What should Israel do with Gaza?

[Anonymous]

Israel should respond to every rocket attack with a devastating artillery barrage. Keep killing the Palestinians until they quit or are all dead.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Israel should respond to every rocket attack with a devastating artillery barrage. Keep killing the Palestinians until they quit or are all dead.

That is the current strategy. How's it working?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would not call a 6 month ceasefire that apparently neither party held to a "long truce."

I would love nothing more than to have the Palestinians have a thriving society in Gaza but I just dont believe that it can happen, even if Israel completely lifts the blockade, given the culture of hatred, the teaching of children to hate, and the glorification of violence.

The currently use what aid they do get for weapons and tunnels, not for schools and hospitals. How and why would that change?

Gaza does not have access to electricity approximately 12 hours of the day. Israel controls their access to electricity and water. Israel prohibits construction materials from entering Gaza. Israel will not permit Gaza to have an airport or a seaport. Israel limits the freedom of movement of people in Gaza. Israel dictates to Gaza's fishermen where they can and cannot fish.

How do you propose that Gazans build anything under these conditions? They literally cannot build schools and hospitals if they wanted to, because Israel does not allow construction materials in legally! The "culture of hatred" is not the problem here. It's a good red herring, but it's not the problem.

Given the extensive tunnel system and the extensive weapons and missiles, they clearly have access to some materials, even if Israel is not providing them with this access.

You bring up exactly the point I wanted you to- people in Gaza who want to defy Israel will do what they want anyway. They build their tunnels, they get their rockets, etc.

Do you think that the people who want to build schools and hospitals want to do so illegally, with the help of terrorists and whoever else has the means to sneak materials in? Do you think this is possible?

So imagine you are a regular person in Gaza. Against all odds, Hamas manages to fight and defy Israel in any way that they can. Secular leaders are able to do... nothing. They cannot build anything. They cannot help anyone. They cannot give you any alternative solutions. Your choices are to starve or fight. What do you choose?

Israel, by making life in Gaza ridiculously difficult, only serves to make Hamas stronger, to make them seem like the only option. I suspect that Israel does not even want any other viable organizations.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you honestly believe that Hamas would stop aggression against Israel - rockets and tunnels - if Israel dropped the blockade? On what basis other than hope?

Yes, i believe that. Hamas has observed long truces with Israel. It seems accepted among most that Hamas is always the aggressor. But, Hamas generally sees itself as responding to Israeli aggression. It generally can make a decent case for it as well. If Israel agreed to Hamas' terms, it would cause a huge increase in Hamas' popularity and, more importantly, immediate improvement in the lives of Palestinians in Gaza. If Hamas were to do anything to reverse that, its popularity would be very negatively impacted.

Israel is unlikely to agree to any of Hamas' demands, however. Doing so would cause Hamas' popularity to increase so that it would easily displace Fateh in the West Bank. Then, Israel would have to deal with Hamas on two sides.

Can you cite to any long truces? All accounts show a consistent barrage of rockets since 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel–Hamas_ceasefire

There were others that I don't have time to track down.

I would not call a 6 month ceasefire that apparently neither party held to a "long truce."

I would love nothing more than to have the Palestinians have a thriving society in Gaza but I just dont believe that it can happen, even if Israel completely lifts the blockade, given the culture of hatred, the teaching of children to hate, and the glorification of violence.

The currently use what aid they do get for weapons and tunnels, not for schools and hospitals. How and why would that change?

I'm not sure the bolded is true, but regardless, Israel uses it's aid for weapons. Moreover, that aid comes from the US.

Maybe you don't trust Hamas. What do you propose? Do you really think Israel can solve this militarily? If so, what makes this different from all the other times? History has shown that Israel can't win militarily. Every time the conflict reaches the point where Israel sees that containing it will only make things worse. At that point, the US steps in and negotiates a cease fire. Then, both Israel and Hamas accuse each other of violating the cease fire and the shooting starts again. Rinse and repeat. If this pattern only leads to more rockets, why not try another tactic? If it also results in more rockets, you are just back to the same place.

NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would not call a 6 month ceasefire that apparently neither party held to a "long truce."

I would love nothing more than to have the Palestinians have a thriving society in Gaza but I just dont believe that it can happen, even if Israel completely lifts the blockade, given the culture of hatred, the teaching of children to hate, and the glorification of violence.

The currently use what aid they do get for weapons and tunnels, not for schools and hospitals. How and why would that change?

Gaza does not have access to electricity approximately 12 hours of the day. Israel controls their access to electricity and water. Israel prohibits construction materials from entering Gaza. Israel will not permit Gaza to have an airport or a seaport. Israel limits the freedom of movement of people in Gaza. Israel dictates to Gaza's fishermen where they can and cannot fish.

