying it is a huge problem in many places, and that at least the law enshrines the rights of the minorities and makes racism against them illegal (most of the time...) I hate the orthodox racist idiots as much as you do, I promise.

In my country of residence, gangs of racists are free to drive convoys through areas where minorities live, blasting hateful nationalist propaganda like the graffiti you describe from megaphones. There are still signs outside some bars saying "no foreigners". I was once stopped by police to prove I am not an illegal immigrant 3 times in one week due to the colour of my skin. And I only live in fucking Japan.

And maybe you haven't been to enough football matches outside of Israel, lol.

Good (bad?) point, Japan is racist as shit.
Anyway, I don't want to turn it into a racist-off, racism is unacceptable on any level, but you said "you can find equally disturbing polls from every western country" which imply that Israel has similar levels of racism as you see in most of the developed world.
And sadly it isn't.

You have majority of the population who wouldn't let their kid marry a Palestinian and a majority who wouldn't oppose having a Palestinian neighbor.
It's terrible and it's only getting worse with younger generations.

 

[michaelius]

Those survey results don't imply your friends are racist.

I'm sure we could find surveys from Western countries which are equally disturbing. I remember a huge number of Polish teenagers saying they wouldn't want to live next to a Jew. Most of them don't have to because their grandparents gave them up to the Nazis but still.

I'd be gratefull if you stopped spreading lies to prove your point.

 

[GuessWho]

I'll say this, if Hamas were to disarm itself you would most likely have some sort of peace in the region. If Israel would disarm itself, there would be no Israel.
Hamas is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, how does one negotiate with that?

 

[curlyfriski]

I'll say this, if Hamas were to disarm itself you would most likely have some sort of peace in the region. If Israel would disarm itself, there would be no Israel.
Hamas is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, how does one negotiate with that?

If Hamas disarmed Islamic Jihad or some other militant group would continue firing rockets and suddenly get a lot more popular.

 

[commedieu]

I'll say this, if Hamas were to disarm itself you would most likely have some sort of peace in the region. If Israel would disarm itself, there would be no Israel.
Hamas is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, how does one negotiate with that?

So constant war then? Yes? Forever.

 

[Chichikov]

I'll say this, if Hamas were to disarm itself you would most likely have some sort of peace in the region. If Israel would disarm itself, there would be no Israel.
Hamas is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, how does one negotiate with that?

There was practically no resistance for the first 20 years of the occupation and Israel did shit and all.
Sadly, only violence gets Israel to the negotiating table.

I mean shit, look at what going on the west bank right, you have a very pragmatic leadership who do everything in their power to stop any sort of violence and terror attacks, and what did they get for their trouble?

 

[ankuo]

I'll say this, if Hamas were to disarm itself you would most likely have some sort of peace in the region. If Israel would disarm itself, there would be no Israel.
Hamas is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, how does one negotiate with that?

Nope pure delusion = more settlements and it would be cheaper for them to do it with little to no resistance.

 

[Cheesecakebobby]

Nope pure delusion = more settlements and it would be cheaper for them to do it with little to no resistance.

if you think Hamas have in any way reduced the number of settlements being built and hasn't bolstered support for hard line rightists, you are the delusional one I'm afraid.

I'd be gratefull if you stopped spreading lies to prove your point.

I was being facetious so apologies to Polish gaf. We should acknowledge that there is a thread of Jew hatred in Poland that runs back many years and appeared as it's worst in WW2 though. Here's a good book on the topic.Sorry for off topic.

 

[Aaron]

I'll say this, if Hamas were to disarm itself you would most likely have some sort of peace in the region. If Israel would disarm itself, there would be no Israel.
Hamas is hell bent on the destruction of Israel, how does one negotiate with that?

Only because soon after that there would be no more Palestine. Israel would have bulldozed and resettled it all.

 

[michaelius]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Israel's own creation was on the back of some pretty heinous terrorism, although I'd doubt many in Israel would see it that way.

The Palestinians can't win. Lash out they get bombed and more land is stolen. Do nothing, and more land is stolen. The reasons they attack are probably a mix of understandable anger at their situation, genuine hatred of their 'oppressors', and the tactical decision to remind the world of their situation as the world only focuses on the issue when violence flares. Largely their attacks fail on a practical and tactical basis. It's counter productive but their attacks are not exactly without provocation.

Sophistry - Even during WW II in Europe where Germans killed whole villages as a responce to attacks against their military forces or for a crime of helping Jews people from occupied nations never resorted to indiscriminate attacks against german civilians.

There's a clear distinction beetween freedom fighter and terrorist - freedom fighters will attack only military targets or infrastructure that is important to war effort , terrorists will attack civilians because they are easier targets and blowing up bus full of school kids makes bigger "effect" on enemies.