Skip to main content

Reading the Recent Diaries right now and I see nearly a dozen articles about the Israeli Defense Force's anti-terrorist operations in the Gaza Strip. While I understand this is current news, a quick read through nearly all diaries reveals a marked polarization between pro-Israel and pro-Gaza supporters.

Has this always been the case? May I ask what caused such a rift? Also, everyone I know in my town supports Israel's fight against these terrorists. Why such an outcry against them?

Any military operation inside an urban setting will result in civilian casualties. I imagine the British Army killed hundreds of Irish in their fight against the IRA and the Spanish Army killed a lot more against the Basque separatist group, ETA. So what is the issue?

Finally... can someone explain to me why these Palestinians are even fighting at all? I don't know much of the particulars in this conflict. Isn't Palestine a province of Israel?

Any information is welcome.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I suggest.... (20+ / 0-)

    ...you read more on your own before you post.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:07:21 AM PDT

  •  Rather than go into the history (11+ / 0-)

    of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here at Dkos ( we have people that are supportive of Israel and people who are against the egregious treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, but it goes much deeper than that), I would suggest that you spend some time reading news articles about the latest conflict, and form your own opinions. There certainly isn't enough room in the comments to do so.
    Frankly, it amazes me in this day and age that people can be ignorant of what's going on over there.

    If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

    by skohayes on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:09:56 AM PDT

    •  I think there's no need to read beyond this commen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jersey Jon
      we have people that are supportive of Israel and people who are against the egregious treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis
      my, how the unconscious can betray you...

      it's amusing...

      it's a good thing, too, now I know much more about certain people.

  •  Good questions (8+ / 0-)
    Also, everyone I know in my town supports Israel's fight against these terrorists. Why such an outcry against them?
    I can't really explain this, although it seems like the online world speaks with a lot of venom towards Israel, whereas most people in the human world are pro-Israel in America.

    Civilian casualties is an unfortunate biproduct of every war, and yes that includes the UK and Spain, to your point. I can't explain why people here think Israel would be different. That's never really been explained.

    As for why the Palestinians are fighting at all? Most here will say because they are "oppressed" or "occupied" or a million other things. The reality is Ehud Barak offered a Palestinians state on 92% of the West Bank (with land swaps for the other 8%) and 100% of the Gaza Strip in 2000. Arafat wouldn't even consider that a basis for negotiations, made no counter-proposal, and launched the Second Intifadah.

    So the "oppressed" and "occupied" answers don't really work there, do they? No. In reality, the reason the Palestinians are fighting is right in the Hamas charter, it's to kill Jews and drive them into the sea.

    •  *slow clap* Bravo. It all seems so clearcut and... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, diffrntdrummr, Cedwyn, capelza, CenPhx

      *slow clap*

      Bravo.

      It all seems so clearcut and simple, but there's a big, ugly fly in your delicious soup.

      Jews in Israel are protesting the Gaza Incursion, and 50 IDF soldiers have thrown down their weapons, rhetorically speaking, and refused to fight.

      So what about these people? Are they just awful malcontents who refuse to be placated with common sense, as you put it to us here? How do you explain their incongruous behavior? Is it an agenda? Mere ill-intentions? Or what?

    •  It wasn't his to 'offer'. (15+ / 0-)
      The reality is Ehud Barak offered a Palestinians state on 92% of the West Bank
      You sound like a "a province of israel" kind of person.

      The world is bad enough as it is, you have no right to make it any worse.
      Lamb chop, we can quibble what to call it, but I think we can both agree it's creepy.

      by InAntalya on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:40:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "terrorism" is a product of a nearly 70 year (17+ / 0-)

      reign of terror against the Palestinians, starting with the ethnic cleansing of the portion of Palestine designated as a Jewish state. Then came the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war, which has led to the current situation in
      which Israel has seized more and more land for illegal West Bank settlements and has barricaded the residents of Gaza into an open air prison, cut them off from the world, and denied them what they need to live normal lives.
         And, oh yeah, has conducted military operations that produce mass slaughter in Gaza...destroying housing
      and infrastructure, leaving Gazans wandering homeless among decomposing bodies and rubble.
        They've slaughtered the Gazans three times in seven years, each time claiming that they're going after "terrorists.." Woman terrorists, schoolchildren terrorists, baby terrorists.
        It's becoming clear that civilian casualties aren't the byproduct of Israel's killing sprees. Civilian casualties appears to be the goal.

         

      •  Actually (7+ / 0-)

        The terrorism started before 1948 at the end of the British Mandate and it was from both sides. The Jews in Mandate Palestine caused by far the greater number of deaths among the British administration. They also bombed street markets. They wanted to force the British out and set up a Jewish state.

        The issue goes back to the 19th century when there was pressure from the World Jewish Congress to establish a "homeland for people for a people without a land" At that time virtually the whole Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire. In North Africa, there was effective British control of Egypt along with the French to safeguard the Suez Canal, a vital trade and military link for the British to the Empire.

        Various countries were sympathetic to the idea of a homeland and various suggestions were put forward for its location. One was on the West coast of Australia. Another was in an area of Africa then called Uganda but which is mostly in today's Kenya. The World Jewish Congress was split on that last but in about 1903 rejected it narrowly after a report that there were lions and a native tribe in the area (in fact at that time there had been an inter-tribal war and the dominant tribe had only been in the area for a few years). Instead there was a renewed insistence on locating it in Palestine (as it was referred to by them)

        After WWI when the Ottoman Empire was defeated along with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations, gave Mandates to the British and French to administer various blocks of the Middle East in preparation for independence. (Note: these Mandate areas were never colonies of the two countries).

        During WWI, T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") had mobilized the Arabs on the Allies' side with the promise of self-government including Jerusalem, a holy city in Islam. At the same time, the British government was desperate for money to wage the war and Baron Rothschild, a banker and prominent member of the British Jewish community became influential. He obtained from the British government what became known as the "Balfour Declaration". The Declaration was also seen in 1916 as a propaganda move to gain support among Jews in the USA and Germany.

        The Declaration called for the establishing of "a" homeland for Jews in Palestine (note: this is often misquoted as "the" homeland for Jews). The British government had to report annually to the League of Nations on their administration of the Mandate. In 1929 there had been disturbances as Jewish immigration had been restricted to, ironically, prevent inter-communal conflict (think of the current situation in the USA with Hispanic immigrants) The report for 1930 tells how it had been eased to allow new Jewish workers needed in Jewish projects to enter. While the whole is an interesting historic prime source, this is notable:

        3. Immigration in 1930 reflected the vicissitudes of agriculture and industry during the year and the increasing economic and financial stress in Eastern Europe and America. The shrinkage in contributions and investments by American Jewry placed a check on Jewish enterprise in Palestine and in particular left the Jewish Agency with insufficient funds for any considerable measure of agricultural colonization. In the resulting depression, the figure of Jewish unemployment rose from 550 in April to 1,300 in June. Although, therefore, so far as could be foreseen, conditions at the beginning of May warranted the High Commissioner in authorizing a Labour Schedule of 2,300 men and 1,000 women workers, the reduction of this quota to 688 men and 262 women as a prudent reservation pending the outcome of the inquiry by Sir John Hope Simpson, did not cause any scarcity of labour in the following months. - See more at: http://unispal.un.org/...

        The League of Nations became defunct in the later 1930s although it still existed as a legal entity until its replacement by the United Nations. After WII there was a double imperative on the British to divest from its Empire and the Mandatory territories. TransJordan had already become the Hasemite Kingdom it is today. The first imperative was pressure from the USA's anti-colonial policies but the most important was the cost. The UK was broke - rationing continued until 1954 and the war debt to the USA was finally fully repaid around 2000. The largest and costliest part of the Empire was India. Gandhi wanted the whole to be independent as a single nation. Ginnah demanded a separate state for Muslims to preserve their rights. In the end the British agreed to divide India and separate East and West Pakistan from the rest and grant it independence separately and at independence there were still border issues (notably Kashmir) that were left for the two new governments to resolve. (East Pakistan later declared its own independence and is now Bangladesh)

        The model of dividing disputed territories was recommended to the UN. The proposal was for a Jewish State, an "Arab" state but, more importantly, Jerusalem to be an open city administered by the UN.

        What happened when the British withdrew depends on whose history books you read. The Israeli version is that neighboring countries attacked. The Arab version is that the Jewish community breached the UN resolution by invading Jerusalem to take it over as their capital (familiar?) and that they requested the help at the start of the Nakba (site is obviously a partial source but I give it to counter the "authorized" history you will have been fed).  The Nakba was a process of ethnic cleansing carried out by the nascent Jewish state - many families who were expelled still have the keys to their old homes.

        "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

        by Lib Dem FoP on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 07:17:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  are you saying that people who do not support (9+ / 0-)

      Israel (nonsupport of Bibi / either antisemitism or support for Hamas) are not human?

      Since you are so cavalier about civilian casualties, may I assume that you have neither friends nor family in harm's way? I ask this as I note that a stint in a free fire zone frequently leaves the individual a pacifist, no matter how fervent his blood lust before he got there (though there are those people who actually enjoy combat it seems)

    •  Ahh, well, could just be the Irish in me then (5+ / 0-)

      hmmm....maybe that's it.  

      Because I sure the hell do not see civilian casualties as an unfortunate byproduct.  Hmmmm...... maybe that's it, yeah, maybe it is.  It sure is interesting how the Israelis and their supporters have morphed into identifying with the Imperial Brits.

    •  It's because we READ, not VIEW. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, IndieGuy, historys mysteries

      here at Dkos, most people have read books, studied, gone to conferences with informed people and in general UNDERSTAND what is happening, instead of merely flipping through YouTube videos.
      Pretty Simple..

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 07:40:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The sharpest increase in the number of settlers (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stargaze, IndieGuy, Meteor Blades, Lepanto

      in the West Bank came during the term of Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Under the pretext of "natural growth", the settlements were expanded and interconnected with by-pass roads and highways, effectively cutting up the West Bank into cantons.

      Barak had made the Palestinians an "offer that could not be accepted" and he knew it. They had to give up Jerusalem and the right of return. In return, the Palestinians would get a state made up of a dozen non-contiguous Bantustans comprised of some of the least productive land in the West Bank.

  •  The Palestinians are fighting for their very ex... (12+ / 0-)

    The Palestinians are fighting for their very existence, against an implacable, technologically superior enemy.

    It's a very old drama, dating all the way back to the Bronze Age, if not even further before.

    #TeamPalestine all the way over here, btw. As a young black male it behooves me to side with the oppressed party.

  •  palestine - "a province of israel" (17+ / 0-)

    thank you so much for your post.

    the clear and concise way you offer the view that this is simply israel fighting against terrorists within one of their own provinces could not more aptly answer your own question, namely why so many people feel the need to post some factual information to negate such misconceptions.

    thank you again.

  •  Somewhere to start (7+ / 0-)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

    For the Palestinians the last 100 years have brought colonisation, expulsion and military occupation, followed by a long and difficult search for self-determination and for coexistence with the nation they hold responsible for their suffering and loss.

    For the Jewish people of Israel, the return to the land of their forefathers after centuries of persecution around the world has not brought peace or security. They have faced many crises as their neighbours have sought to wipe their country off the map.

    "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

    by LaFeminista on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:22:20 AM PDT

  •  you could start by reading the works of Israeli (7+ / 0-)

    historians of the last twenty years of so

    dare say you might learn something

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:29:04 AM PDT

  •  The people of Gaza are the latest scapegoats. (4+ / 0-)

    Remember that the original scapegoat was a ram caught in the thickets and designated to be sacrificed (slain and eaten) in place of Abraham's own son. That kids are to be sacrificed at the deity's behest is an old justification to appease the antagonism towards the young that old men feel -- antagonims that springs from the (correct) perception that the young, by staking a claim on the care and nurture of women, are (unfairly) depriving the men.

    The extent to which the human male never seems to grow up is quite startling. But, hardly anyone seemed to find it strange that the iconic U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, referred to his (second) spouse as "Mommy." It seems many more men feel abandoned by their mothers than actually are.
    Since it wouldn't be politic to attack all women, they have to be targeted selectively.
    That women and children are being killed in Gaza is not a happenstance. It's being done on purpose, by both sides. Apparently, Palestinian women are too prolific. No matter how many are killed, they keep making more.

    Isn't that the coded message in the designation of Palestine as "one of the most densely populated places on earth"?

    •  Demoting a war based on geopolitical/religious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dallasdunlap, NE2

      poltical power/economic/ historic basis to just a gender based squabble is so psychobabble BS its hard to believe its not snark.

      Life is just a bowl of Cherries, that stain your hands and clothes and have pits that break your teeth.

      by OHdog on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:49:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am going to be generous... (14+ / 0-)

    ...and assume your naïveté is genuine and not just an attempt to start a flame bait diary.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 04:42:02 AM PDT

  •  5 minute explanation (0+ / 0-)

    This is a good objective overview of the issue.
    The Middle East issue

    •  okay if you say so (10+ / 0-)

      thats "objective"?

      The Middle East conflict is framed as one of the most complex problems in the world. But, in reality, it's very simple. Israelis want to live in peace and are willing to accept a neighboring Palestinian state. And most Palestinians do not want Israel to exist. As Dennis Prager explains, this is really all you need to know. In 5 minutes, understand how Israel was founded, and how, since that auspicious day in 1948, its neighbors have tried to destroy it, again and again.

      If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution. ~ Emma Goldman

      by Lady Libertine on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 05:51:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So...what wasn't true? (0+ / 0-)

        What facts aren't true?
        Israel has always wanted to live in peace.
        Israel has proposed a two state solution multiple times and been turned down
        The Palestinian Arabs do not want peace, do not recognize Israel's right to exist, and would destroy Israel if they could (they've tried invading 5 times already)

        Pragmatic, objective facts. Yes, it is that simple.

    •  unhelpful due to redundancy (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, greenotron, Lepanto, Celtic Merlin

      That's the warped Sunday School version of history that the OP apparently already believes, so they wouldn't learn much new from it. Unfortunately, this fantasy version, common among Americans, is causing such cognitive dissonance due to its mismatch to actual reality and the events of the day that they felt compelled to write this diary.

      This is an encouraging step for the OP: usually when faced with a mismatch between reality and their beliefs, people reject reality and cling ever more tightly to their fantasy. Occasionally, a person will re-evaluate and change their beliefs. Here's hoping that ajcbm has taken the first step towards a better understanding of why so many millions of bright and knowledgable people are appalled and angered at Israel's behavior.

      "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

      by quill on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:46:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anything explained by Dennis Prager (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lepanto, Celtic Merlin, quill

      is utterly worthless.  He's a biased right wing tool.

      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

      by Whimsical on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 03:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I suggest reading Juan Cole's blog as a start (10+ / 0-)

    and then reading anything by Edward Said.  From there I can suggest other sites such as Helena Cobban's or Foreign Policy site.
    However the comment thread is not a sufficient forum to answer such broad ranging questions as you ask

    •  Err...if you want a one-sided, biased view- NT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jersey Jon

      If you want something more objective or balanced, Alan Dershowitz is a good place to start, or Benny Morris. Unfortunately the blogs and sites mentioned above are incredibly biased.

      •  funny, I dismissed Dershowitz as an apologist (7+ / 0-)

        quite some time ago.  However, if you view the folks you mentioned as moderates, then I wonder whom you would consider to be RWNJs on the issue:
        http://www.thecrimson.com/...
        I am not sure which sites you consider biased so I am including Buzzfeed and Media Matters or are these also biased?
        https://www.youtube.com/...
        http://therightscoop.com/...
        and then a few admittedly opinionated responses to Alan
        http://www.buzzfeed.com/...
        http://muzzlewatch.com/...
        http://muzzlewatch.com/...
        http://muzzlewatch.com/...

        •  I looked at all those links. (0+ / 0-)

          The first one, from the Crimson, was just Dershowitz taking on a controversial case 20 years ago. And to answer your question, Kahane, and his modern disciple Ayelet are extreme.

          He was just calling out one particularly odious person from Media Matters, and rightfully so. The other responses are, as you say, from activists who have brought into Pallywood media manipulation and propaganda, and don't agree with Dershowitzs more mainstream world view. Kinda like folks here.

          •  since Kahane has been dead for some time (0+ / 0-)

            it would be hard to find a recent link of Alan defending him, now wouldn't it?  Let's be fair now.
            Since you support his feud with MM, arguing would be pointless.
            However, I note one article called him out for his support of the Green family in the Hobby Lobby case.  Now Alan is a self described "liberal Democrat" but other than his rather extreme defense of Israel, I don't see that much progressive about his beliefs.  Whatever is progressive seems to be more knee jerk than anything else. While not based on Christianity, I find his defenses of Israel to be closer to Hagee than the current Progressive community.  After all, the current Dominionist view of Israel is the mainstream view if we rely on the MSM

            Care to post a few citations proving he is not a LDINO?  

            •  What is a "progressive" ? (0+ / 0-)

              I used to think of myself as a  liberal, progressive. Voted Democrat almost straight down the line, since the GOP ceased being the party of common sense.
              I'm strongly pro-choice, pro gun-control, pro-civil rights and affirmative action. I'm strongly pro-environment, and pro-science, and know global warming is real.
              I used to read dkos and agree with and respect most opinions on here....until recently.

              Suddenly, on this one, particular issue, people that I've known, and respected, not only here, but personal friends on FB etc have turned away from objective reality, and started believing propaganda. The vitriol I've seen on here recently has no place in a thinking, liberal blog..it belongs in more of a Tea Party type fundamentalist operation.

