• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How should Israel respond to rocketfire?

oneworld2 said:
Around the same time Saddam gassed the Kurds he was being courted by the US............... and he wasn't executed for that crime
Click to expand...

He was essentially executed for being Saddam Hussein, a charge that included all his crimes.
 
oneworld2 said:
A lot of water and blood has passed since 1947.............. if you want to remain stuck there you are , on a global scale at least , almost on your own with that view
Click to expand...

I doubt that, but I'm not afraid of solitude either.
 
oneworld2 said:
Why not ?

It is the Israeli long term policies that have led to the situation involving rocket attacks from Gaza
Click to expand...

Because that's not the issue I wanted to talk about in this thread. If Israel's airstrikes in response to rocket attacks are too brutal, it only makes sense that Israel's critics should put forward their own immediate short-term plan that Israel could justly implement when that happens. There are plenty of existing threads on long-term policy.
 
Jack Hays said:
He was essentially executed for being Saddam Hussein, a charge that included all his crimes.
Click to expand...

Yep , at least he was made to pay for his crimes , something Blair and Bush haven't done
 
Jack Hays said:
I doubt that, but I'm not afraid of solitude either.
Click to expand...


Check the records on the support for a two state solution based on the 67 borders

We tend not to be scared of things we are , or have , become accustomed to
 
MadLib said:
Because that's not the issue I wanted to talk about in this thread. If Israel's airstrikes in response to rocket attacks are too brutal, it only makes sense that Israel's critics should put forward their own immediate short-term plan that Israel could justly implement when that happens. There are plenty of existing threads on long-term policy.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

End the blockade of Gaza and take up the Hamas offer of a ten year truce
 
oneworld2 said:
Fair enough.

End the blockade of Gaza and take up the Hamas offer of a ten year truce
Click to expand...

So the rockets are a response to Israeli blockade on Gaza?
Was there a blockade on Gaza when rockets first flew into Israeli airspace?
 
oneworld2 said:
Check the records on the support for a two state solution based on the 67 borders

We tend not to be scared of things we are , or have , become accustomed to
Click to expand...

When the Palestinians earn a state they will get one.
 
oneworld2 said:
Fair enough.

End the blockade of Gaza and take up the Hamas offer of a ten year truce
Click to expand...

The rockets were being fired many years prior to the blockade. The blockade was in fact a response to a massive increase in rocket fire after the disengagement culminating with the Hamas election and then takeover of Gaza.


The so called 10 year truce Hamas proposed is a completely bogus non-starter. No country in their right mind would agree to such a thing.


Basically your saying Israel should do nothing in response to the rockets except to capitulate to Hamas demands.
 
Jack Hays said:
As soon as Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...

Why can't the Israeli government just end the occupation and conclude a fair agreement for a two state solution as per their requirements under the law ?
 
oneworld2 said:
Why can't the Israeli government just end the occupation and conclude a fair agreement for a two state solution as per their requirements under the law ?
Click to expand...

An agreement requires a valid interlocutor. Hamas does not meet that standard.
 
GI Joe said:
The rockets were being fired many years prior to the blockade. The blockade was in fact a response to a massive increase in rocket fire after the disengagement culminating with the Hamas election and then takeover of Gaza.
Click to expand...

There is a lot to debate regarding the situation in Gaza and the conflict between Hamas , the PA and Israel and more broadly the near 50 occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel............. all of which are relevant to this discussion . I will try and address your point in as brief a form as time will allow.

The rocket attacks started not long after the second intifada commenced. You do know what happened in the second intifada ? That , imo , accounts for the rockets fired from 2001 until the time Israel decided that 6 thousand settlers in a place they didn't value as much as the WB , where most of the settlers where relocated ( along with the illegally occupied Golan ) and was tying down too many IDF staff and causing them too much grief , that's a large part of the disengagement imo

Maybe it would have been better to state that the rockets are a reaction to the near fifty year illegal occupation and settlement of OPT. A means to terrorize that was not available to them prior to 2001 in order to try to force a two state solution and their right to self determination.

The battle of Gaza , was a response to the Israeli/Egyptian/US backed coup attempt to oust Hamas after their election victory and replace them with the PA. The response to the Hamas election victory also led to the denial of international funding and tax revenues etc from the US , EU and Israel. That's some of the context to the period you are talking about.



The so called 10 year truce Hamas proposed is a completely bogus non-starter. No country in their right mind would agree to such a thing.
Click to expand...

How so ?

I think it's worth considering for the short term security of all those involved ( the theme of this thread ). IMO Israeli governments have chosen expansion over the security of their people since the country was created. That, to me , is the biggest obstacle to peace.

Did you read the last Hamas ceasefire proposal ?

I am not a fan of Hamas and their authoritarian rule but sometimes I think people focus too much on them and lose sight of the fact that the conflict predates them by some distance. The PA have renounced violence and where has it got them being honest ? The WB has more illegal settlers than ever and the facts on the ground don't bode well for any sort of viable state in the future.

Basically your saying Israel should do nothing in response to the rockets except to capitulate to Hamas demands.
Click to expand...

As I said above , Israel has chosen expansion over security imo that's what needs to change for everyone's best interest . A just two state solution based on the 67 borders is what virtually the whole world supports and is in line with international law. Hamas has said it will accept that to a degree. My view is that if the above was realized and people were allowed to crack on with better lives the appeal and influence of Hamas extremist elements would all but disappear.

If all of this sounds a bit pie in the sky it is worth thinking about recent events in Northern Ireland and the relative quiet a deal brought to the lives of people there , in a conflict that has lasted as long as the I/P conflict and seemed equally unlikely
 
Jack Hays said:
An agreement requires a valid interlocutor. Hamas does not meet that standard.
Click to expand...

The stifling of a Palestinian government/body capable of filling that role is in no small part down to Israeli manipulations imo.

The Israeli aversion to the recent unity government is just the latest example

If you manufacture a situation where you cannot find a partner to engage with to strike a fair deal , and it does have to be fair , you can keep the status quo going which suits Israeli planners
 
oneworld2 said:
The stifling of a Palestinian government/body capable of filling that role is in no small part down to Israeli manipulations imo.

The Israeli aversion to the recent unity government is just the latest example

If you manufacture a situation where you cannot find a partner to engage with to strike a fair deal , and it does have to be fair , you can keep the status quo going which suits Israeli planners
Click to expand...

I don't think Israel bears any responsibility for poor Palestinian leadership.
 
I think you will find that each man more than measures up to the the most cowardly army, the IDF.
 
Common_good said:
I think you will find that each man more than measures up to the the most cowardly army, the IDF.
Click to expand...

You mean the IDF that has regularly fought outnumbered and won more victories than any other army since WW2? That IDF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom