News Stories

[Haak]

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16011926

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Israel is particularly known for it's overly large and unweildy coalitions.

Israel has the most proportional electoral system of any modern democracy. Even very small parties can usually obtain a seat or two in the Knesset. In the decades after independence this wasn't as much of a problem as Labour, then later Likud, could command a large block of seats. Nowadays there are lots of splinter parties, particularly on the extreme right. Building a workable government thus requires making deals with a number of coalition partners, usually by giving them key ministries or other ploys. Here's a review and criticism of Israel's electoral system by a well-known scholar of the Middle East.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Israel has the most proportional electoral system of any modern democracy. Even very small parties can usually obtain a seat or two in the Knesset. In the decades after independence this wasn't as much of a problem as Labour, then later Likud, could command a large block of seats. Nowadays there are lots of splinter parties, particularly on the extreme right. Building a workable government thus requires making deals with a number of coalition partners, usually by giving them key ministries or other ploys. Here's a review and criticism of Israel's electoral system by a well-known scholar of the Middle East.

for the record, the system is so broken and requires so many "deals with the devil" that the term "Go-alition" has been coined to describe it. (Go-al = Disgust in Hebrew).

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

someone want to explain how Israel is friend of the US?

Just to say, the Daily Fail (as it's affectionately known round these parts) picked up that story a little wrong.

Here's a few of the differences;

1. It's not Netanyahu, but the Ministry of Absorption who was in charge of this "campaign", if you could call it that.

2. The "campaign" itself was a series of Hebrew language adverts, which I've seen, which address the high rate of Jewish inter-marriage and assimilation outside of the land of Israel. This is hardly an attack on the US, but basically amounts to scare-mongering aimed to try and increase the number of Jewish people who choose to make aliyah.

3. The adverts have already been cancelled by Netanyahu himself http://bit.ly/un49YW

4. To answer your question, Israel is an ally of the US as it is the only modern and free democracy in the entire Middle East. Oh and over 70% of Americans support it. That's probably a good reason too.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

for the record, the system is so broken and requires so many "deals with the devil" that the term "Go-alition" has been coined to describe it. (Go-al = Disgust in Hebrew).

It's the reason than Israel's situation was often said to me , to be the best argument against proportional electoral system.

[DonQuigleone]

Eh, in Ireland we also have a PR system that usually leads to Coalitions, but it never gets nearly as bad as Israel.

I think it's as much due to the fractured nature of Israeli society as anything else. The fact that far right parties like that are able to get so many votes is the more worrying thing. Too much of the country is dominated by the far right, 38 seats in the Knesset are held by far right Jewish parties, almost a third of the Knesset, under a less proportional system those Far right votes would be just as powerful, if less fractious. A lot of it is due to the recent influx of Russian Jews after the fall of Communism, who tend to have a somewhat more nationalistic and authoritarian point of view. Avigdor Lieberman is practically a fascist.

I didn't love Ariel Sharon, but compared to the current lot he was an angel. Things were moving in the direction of disengagement and compromise. Now it's just jingoism and rampant nationalism.

[SaintessHeart]

From a psychological point of view, it seems that the far right got so many votes is because of the current unrest in the mideast, they probably fear that the new governments may even be more anti-semite and aggressive as before.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I didn't love Ariel Sharon, but compared to the current lot he was an angel. Things were moving in the direction of disengagement and compromise. Now it's just jingoism and rampant nationalism.

Was this really necessary?

It's easy for you to talk about disengagement and compromise sitting in Ireland, but for the people living in Israel it is a matter of life and death. Even those who supported the removal of Jews from Gush Katif (Gaza) admit that it was one of the biggest errors the state has ever made. Who are you to suggest any further disengagement and compromise won't result in exactly the same increase in terrorism when neither the PA or Hamas recognizes the Jewish state's right to exist?

Your posts in this thread would be so much more credible if you weren't always looking to score cheap hits on Israel any time any topic relating to it is brought up.

[Haak]

No personal attacks please. Just keep to criticising his arguments.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

Was this really necessary?