              I bring this up because Dershowitz no doubt feels the same way. We did not get any less liberal...its more like both parties have swung to the far extremes. People who I know used to peacefully protest our unjust war in Iraq, are now beating up pro-Israel supporters at rallies here in Seattle. Anyone with a dissenting opinion is called out as a "hasbarist" or a "Nazi". Wild conspiracy theories are bandied about, often with no basis in fact.

              If this is what the progressive movement has turned into, then I guess I'm a moderate now, and probably so is Dershowitz, since the meaning of "liberal" appears to have been corrupted.

              •  propaganda? (0+ / 0-)

                It is unlikely that anything I point out will change your admiration for Alan but Israel's hard turn to the Right is the reason a good many people here are starting to question exactly where the IP situation is going.
                However, I note you don't offer any proof that Alan should be considered liberal, progressive or however he styles himself.  However, I would not consider him a moderate on IP issues.  As far as I can tell, he recites the standard Likud line without criticism.  If you can point out where he has differed from Bibi on any substantive issue, such as say, criticizing Bibi for immediately blaming Hamas for the murder of the 3 teens when it is now apparent Hamas was not involved, I am all ears    

                •  The standard Likkud line IS moderate. (0+ / 0-)

                  The right wing line on this would be to indiscriminately bomb Gaza (Syrian style). It would be to annex Gaza and the West Bank  and deport the Palestinian Arab population. Listen to Ayelet Shaked if you want a taste of the Right,

                  That's the real right wing. What Israel is doing now, painstakingly minimizing civilian casualties, fighting a ground war with highly limited objectives, is far more moderate. And yes, it's possible to be progressive, and hold more moderate views on this. I for one am right there with Dershowitz, and believe Bibi is handling this as best he can.

                  Israel is under daily attack from thousands of Hamas missiles, and it must be stopped. Period. You can argue why, Hamas is doing it all you want, but there is no excuse. No nation, none would tolerate what Israel is going through. It's tragic that innocents are being used as human shields, and dying as collateral damage, but the missiles must stop, and the terrorist tunnels must be destroyed. That isn't a right wing view...it's a human view.

                  •  You realize that when you describe the Likud (0+ / 0-)

                    as moderate, that means Israel as a nation is now RW, if not extreme RW.

                    BTW I have been amused that the Israeli description of the number of missiles has grown from dozens to hundreds to now thousands and this morning I saw reference to hundreds of thousands.

                    RE: human shields, where do you suggest Hamas fight its battles?  After all, urban settings are traditional fields of battle, as shown by the Soviets in WWII, especially when an asymmetrical force is confronting a superior symmetrical force.  Now if Israel were to open the borders so the refugees could leave, you may have an argument about human shields.  As it is, it appears the Gazans are also IDF hostages.

                    BTW on propaganda, here is a bit:
                    http://www.rawstory.com/...    

                    •  Israel went from center left... (0+ / 0-)

                      To center right. Just as we did after 9/11. Not unusual at all. You might want to look into WHY Bibi's approval ratings are at historical highs. Basically, everyday Israelis are coming to the conclusion that they are fighting an implacable enemy who has NO desire for peace. Every major Israeli peace overture has been rejected, from Oslo, to Taba, to the complete withdrawal from Gaza. Did the Palestinian Arabs get everything they wanted in those offers? No. But, they could have been used as a basis for continuous, peaceful negotiations. Instead, they cynically chose to continue a war they cannot win militarily..a war designed to ensure the suffering and continue hardship of their people. The LAST thing Hamas wants is peaceful coexistence with the "Zionists".

                      So, until Hamas renounces their charter, it's only going to get worse.

                      •  when was Israel center left in the past 20 years? (0+ / 0-)

                        Where there is no center, the less extreme becomes the middle but it is still extreme.

                        BTW I guess you saw the last evaluation by the Pentagon that if Hamas were to disappear, whatever replaces it will probably be even more radical so be careful what you wish for.

                        Also, I note that the Vietnamese and IRA continued wars which they could not hope to win militarily, among other.  The goal of asymmetrical war is rarely military victory  

                        •  Peres, Rabin, Tzipi, Barak (0+ / 0-)

                          All considered center left politicians. And, Vietnam and the IRA are poor examples. They actually directed their attacks at military targets, while Hamas does their best to murder Israeli civilians.

                          •  this boots naught but I will try one more time (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess you were not around for VN but it was a vicious nasty fight with VC targeting pro government civilians.
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                            You will note at least 37,000 civilian deaths attributed to them.

                            The IRA apologized for killing at least 650 civilians
                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                            How many civilians has Hamas (not PLO or other organizations) killed?

                            I guess you realize that Putin is considered a moderate these days because Russia has drifted so far to the Right?  Just because a pol is considered moderate, you have to consider the political atmosphere he operates in.  Besides, even if all the pols you list are extreme hard Left, when is the last time one of them has held real power?

                            Please read some international media and the story behind the story before reciting what the US MSM is putting out there.  Their reports are as accurate as their reporting on Iraq and WMDs

                          •  Hamas has killed almost 900 civilians so far (0+ / 0-)

                            With just bus bombings and terrorist attacks alone, coupled with a few thousand injuries from rockets fire.

                            Here ya go..

                            The problem is, you people keep making the really bad assumption that comparing casualty counts matters. It doesn't. Generally, in war, you WANT the highest combatant kill ratio possible, while minimize civilian casualties, In the previous Arab-Israeli wars, Israel was outnumbered 10, even 20-1 in military strength, but relied on their qualitative edge to win.

                            In the war in Afghanistan, we've probably killed close to 100:1 compared to Taliban fighters. That's a good thing.

                          •  so they are ahead of the IRA (0+ / 0-)

                            but behind the VC by quite a bit.  Minimize civilian casualties?  Ever hear of Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or on a smaller scale, My Lai?  Please.

                            BTW your own link shows Hamas only accounted for 39.9% of attacks.  Like Bibi, you are equating all Palestinian attacks as being by Hamas.  Please.

                            As I requested before, please confine the discussion to Hamas related civilian deaths.  In the meantime, I note that despite the IDF's "best efforts", 1000+ Palestinians have been killed vs 3 Israeli civilians.

                            RE: our kill ratio in Afghanistan, I doubt the 100:1 ratio since not all our kills were Taliban.  Even the combatants killed were not all Taliban since we also managed to get into firefights with non-Taliban insurgents.
                            Check out some military history. Check out Gen. Westmoreland and his body count of VC and NVA dead.  One joke by those who were in VN during that era was "What is the difference between a VC and a villager?  Answer: the villager is still breathing"

                            You will forgive me if I abandon this thread as you wish to argue about war without understanding the basic nature of the beastie    

                          •  Minimizing civilian casualties.. (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes modern warfare is about minimizing civilian casualties. Otherwise of course, we could have another Dresden or Nagasaki in Gaza city quite easily, if not for Israel holding back.

                            Previous wars were REAL, fought to maximize damage to the enemy. Modern warfare is fought for limited objectives, as I stated, maximizing the enemy combatants killed while minimizing civilian casualties.

                            Oh, and the US could have easily won in Vietnam, a couple of nukes would have done the trick, but that would have obviously caused massive civilian casualties.

                          •  I promised myself I would not do this but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Skaje

                            the assertion we could have won in VN takes a comment: we could have won as easily as we could have won in Korea.  Please, again, we could not win a land war in Southeast Asia with China providing "volunteers" and USSR also providing munitions and advisers.

                            The one thing we have learned about air power, no matter what LeMay said, while it can devastate standard military formations, it is worthless against asymmetrical war, as our attempts to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail proved.  Also, airpower cannot take and hold territory.  We could not maintain the SVA with 1M of our own boots on the ground.
                            The victory you suggest would have cost 1M American casualties, about the same as the proposed invasion of Japan.  Humping a ruck gives you a mole's eye view of a war.  Too bad too many armchair generals and keyboard kolonels never get that opportunity

                            Now I am out

                          •  Sorry, did you miss where I said "nuke"? (0+ / 0-)

                            Even 60's era nukes were 1000x more powerful than Hiroshima. One or two is all it would have taken. Smaller tactical nukes would have done equally well.

                            There IS a way to win an asymmetrical war, which has been known since Roman times. You just have to be willing to massacre the civilian population the terrorists hide behind, which in modern times, is considered unacceptable. Thus, the mess Israel is in right now. While they can easily destroy Gaza, they'd have to actually DELIBERATELY take innocent lives, which, despite comments here to the contrary, Israel is not willing to do,

                          •  Yeh sure; MacArthur lost his job over his (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Skaje

                            brilliant plan to invade China which included plans to lay down a 30 mile nuclear DMZ on the border.  After all, Truman himself said that the nuclear option is an absolute option.  Once you drop the bomb, then what?

                            In a world where several nations possess nukes added to what we now know about the residual effects of radiation and the chance for drift, you not only take out the target but all the target's neighbors for a good distance.

                            As far as the Roman winning asymmetrical warfare, I take it you are referring to their Gallic campaigns.  However, they failed miserably when they tried to wipe out the Picts, for example or the Parthians.  Here is a lil history:
                            http://ancienthistory.about.com/...

                            However, I will remind you that the US also claims to minimize civilian casualties but yet US troops commit atrocities at least since WW2.

                            One final question for ya: since you advocate Hamas cease to "hide behind civilians", then kindly suggest how they should proceed.  Maybe draw up in formal rank and file out in the desert and wait for the Israeli jets?  

                            That worked out so well for the Serbians in Bosnia or the Iraqis in Desert Storm.  I know a few folks who were there though I was too old and busted up myself.

                            So, please explain how Hamas is  supposed to prosecute the war?  Reading Mao's Little Red Book might give you some insights or perhaps some of the interviews that Gen. Giap gave later in his life  

                          •  That's easy...they're not. (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Skaje

                            Since we're talking about decency here, and eliminating human suffering, Hamas cannot win a conventional war without sacrificing their civilians. Therefore, if they care about their people, they should not fight a futile war that they cannot win.

                            Hamas will never accomplish it's goals of wiping out Israel. All they can do is bring misery and suffering down on their own people, and hope the world is stupid enough to blame Israel for it. And, as long as Israel and the world don't have the heart to use the historically necessary, brutal steps to eliminate the terrorists, the cycle of violence will continue.

                            WWII with Japan was also fought against a fanatical enemy with no desire to surrender, who planned to use suicide tactics and fight to the last man, woman and child. It took massive, brutal force, in the form of nukes, to shock them to their senses, and obtain unconditional surrender.

                            If the Palestinians want a nation of their own, they will need to disarm, surrender, and then use non-violent tactics to get most of what they're looking for. Beggars can't be choosers. They'll get Gaza..most of the West Bank, a good chunk of international aid (this was all already offered and previously rejected).

                          •  it is obvious there is no agreement here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jqb

                            and it makes this discussion rather futile as it appears no matter what facts are put before you, you will continue to argue your original point.
                            If Hamas disarms, expect Fatah to wipe them out.  After all, Hamas seizure of Gaza was in reaction to an abortive US and Israeli backed Fatah coup attempt.  How do you propose Hamas disarm without being slaughtered?

                            Again, be careful what you wish for.  If Hamas is displaced, the latest Pentagon report shows that its successor will likely be more radical than the current group.  

                            As far as getting most of the West Bank, consider this:
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                            To the point:
                            "Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority officially controls a geographically non-contiguous territory comprising approx. 11% of the West Bank (known as Area A) which remains subject to Israeli incursions. Area B (approx. 28%) is subject to both Israeli military and Palestinian civil control. Area C (approx. 61%) is under full Israeli control. "

                          •  Maybe Fatah should wipe them out... (0+ / 0-)

                            After all, Abbas and team actually appear to be willing to make some sort of peace with Israel, and are not currently targeting Israeli civilians.

                            If you're saying Hamas needs to worry about getting slaughtered by Fatah...well, thats a tough one to blame on Israel!

                            And you're correct on current control of the West Bank. However, at Camp David and Taba, and later on in 2007, the Palestinians received various offers between 85-97% of the West Bank, including parts of east Jerusalem, and removal of settlements.

                            There are things Israel will never compromise on though:
                            Military control of the Jordan Rift Valley, and airspace.
                            Sovreignity of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount (the mosque is already under Waqf control, so it's not a real issue).

                            In Clinton's words, the Palestinians "have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". They rejected the UN partition plan, and every smaller offer since then. They need to understand that they cannot win. In war, the losers don't get to dictate terms. Take the next Israeli peace offer, build a nation, and settle the details through peaceful means.

                          •  Fatah already tried or have you forgotten (0+ / 0-)

                            the abortive Israeli/US backed coup attempt by Fatah that led to the current situation

          •  Kahane has been dead for decades (0+ / 0-)

            kind of hard to find current links for Alan defending him.  I note that you did not mention Alan supported the Green family in the Hobby Lobby case.  He is a self described "liberal Democrat" but he appears to be more LDINO than progressive.  His views on Israel seems more in line with Hagee and the Dominionists though his worldview is certainly not Christian.

            Please post a few citations proving Alan is not a LDINO.  As it is, I would say his views reflect the mainstream views of the MSM and American public.  As far as the rest of the civilized world, I think you would find him in the minority.