How do you propose that Gazans build anything under these conditions? They literally cannot build schools and hospitals if they wanted to, because Israel does not allow construction materials in legally! The "culture of hatred" is not the problem here. It's a good red herring, but it's not the problem.

Given the extensive tunnel system and the extensive weapons and missiles, they clearly have access to some materials, even if Israel is not providing them with this access.

You bring up exactly the point I wanted you to- people in Gaza who want to defy Israel will do what they want anyway. They build their tunnels, they get their rockets, etc.

Do you think that the people who want to build schools and hospitals want to do so illegally, with the help of terrorists and whoever else has the means to sneak materials in? Do you think this is possible?

So imagine you are a regular person in Gaza. Against all odds, Hamas manages to fight and defy Israel in any way that they can. Secular leaders are able to do... nothing. They cannot build anything. They cannot help anyone. They cannot give you any alternative solutions. Your choices are to starve or fight. What do you choose?

Israel, by making life in Gaza ridiculously difficult, only serves to make Hamas stronger, to make them seem like the only option. I suspect that Israel does not even want any other viable organizations.

And without taking Hamas out of power, how do you suggest lifting the blockade for the regular people of Gaza without simultaneously strengthening Hamas and the people who want to defy and destroy Israel? Particularly when it was the civilian of Gaza who elected Hamas and continue to support them?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I'm not a Hamas negotiator. The point I am making is that Israel's current strategy will not result in assurances. We have several previous examples that show that to be true. So, another strategy that doesn't result in assurances will not be a step backward. However, if there are assurances that Israel desires, it can certainly propose them. That is the purpose of negotiations. The primary assurance that Hamas can offer is that it will not initiate hostilities toward Israel and that it will police its territory to prevent others from doing so. I think international observers (but not Americans) would be good, but Israel has always opposed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I don't fully understand this. Israel is being "required" to do things because Israel has all the power in this situation. All Hamas does is fire rockets and build tunnels. They could come to an agreement with Hamas, and then if Hamas reneged so could Israel. Is your argument that Hamas is not worthy of coming to an agreement? I guess Israel can just deal with the rockets forever, then.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I'm not a Hamas negotiator. The point I am making is that Israel's current strategy will not result in assurances. We have several previous examples that show that to be true. So, another strategy that doesn't result in assurances will not be a step backward. However, if there are assurances that Israel desires, it can certainly propose them. That is the purpose of negotiations. The primary assurance that Hamas can offer is that it will not initiate hostilities toward Israel and that it will police its territory to prevent others from doing so. I think international observers (but not Americans) would be good, but Israel has always opposed them.

None of us are Hamas or Israeli negotiators, but that doesn't seem to be stopping us. Do you think Hamas should offer to destroy its tunnels into Israel/dismantle its rockets, subject to international inspection? Hamas has given assurances before - I think Israel has good reason to doubt the sincerity of those assurances. I'm not saying either side is blameless, but I am wondering, at this point, what could Hamas offer in exchange for the concessions you lay out? And if it can't/won't offer anything meaningful, how do you think Israel should proceed? Do you think Israel should just hope that Hamas eventually stops shooting rockets at it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I don't fully understand this. Israel is being "required" to do things because Israel has all the power in this situation. All Hamas does is fire rockets and build tunnels. They could come to an agreement with Hamas, and then if Hamas reneged so could Israel. Is your argument that Hamas is not worthy of coming to an agreement? I guess Israel can just deal with the rockets forever, then.

The concern is that by lifting the blockade, Hamas would have the opportunity to build up a system of weapons that would result in greater and stronger attacks on Israel and it would be difficult, if not impossible to go back and say "oops" after that is revealed through one or multiple attacks. So yes, before allowing Hamas to unfettered access to those types of materials, there needs to be some sort of reliable assurance that that will not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I don't fully understand this. Israel is being "required" to do things because Israel has all the power in this situation. All Hamas does is fire rockets and build tunnels. They could come to an agreement with Hamas, and then if Hamas reneged so could Israel. Is your argument that Hamas is not worthy of coming to an agreement? I guess Israel can just deal with the rockets forever, then.

I'm saying that there is reason to believe that mere assurances from Hamas may not hold up, and wondering what (inspections, destruction of the tunnels, etc) can be done to compensate for that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I'm not a Hamas negotiator. The point I am making is that Israel's current strategy will not result in assurances. We have several previous examples that show that to be true. So, another strategy that doesn't result in assurances will not be a step backward. However, if there are assurances that Israel desires, it can certainly propose them. That is the purpose of negotiations. The primary assurance that Hamas can offer is that it will not initiate hostilities toward Israel and that it will police its territory to prevent others from doing so. I think international observers (but not Americans) would be good, but Israel has always opposed them.