It's easy for you to talk about disengagement and compromise sitting in Ireland, but for the people living in Israel it is a matter of life and death. Even those who supported the removal of Jews from Gush Katif (Gaza) admit that it was one of the biggest errors the state has ever made. Who are you to suggest any further disengagement and compromise won't result in exactly the same increase in terrorism when neither the PA or Hamas recognizes the Jewish state's right to exist?

Your posts in this thread would be so much more credible if you weren't always looking to score cheap hits on Israel any time any topic relating to it is brought up.

We've dealt with terrorists in Ireland (well, Northern Ireland).

The way to deal with the terrorist problem in Israel is to eliminate their base of support, Arabs, living inside and outside Palestine.

Unless you eliminate that base of support, no amount of military action will achieve a thing, because as soon as one terrorist group is eliminated, another will arise in it's place, like a phoenix out of the ashes.

There are only two ways to eliminate that base of support: 1. kill them all or 2. Satisfy enough of their grievances that they move on and forget about it.

1. is basically impossible, short of using nuclear weapons to purge everyone out of the Middle East (and is Genocide...).

2. Is possible, but only with some political will. It does not require anyone in the Palestinian factions to do (as frankly, there is no Palestinian faction to even negotiate with...). What is needed is an economic and liberal solution, the West Bank and Gaza strip need a certain level of prosperity. When people are buying televisions and earning money they forget about nationalism. Furthermore, Arabs must be kept enfranchised within Israel, and Israel must cultivate good trading relations with it's neighbours. Germany forgets about Alsace-Lorraine when they're good solid trading partners with France.

A country can not live in a continuous slow burning state of war with a minority in it's country, and also it's immediate neighbours. If it does, inevitably it will lose.

What israel is doing now is leaving Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza in extreme poverty, where they are left to stew, and invariously they blame their situation of the entity that is hegemon over them:Israel.

In Northern Ireland there was a similiar (if far less extreme) situation. The only way that the violence stopped was when Irish Nationalists were brought into a powersharing governments with Ulster Unionists, and the systemic economic inequalities in NI were dealt with. The actual security operations of the UK were quite fruitless, and achieved little. But a compromise solution was found, and Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, despite 30 years of fighting over it.

Trying to stop the flow of terrorists into Israel is like trying to plug a leaking dam. It's a matter of resources. If the minority is small, you can just use security forces and ignore them, for instance your average Communist/Anarchist movement in any Western European country. But if the group of people the movement is drawing from is large enough, the movement is impossible to resist, you can plug it for a while, but invariably leaks will spring, and you'll end out being washed away.

The UK, one of the most powerful countries in the world, could not withstand a small minority (~600,000) of disenfranchised Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. What hope does Israel have against Millions and Millions of Arabs, that surround it on every single side. The security costs are already a major strain, and unless the underlying problem is solved, the situation will invariably get worse and worse, and inevitably Israel will be bankrupted, and ultimately destroyed. Such a huge tide can not be fought with conventional means.

The real solution to plugging that leaking dam is to remove the water behind it, with it's current policies, Israel can not improve it's situation, as it can not remove that metaphorical water. The terrorists don't give a damn if you have overwhelming force to crush them, as they have nothing to lose. Once they have something to lose, well, they might be a bit more hesitant to start attacking. Israel needs to give them something to lose, and it has to be a lot more substantial and material then what it has done in the past.

Now I'm not saying it's easy, the middle east is a very big place, and Israel is very small. But they won't get anywhere lobbing bombs. For every terrorist they kill, they're just creating 5 new ones, in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere.

I don't personally think the 2 state solution is really tenable, but a "one Jewish State" solution isn't tenable either. There's 4 million militant impoverished Arabs in the territories with nowhere to go. Israel can either kill them all, or try and find some way to accomodate them...

Otherwise, this violence isn't going to end. It's already gone on for well over 20 years, with wars with every other arab country well before that. The military expenses are already straining the Israeli economy, while the Arabs in Palestine have no economy to be speak of to be strained. Who do you think will break first? I'd like to think it's the Palestinians, but I have my doubts. My own view is that you can't win, in a conventional sense, against a group like Hamas. You can destroy it's physical elements, but so long as Hamas still exists in the minds of millions of young Arab men, you've achieved nothing but delaying the inevitable. In fact, in a sense, they've already won, because they've made Israel's life a living hell, they are steadily dragging Israel down to the level they exist at, in economic and social terms.