            As far as advocating what is right and proper, that has never been a matter up for popular vote anyway.  What is mainstream is not necessarily what is right and proper.  Matter of fact, what is mainstream is frequently wrongheaded and counterproductive

      •  Alan Dershowitz is balanced??? (5+ / 0-)

        That comment just made me spew coffee on my keyboard.

      •  Dersh and Benny Morris (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenotron, Celtic Merlin

        Well that explains...a lot.

  •  American interests and American values (0+ / 0-)

    it is in our interest that small internal conflicts don't escalate into regional, hemispheric or global conflicts.

    This one has the potential to do that, and in a sense, already has, to the extent that our complicity in the oppression of the Palestinians provides a motivating and recruiting factor for extremist terrorism.

    Here is a gloomy but largely objective piece on the current manifestation of the conflict.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/...

  •  ajcbm-welcome to the GOS (Great Orange (3+ / 0-)

    Satan)

    I don't have much in the way of answers, some things just beez that way. Maybe because we are a western culture we pay more attention to conflicts in the mid east than in East Asia or Africa. There are certainly conflicts there with similar or greater loss of life every day.

    My advice,,, just stay out of all Israeli/Palestinian diaries, it's a place better left for those who like to get really really mad at each other.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:29:07 AM PDT

  •  $3 Billion per year & adding more USA funds (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, greenotron, Lepanto, august88

    I disagree with that.

    I fight against USA imperialism. USA "defense" budget -- which is sucking out more and more funds away from social programs -- is obscene.

    USA Warmongering "defense" companies make warprofittering profits by being paid by USA taxmoney funds to send more death and destruction machinery and ordinance to Israel.

    It's obscene Congress keeps cutting funds for education and social programs but always has money for more bombs. It's a perverted excuse to use wars for both warprofiteering and draining the budget so USA government "can't afford" to help the unemployed. It's one of those perverted win-win situations of capitalism to get more money for the capitalist class while pushing down the living standards of the workers.

    I consider "my" government imperialist and terrorist. I consider USA as being an enabler of IDF oppression, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment.

    I don't support $3 Billion plus year USA taxmoney for Israel military aid , which I tell the people who "represent" me in DC

    The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

    by stargaze on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:36:48 AM PDT

  •  What country is your town in? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza

    How did you find Daily Kos?

    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

    by benamery21 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:52:56 AM PDT

  •  Here's a good backgrounder on the conflict for you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stargaze, Lepanto
    After 1967 and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the aim of the settlement movement became clear -- create facts on the ground and make the creation of a Palestinian state impossible. Thirty nine years of occupation and the policy started showing results. There are now more than 200 settlements and outposts scattered throughout the West Bank blocking the geographic possibility of a contiguous Palestinian territory.

    The Iron Wall documentary exposes this phenomenon and follows the timeline, size, population of the settlements, and its impact on the peace process. This film also touches on the latest project to make the settlements a permanent fact on the ground -- the wall that Israel is building in the West Bank and its impact on the Palestinian's peoples.

    Settlements and related infrastructures are impacting every aspect of life for all Palestinians from land confiscation, theft of natural resources, confiscation of the basic human rights, creation of an apartheid-like system, to the devastating impact in regards to the future of the region and the prospect of the peace process.

    Palestinians and Israelis began the peace process based on a very simple principle: land for peace. Settlements destroy that principle and create a land with no peace.

  •  I think this diary must be tongue in cheek. (5+ / 0-)

    Nobody could be a member of DKos and actually be that completely oblivious.

    I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.--Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Timaeus on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:45:44 AM PDT

  •  I think some of these little histories don't go (0+ / 0-)

    far back enough. You have to go back at least to 1914, or maybe even prior. Much of this has to do with very bad decisions post-WWI on the part of the allies, and a lot of it has to do with alliance made by all sides before WWI, not to mention the reign of terror across Europe by monarchs, starvation of peasants in still-feudal Eastern Europe, the spread of empire and it's consequences it to the colonies throughout the undeveloped world at the time, and an already huge problems in the Middle East caused by yet another empire, the Ottomans. Failure of empire, failure of leadership, ease of fomenting hatred on all sides, and infighting within various factions of the Islamic world. It's not like everything in the Middle East was all hunky dory before the Jews showed up as many like to argue.

    "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."--Emma Goldman

    by ebgill on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:26:59 AM PDT

    •  The peasants always have a reason to revolt (0+ / 0-)

      Doesn't mean they shouldn't be revolting. If what ever "legal" change is happening, if it's too far from how things usually go then it will push up against "consent of the governed".

      The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

      by stargaze on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 06:33:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site