None of us are Hamas or Israeli negotiators, but that doesn't seem to be stopping us. Do you think Hamas should offer to destroy its tunnels into Israel/dismantle its rockets, subject to international inspection? Hamas has given assurances before - I think Israel has good reason to doubt the sincerity of those assurances. I'm not saying either side is blameless, but I am wondering, at this point, what could Hamas offer in exchange for the concessions you lay out? And if it can't/won't offer anything meaningful, how do you think Israel should proceed? Do you think Israel should just hope that Hamas eventually stops shooting rockets at it?

I feel like I have already answered this twice. If Israel will not trust Hamas to not fires its weapons, why would it trust it to dismantle them and/or not acquire new ones? The entire basis of an agreement has to be both sides trusting each other at least to an extent. The tunnel issue is being way overblown. Most of Hamas' tunnels don't go to Israel. They were built for defensive purposes and they are one reason Israel is having such a difficult time militarily. If the "tunnels" were called "bunkers" this would be more easily understood, but not as helpful to Israeli propaganda. Israel has only found three tunnels going into Israel and those have been destroyed.

A cease fire would require Israel "hoping" that Hamas stopped firing. Similarly, a ceasefire would require Hamas "hoping" that Israel stops drone and rocket attacks on it. That is the nature of cease fires.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I'm not a Hamas negotiator. The point I am making is that Israel's current strategy will not result in assurances. We have several previous examples that show that to be true. So, another strategy that doesn't result in assurances will not be a step backward. However, if there are assurances that Israel desires, it can certainly propose them. That is the purpose of negotiations. The primary assurance that Hamas can offer is that it will not initiate hostilities toward Israel and that it will police its territory to prevent others from doing so. I think international observers (but not Americans) would be good, but Israel has always opposed them.

None of us are Hamas or Israeli negotiators, but that doesn't seem to be stopping us. Do you think Hamas should offer to destroy its tunnels into Israel/dismantle its rockets, subject to international inspection? Hamas has given assurances before - I think Israel has good reason to doubt the sincerity of those assurances. I'm not saying either side is blameless, but I am wondering, at this point, what could Hamas offer in exchange for the concessions you lay out? And if it can't/won't offer anything meaningful, how do you think Israel should proceed? Do you think Israel should just hope that Hamas eventually stops shooting rockets at it?

I feel like I have already answered this twice. If Israel will not trust Hamas to not fires its weapons, why would it trust it to dismantle them and/or not acquire new ones? The entire basis of an agreement has to be both sides trusting each other at least to an extent. The tunnel issue is being way overblown. Most of Hamas' tunnels don't go to Israel. They were built for defensive purposes and they are one reason Israel is having such a difficult time militarily. If the "tunnels" were called "bunkers" this would be more easily understood, but not as helpful to Israeli propaganda. Israel has only found three tunnels going into Israel and those have been destroyed.

A cease fire would require Israel "hoping" that Hamas stopped firing. Similarly, a ceasefire would require Hamas "hoping" that Israel stops drone and rocket attacks on it. That is the nature of cease fires.

I think you are minimizing the tunnels. They are not merely bunkers but tunnels to Israel intended for attacks. Just bc Hamas has not finished making their way all the way to Israel in all of them does not mean they they dont pose a serious threat to Israeli civilians and overall security.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, but what assurances do you think Hamas could give Israel that, if Israel met the conditions you lay out, Hamas would end its barrage? I'm not asking for arguments why it would be in Hamas' best interest to do so, because Hamas has demonstrated that it frequently does not agree with our interpretations of its best interests. But given what you would require of Israel, what would you require of Hamas in return?

I'm not a Hamas negotiator. The point I am making is that Israel's current strategy will not result in assurances. We have several previous examples that show that to be true. So, another strategy that doesn't result in assurances will not be a step backward. However, if there are assurances that Israel desires, it can certainly propose them. That is the purpose of negotiations. The primary assurance that Hamas can offer is that it will not initiate hostilities toward Israel and that it will police its territory to prevent others from doing so. I think international observers (but not Americans) would be good, but Israel has always opposed them.

None of us are Hamas or Israeli negotiators, but that doesn't seem to be stopping us. Do you think Hamas should offer to destroy its tunnels into Israel/dismantle its rockets, subject to international inspection? Hamas has given assurances before - I think Israel has good reason to doubt the sincerity of those assurances. I'm not saying either side is blameless, but I am wondering, at this point, what could Hamas offer in exchange for the concessions you lay out? And if it can't/won't offer anything meaningful, how do you think Israel should proceed? Do you think Israel should just hope that Hamas eventually stops shooting rockets at it?

I feel like I have already answered this twice. If Israel will not trust Hamas to not fires its weapons, why would it trust it to dismantle them and/or not acquire new ones? The entire basis of an agreement has to be both sides trusting each other at least to an extent. The tunnel issue is being way overblown. Most of Hamas' tunnels don't go to Israel. They were built for defensive purposes and they are one reason Israel is having such a difficult time militarily. If the "tunnels" were called "bunkers" this would be more easily understood, but not as helpful to Israeli propaganda. Israel has only found three tunnels going into Israel and those have been destroyed.

A cease fire would require Israel "hoping" that Hamas stopped firing. Similarly, a ceasefire would require Hamas "hoping" that Israel stops drone and rocket attacks on it. That is the nature of cease fires.

But the terms you set forth aren't just each side "hoping" the other stops shooting. They would also make it much easier for Hamas to build stronger weapons against Israel, something Hamas has repeatedly expressed interest in doing (understandably). If Israel is going to take concrete action (opening borders/ports, etc.) that could potentially endanger its citizens, how can it mitigate that risk? If Hamas truly wants a cease fire encompassing these types of terms, I think they need to come up with something meaningful to exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would not call a 6 month ceasefire that apparently neither party held to a "long truce."

I would love nothing more than to have the Palestinians have a thriving society in Gaza but I just dont believe that it can happen, even if Israel completely lifts the blockade, given the culture of hatred, the teaching of children to hate, and the glorification of violence.

The currently use what aid they do get for weapons and tunnels, not for schools and hospitals. How and why would that change?

Gaza does not have access to electricity approximately 12 hours of the day. Israel controls their access to electricity and water. Israel prohibits construction materials from entering Gaza. Israel will not permit Gaza to have an airport or a seaport. Israel limits the freedom of movement of people in Gaza. Israel dictates to Gaza's fishermen where they can and cannot fish.

How do you propose that Gazans build anything under these conditions? They literally cannot build schools and hospitals if they wanted to, because Israel does not allow construction materials in legally! The "culture of hatred" is not the problem here. It's a good red herring, but it's not the problem.

Given the extensive tunnel system and the extensive weapons and missiles, they clearly have access to some materials, even if Israel is not providing them with this access.

You bring up exactly the point I wanted you to- people in Gaza who want to defy Israel will do what they want anyway. They build their tunnels, they get their rockets, etc.

Do you think that the people who want to build schools and hospitals want to do so illegally, with the help of terrorists and whoever else has the means to sneak materials in? Do you think this is possible?

So imagine you are a regular person in Gaza. Against all odds, Hamas manages to fight and defy Israel in any way that they can. Secular leaders are able to do... nothing. They cannot build anything. They cannot help anyone. They cannot give you any alternative solutions. Your choices are to starve or fight. What do you choose?

Israel, by making life in Gaza ridiculously difficult, only serves to make Hamas stronger, to make them seem like the only option. I suspect that Israel does not even want any other viable organizations.

And without taking Hamas out of power, how do you suggest lifting the blockade for the regular people of Gaza without simultaneously strengthening Hamas and the people who want to defy and destroy Israel? Particularly when it was the civilian of Gaza who elected Hamas and continue to support them?

Wait- are you conceding that Israel's current actions are strengthening Hamas? If so, then Israel has no good options.

What should Israel's goal be at this point? Should it be to stop the rocket attacks, or destroy Hamas?

If it to stop the rocket attacks, then it should negotiate with Hamas.

If it is to destroy Hamas, then it should allow livable conditions in Gaza and wait for Hamas to fail on its own. Hamas is an Islamic extremist organization. Islamic extremism thrives under some particular conditions- foreign intervention, war, harsh living conditions, a sense of persecution. You can't just kill off Islamic extremists, because as long as there are angry young men to take the place of the angry young men you've killed, they will continue. It's not very effective at governing. So if they are under peaceful conditions where they just fail at governing, they will eventually lose popularity. It could take years, it could take months. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Peace is the only answer.

But I don't think Israel actually wants Hamas to fail. I think they want to use Hamas as an excuse to give absolutely no concessions to the Palestinians, forever.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Israel should respond to every rocket attack with a devastating artillery barrage. Keep killing the Palestinians until they quit or are all dead.

That is the current strategy. How's it working?

Actually, that's not the strategy, and that's why the current strategy isn't working.

Palestinians interpret restraint as weakness.