Put it this way, in the last 5 years, have things gotten better or worse? If things haven't improved in the last 5 years with those policies, then they're not going to improve in the next 5 years with the same policies.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

Was this really necessary?

It's easy for you to talk about disengagement and compromise sitting in Ireland, but for the people living in Israel it is a matter of life and death. Even those who supported the removal of Jews from Gush Katif (Gaza) admit that it was one of the biggest errors the state has ever made. Who are you to suggest any further disengagement and compromise won't result in exactly the same increase in terrorism when neither the PA or Hamas recognizes the Jewish state's right to exist?

Your posts in this thread would be so much more credible if you weren't always looking to score cheap hits on Israel any time any topic relating to it is brought up.

If you want to start a flame war, go elsewhere. This is a discussion and positioning of arguments is a norm, your cheap remarks to put him down are no cheaper than you declare him to be.

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

We've dealt with terrorists in Ireland (well, Northern Ireland).

I live in Northern Ireland, I'm all too familiar with the troubles, however the two are completely unrelated. The heart of Republican terrorism was a nationalistic desire to see the unification of Ireland. While the words nationalist/catholic and unionist/protestant are interchangeable here, the conflict had little to nothing to do with religion at all.

The way to deal with the terrorist problem in Israel is to eliminate their base of support, Arabs, living inside and outside Palestine.

I disagree. Arabs living in Israel by and large don't support the palestinian cause at all. I personally know several Israeli Arabs who are outright against it. That's not to say they support everything that Israel does either, but they live a comfortable and modern life and the majority are quite happy with that. Case in point; 20% of students at Ariel University (in a major settlement) are Arab.

Unless you eliminate that base of support, no amount of military action will achieve a thing, because as soon as one terrorist group is eliminated, another will arise in it's place, like a phoenix out of the ashes.

This isn't necessarily about eliminating terrorism. That's by and large impossible, because terrorism is an extremist viewpoint that will always exist. It's about defending innocent civilians from the effects of terrorism.

A country can not live in a continuous slow burning state of war with a minority in it's country, and also it's immediate neighbours. If it does, inevitably it will lose.

Nobody wants war, least of all Israel. It has no choice but to defend itself and continue to exist. Who would want to be bordered by Hamastan, the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah controlled Lebanon, Syria, increasingly extremist Egypt etc? But what can they do?

What israel is doing now is leaving Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza in extreme poverty, where they are left to stew, and invariously they blame their situation of the entity that is hegemon over them:Israel.

There is no poverty in the West Bank and Gaza. Perhaps there was when Arafat embezzled billions of dollars of aid every year. Not any more.

In Northern Ireland there was a similiar (if far less extreme) situation. The only way that the violence stopped was when Irish Nationalists were brought into a powersharing governments with Ulster Unionists, and the systemic economic inequalities in NI were dealt with. The actual security operations of the UK were quite fruitless, and achieved little. But a compromise solution was found, and Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, despite 30 years of fighting over it.

The situation in Northern Ireland is vastly different. Nevertheless, people who killed and bombed and maimed others now serve in it's devolved government. Never mind the victims, no other modern democracy would ever conceive of rewarding terrorism in such a manner. Particularly if said terrorists are unwilling to even negotiate on that modern democracy's right to exist.

The UK, one of the most powerful countries in the world, could not withstand a small minority (~600,000) of disenfranchised Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. What hope does Israel have against Millions and Millions of Arabs, that surround it on every single side. The security costs are already a major strain, and unless the underlying problem is solved, the situation will invariably get worse and worse, and inevitably Israel will be bankrupted, and ultimately destroyed. Such a huge tide can not be fought with conventional means.

Ignoring the fact that Israel's economy is actually booming, the financial cost of a country protecting it's citizens is a non-issue. It's the very baseline for any government. America and Europe still pour billions into defense every year despite their economic woes for this very reason.

The real solution to plugging that leaking dam is to remove the water behind it, with it's current policies, Israel can not improve it's situation, as it can not remove that metaphorical water. The terrorists don't give a damn if you have overwhelming force to crush them, as they have nothing to lose. Once they have something to lose, well, they might be a bit more hesitant to start attacking. Israel needs to give them something to lose, and it has to be a lot more substantial and material then what it has done in the past.

What do you suggest Israel do then? By your previous post I'd assume you indicate that retreating from areas won in the 1967 Six Day War would provide security and pacify the hostile arab nations? What about the ones who don't think Israel should exist at all? The same ones who rejected the original partition plan? Why has leaving territory, or opening checkpoints etc only been met with increased terrorism up till now?

I don't personally think the 2 state solution is really tenable, but a "one Jewish State" solution isn't tenable either. There's 4 million militant impoverished Arabs in the territories with nowhere to go. Israel can either kill them all, or try and find some way to accomodate them...

It's mostly the left (Kadima et al) who are in favor of the 2 state solution as stated. They believe the demographic timebomb of arab fertility would eventually swallow Israel's Jewish character, which is a fair point (though hotly debated by the experts). That being so, too much emphasis is put on it altogether.

The hostilities don't exist because of any land issues, but religious ones. Jews are forbidden from praying on the Temple Mount. Christians can. Muslims can. Daoists can (meditate?) The second a Jew bends over to pray, the Waqf can have him arrested. This is one example out of many, but the point is that the hostilities are there by and large because of radical, militant Islam.

What can you do with such a mindset?

Put it this way, in the last 5 years, have things gotten better or worse? If things haven't improved in the last 5 years with those policies, then they're not going to improve in the next 5 years with the same policies.

Things haven't improved since the PA was promptly kicked out of Jordan, followed by Lebanon only to end up in the West Bank. How did Jordan deal with palestinian nationalism? Murdered thousands of them and turfed them all out (see; Black September 1970). Unfortunately for Jordan, a majority of their citizens are now palestinians no longer disposed towards the Hashemite monarchy.

I don't pretend to have an answer how to solve the conflict. I just would personally prefer you and others to show discretion when it comes to Israel's attempts to defend it's own citizens (be they Arab or Jew).

If you want to start a flame war, go elsewhere. This is a discussion and positioning of arguments is a norm, your cheap remarks to put him down are no cheaper than you declare him to be.

Nothing flame war about it. This is a place to post News Stories. If a News Story comes about involving Israel, it'd be great if people could center their discussions into whatever happens to be relevant to that News Story (ie, stay on topic). Every time someone mentions Israel, we do not need to bring up the conflict and/or what we think Israel should be doing.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

There is no poverty in the West Bank and Gaza. Perhaps there was when Arafat embezzled billions of dollars of aid every year. Not any more.

I think you have lost a big part of the argument by claiming that, since a simple google search tells the story differently.

Almost 58 percent of Palestinians live in poverty, and about half of this group lives in extreme poverty. About 50 percent of Palestinians experience or risk experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity is particularly severe in Gaza, where the majority of the population relies on humanitarian assistance to survive. The rate of chronic malnutrition in children under the age of five has increased, reaching almost 10 percent, and the mortality figures for children under the age of one and under the age of five have each increased by about 30 percent. Anaemia is common, with 55 percent of children under the age of three affected by the condition. Among pregnant women, the rate is 36 percent―46 percent for nursing mothers. The West Bank and Gaza ranks 114 out of 187 countries on the United Nations Development Programme's 2011 human development index.

Source: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida...-124144933-R9J by Canadian International Development Agency

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I think you have lost a big part of the argument by claiming that, since a simple google search tells the story differently.

Source: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida...-124144933-R9J by Canadian International Development Agency

That's a fair point, mind you it's certainly improving. Life in the Palestinian Territories is quite modern and Gaza regularly builds new strip malls and infrastructure. I was trying to suggest that the economic situation in the Palestinian Territories didn't indicate that there was any poverty. Though that can be said of any developing country. Israel has the same issue, where the rich are very rich and the poor live in poverty.

EDIT: Occupy Ramalah?

[Haak]

Just a few points:

Spoiler for space:

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

This isn't necessarily about eliminating terrorism. That's by and large impossible, because terrorism is an extremist viewpoint that will always exist. It's about defending innocent civilians from the effects of terrorism.

Do innocent civilians include the Palestinians in Gaza or other Arab countries? Because I doubt they’ve been rather well protected against the affects of terrorism. Don said “eliminate their base of support” which would effectively diminish the effects of terrorism and consequently defend innocent civilians for everyone far better in the long run.
It’s somewhat similar to how America dealt in Iraq and found that using heavy handed methods only ended up increasing support for the terrorists whilst undermining the insurgency was effect in reducing violence. David Petreus practically wrote the book on counter insurgency:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

Nobody wants war, least of all Israel. It has no choice but to defend itself and continue to exist. Who would want to be bordered by Hamastan, the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah controlled Lebanon, Syria, increasingly extremist Egypt etc? But what can they do?

The rest of Don’s post was meant to answer that question. I think it’s a little silly for you to take that bit and address it as a separate point.

There is no poverty in the West Bank and Gaza. Perhaps there was when Arafat embezzled billions of dollars of aid every year. Not any more.

...
I don’t know about West Bank but I’m pretty sure the majority of Gaza are living in what is close to poverty if not outright.

The situation in Northern Ireland is vastly different. Nevertheless, people who killed and bombed and maimed others now serve in it's devolved government. Never mind the victims, no other modern democracy would ever conceive of rewarding terrorism in such a manner. Particularly if said terrorists are unwilling to even negotiate on that modern democracy's right to exist.

Erm...didn’t Israel elect Menachem Begin a known terrorist and Ariel Sharon, a man involved in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and didn’t they just recently give out awards to the soldiers responsible for the Lavon Affair?
Also America has actually been involved in a lot of deal cuttings with known terrorists that have involved giving them some power, in Iraq, particularly the Sunni side. And in the end they still never dealt with the Sadrists.

What do you suggest Israel do then? By your previous post I'd assume you indicate that retreating from areas won in the 1967 Six Day War would provide security and pacify the hostile arab nations? What about the ones who don't think Israel should exist at all? The same ones who rejected the original partition plan? Why has leaving territory, or opening checkpoints etc only been met with increased terrorism up till now?

He said already that removing their base of support and bringing them involved in politics would help.

It's mostly the left (Kadima et al) who are in favor of the 2 state solution as stated. They believe the demographic timebomb of arab fertility would eventually swallow Israel's Jewish character, which is a fair point (though hotly debated by the experts). That being so, too much emphasis is put on it altogether.
The hostilities don't exist because of any land issues, but religious ones. Jews are forbidden from praying on the Temple Mount. Christians can. Muslims can. Daoists can (meditate?) The second a Jew bends over to pray, the Waqf can have him arrested. This is one example out of many, but the point is that the hostilities are there by and large because of radical, militant Islam.
What can you do with such a mindset?

He said already that removing their base of support and bringing them involved in politics would help.

Things haven't improved since the PA was promptly kicked out of Jordan, followed by Lebanon only to end up in the West Bank. How did Jordan deal with palestinian nationalism? Murdered thousands of them and turfed them all out (see; Black September 1970). Unfortunately for Jordan, a majority of their citizens are now palestinians no longer disposed towards the Hashemite monarchy.

I don't pretend to have an answer how to solve the conflict. I just would personally prefer you and others to show discretion when it comes to Israel's attempts to defend it's own citizens (be they Arab or Jew).

Lol, criticising Israel is a perfectly legitimate activity. Bashing may not be but I can’t see anything in Don’s post that was remotely bashing. He was making genuine criticisms, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Nothing flame war about it. This is a place to post News Stories. If a News Story comes about involving Israel, it'd be great if people could center their discussions into whatever happens to be relevant to that News Story (ie, stay on topic). Every time someone mentions Israel, we do not need to bring up the conflict and/or what we think Israel should be doing.

If that’s the case then why did you argue with him and lead the entire thing even more off topic? Also, Don did not lead anything off topic. The conversation turned into a discussion about Israel’s political system and Don made genuine comments on that subject.

And now for something completely different:
Clashes in Yemen

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Haak

Just a few points:

Spoiler for space:

Do innocent civilians include the Palestinians in Gaza or other Arab countries? Because I doubt they’ve been rather well protected against the affects of terrorism. Don said “eliminate their base of support” which would effectively diminish the effects of terrorism and consequently defend innocent civilians for everyone far better in the long run.
It’s somewhat similar to how America dealt in Iraq and found that using heavy handed methods only ended up increasing support for the terrorists whilst undermining the insurgency was effect in reducing violence. David Petreus practically wrote the book on counter insurgency:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

The rest of Don’s post was meant to answer that question. I think it’s a little silly for you to take that bit and address it as a separate point.

...
I don’t know about West Bank but I’m pretty sure the majority of Gaza are living in what is close to poverty if not outright.


Erm...didn’t Israel elect Menachem Begin a known terrorist and Ariel Sharon, a man involved in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and didn’t they just recently give out awards to the soldiers responsible for the Lavon Affair?
Also America has actually been involved in a lot of deal cuttings with known terrorists that have involved giving them some power, in Iraq, particularly the Sunni side. And in the end they still never dealt with the Sadrists.




He said already that removing their base of support and bringing them involved in politics would help.

He said already that removing their base of support and bringing them involved in politics would help.


Lol, criticising Israel is a perfectly legitimate activity. Bashing may not be but I can’t see anything in Don’s post that was remotely bashing. He was making genuine criticisms, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.



If that’s the case then why did you argue with him and lead the entire thing even more off topic? Also, Don did not lead anything off topic. The conversation turned into a discussion about Israel’s political system and Don made genuine comments on that subject.

And now for something completely different:
Clashes in Yemen

Saying "eliminate their base of support" is not a valid answer nor workable solution to the continued rise of extremist militant Islam and the middle east conflict, especially for Israel. I can't imagine why you believe it would be.

The discussion was Israel's political system, ie PR. That has nothing to do with disengagement and appeasement. Criticizing Israel is perfectly legitimate, I do it frequently. It seems to me we have some round here who will take any opportunity to do so. That's not what this thread exists for.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

I live in Northern Ireland, I'm all too familiar with the troubles, however the two are completely unrelated. The heart of Republican terrorism was a nationalistic desire to see the unification of Ireland. While the words nationalist/catholic and unionist/protestant are interchangeable here, the conflict had little to nothing to do with religion at all.

I disagree, they're both driven by Nationalism, on both sides. And both consist of a state trying to supress a paramiliatary force. There are of course differences, but the core issue is similiar. Likewise ETA in Spain, or Chechens in Russia etc. etc.

I disagree. Arabs living in Israel by and large don't support the palestinian cause at all. I personally know several Israeli Arabs who are outright against it. That's not to say they support everything that Israel does either, but they live a comfortable and modern life and the majority are quite happy with that. Case in point; 20% of students at Ariel University (in a major settlement) are Arab.

I was referring to Palestine, not Israel, IE the territories. However, the Arabs living in Israel aren't too big on Israel either, all the Arabic parties in Israel are quite anti-Israeli, and Arabs living in Israel experience routine discrimination (google it).

This isn't necessarily about eliminating terrorism. That's by and large impossible, because terrorism is an extremist viewpoint that will always exist. It's about defending innocent civilians from the effects of terrorism.

Terrorism can be eliminated, at the source. Also, look at the lopsided nature of the number of casualties. In any given Palestinian Arab/Israeli Fracas the number of Arab casualties is in the thousands or even tens of thousands. Israel seldom has more then a few hundred casualties. Far more "innocent palestinians" are dying to Israeli army attacks then Israeli civilians, and that's a fact.

Nobody wants war, least of all Israel. It has no choice but to defend itself and continue to exist. Who would want to be bordered by Hamastan, the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah controlled Lebanon, Syria, increasingly extremist Egypt etc? But what can they do?

Well they can stop using disproportionate force to fight off Palestinian Militants, for starters. Rather then rolling in with tanks, airstrikes and Artillery bombardments, that kill indiscriminately, they could hold back and focus on killing militants more ... precisely. That would entail more casualties on their part though so...

But put it this way, the terrorist groups are more popular now then they've ever been before. Israel hasn't fixed it's problem. It's only won temporary battles.

There is no poverty in the West Bank and Gaza. Perhaps there was when Arafat embezzled billions of dollars of aid every year. Not any more.

Sure, they get "aid" from Israel, but half of people living in Gaza are unemployed, and the west bank is better at 17%.

Considering that Gaza has far more militants then the West Bank, I think Economics has a lot to do with it. Young unemployed Arabic men have nothing to do but blow themselves up, and see no way for their life to improve in the future.

I thought this was a pretty good documentary (channel 4). It's about Gazans who want to compete in the Paralympics, but is also a general look at gaza.

The situation in Northern Ireland is vastly different. Nevertheless, people who killed and bombed and maimed others now serve in it's devolved government. Never mind the victims, no other modern democracy would ever conceive of rewarding terrorism in such a manner. Particularly if said terrorists are unwilling to even negotiate on that modern democracy's right to exist.

I don't think Israel should negotiate with the terrorists, but I do think they should be focussed on directly improving the lives of Arabs. They should focus on building up a faction within the Palestinian community that is more friendly with them. Fighting them with fire is only playing into the viewpoint that the terrorist organisations espouse.

In Northern Ireland, the British worked with the SDLP, and worked on eliminating the practical matters that alienated the Catholic Minority. At no point did they directly meet the demands of Sinn Fein or the IRA, until Sinn Fein was forced to come to table due to the IRA losing it's support base. Once people were no longer dissatisfied with the discriminatory police force, and more was done to ensure equal opportunity for Catholics, and also to ensure their representation in parliament, then the IRA was forced to compromise due to Irish Catholics losing their fundamental reasons for opposing the British State. Sure Irish Catholics still believed in a "United Ireland", but they were satisfied that they could live satisfactorily within the UK, so they switched from using Violence, to using the political process.

Now the IRA is a shadow of it's former self, and has basically just become an organised crime racket.

Ignoring the fact that Israel's economy is actually booming, the financial cost of a country protecting it's citizens is a non-issue. It's the very baseline for any government. America and Europe still pour billions into defense every year despite their economic woes for this very reason.

Israel has the 6th highest military spending as a % of GDP of any country, at 6.3%, or 15% of the total budget($16 billion). That's not counting how much money it takes to send aid to the Palestinians, to continuously repair all the damaged buildings and more. America sends about $3 billion dollars to Israel as well.

According to Wikipedia, the cost of the conflict to Israel is $1 trillion between 1990 and 2010. You can take or leave that number.

Not only that, but within Israel there's a lot of social unrest due to the conflict, for instance there's a growing rift between the Ultra Orthodox and secular Israelis over the exemption of Orthodox Jews to conscription.

What do you suggest Israel do then? By your previous post I'd assume you indicate that retreating from areas won in the 1967 Six Day War would provide security and pacify the hostile arab nations? What about the ones who don't think Israel should exist at all? The same ones who rejected the original partition plan? Why has leaving territory, or opening checkpoints etc only been met with increased terrorism up till now?

The first thing Israel could do is give Israeli Arabs more representation in an Israeli government. There could be a law requiring at least 10% of the rulling coalition, and at least 2 cabinet members, to be arabs, somewhat similiar to Northern Ireland's Powersharing agreement.

As for Gaza, they need to loosed the blockade, and build back up the Gazan economy.

Finally, they need to halt the building of all settlements, and remove any recently built settlements within the West Bank.

They should halt all moves to define Israel as being a state "purely for Jews".

It's mostly the left (Kadima et al) who are in favor of the 2 state solution as stated. They believe the demographic timebomb of arab fertility would eventually swallow Israel's Jewish character, which is a fair point (though hotly debated by the experts). That being so, too much emphasis is put on it altogether.

The hostilities don't exist because of any land issues, but religious ones. Jews are forbidden from praying on the Temple Mount. Christians can. Muslims can. Daoists can (meditate?) The second a Jew bends over to pray, the Waqf can have him arrested. This is one example out of many, but the point is that the hostilities are there by and large because of radical, militant Islam.

What can you do with such a mindset?

The problem is not primarily a religious one, it is a nationalist one. Two groups of "nations" believe that a particular piece of land is theirs. That it's by "divine right" only makes it worse. The Jews believe it God promised it for them, and their presence their 2000 years ago justified their reconquest.

The Arabs are nationalist themselves, and believe Israel is a western Imperialist colony, and that it is another "crusade" that they must fight back. Likewise, Palestinians are agrieved because they lost their land and homes in the initial Arab-Israeli War, even if it may or may not have been their fault.

Frankly, the root of the problem are the millions of Palestinians who were displaced, and have lived in general poverty, since the creation of Israel. It's exacerbated by the general economic and legal inequalities present in the current regime. For instance, the continuing trend in Israel to not have proper seperation of church and state, and to give Rabbinical Courts legal powers. Of course many arabs want Shariah law. The solution is for neither religious code to have legal legitimacy.

Things haven't improved since the PA was promptly kicked out of Jordan, followed by Lebanon only to end up in the West Bank. How did Jordan deal with palestinian nationalism? Murdered thousands of them and turfed them all out (see; Black September 1970). Unfortunately for Jordan, a majority of their citizens are now palestinians no longer disposed towards the Hashemite monarchy.

I don't pretend to have an answer how to solve the conflict. I just would personally prefer you and others to show discretion when it comes to Israel's attempts to defend it's own citizens (be they Arab or Jew).

All true. However, the post you criticized was my only criticizing the presence of the far right in Israeli politics. The man I was specifically criticizing, Avigdor Lieberman, has been labelled as far right, ultra nationalist etc. by people in Israel, so I don't see it as wrong to label him as such. Read up on some of his policies. He'd see the entire Arab minority in Israel expelled and losing the vote, if he had his way.

Nothing flame war about it. This is a place to post News Stories. If a News Story comes about involving Israel, it'd be great if people could center their discussions into whatever happens to be relevant to that News Story (ie, stay on topic). Every time someone mentions Israel, we do not need to bring up the conflict and/or what we think Israel should be doing.

I did not originally bring up the conflict, I was just commenting on the far right ... nature of the current parliament, and it's Jingoism I find personally abhorrent. I thought previous governments were far better. That is all I said. I did infer certain things, but you then took those statements as an excuse to personally attack me, though I don't particularly mind.

EDIT: @removing support base, it's about finding a way to remove the people who these terrorist organisation recruit from. You don't have to deal with organisation, but you can seek to meet the demands of the people that the terrorist organisation purports to represent. Once people have no major grievances (and I'm talking poverty/political representation, not independence) then the terrorist will be rendered obsolete.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Well they can stop using disproportionate force to fight off Palestinian Militants, for starters. Rather then rolling in with tanks, airstrikes and Artillery bombardments, that kill indiscriminately, they could hold back and focus on killing militants more ... precisely. That would entail more casualties on their part though so...

why ?
fair play ?
good sportsmanship ?

also, we don't kill indiscriminately.
even Hamas admits that most of the casualties in Cast Lead were militants.
so either we're careful about who we shoot, or we're just really really lucky.

Once people have no major grievances ....

they'll find minor ones.

[Ithekro]

Minor grievances generally are not worth fighting and dying over.

Most civilized nations have minor grievances with their governments. The United States citizens have lots of different minor grievences with our government. It is when those grievances become major that people start dying.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Minor grievances generally are not worth fighting and dying over.

you'd be amazed at the stupidity that people would be willing to fight and die for.

Most civilized nations have minor grievances with their governments. The United States citizens have lots of different minor grievences with our government. It is when those grievances become major that people start dying.

what does a situation between people and their own governments have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict ?

the Israeli government isn't the government of the Palestinians.