Israel bombs Gaza militants after intensive rocket fire

[donsutherland1]

From Reuters:

Israel bombed 29 targets in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, the Israeli military said, after Palestinian militants in the coastal territory fired 60 rockets into Israel in the heaviest such barrage since 2012.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had ordered the military "to take any action necessary to restore calm" to Israel's south, and that "if there is no quiet in the south then it will be noisy in Gaza, and that's an understatement."

Israel bombs Gaza militants after intensive rocket fire | Reuters

This latest act of aggression carried out by Gaza Strip-based terrorists highlights the reality Israel continues to face. Israel is fully justified in acting in self-defense agains the terrorists and should take such action as is necessary to deter future rocket fire or other acts of aggression.

It should also be noted that Palestinian President Abbas criticized Israel, not the terrorists responsible for the rocket fire. His latest remarks provide just another illustration that he does not appear to be a viable partner for peace.

 

[Cardinal]

From Reuters:



Israel bombs Gaza militants after intensive rocket fire | Reuters

This latest act of aggression carried out by Gaza Strip-based terrorists highlights the reality Israel continues to face. Israel is fully justified in acting in self-defense agains the terrorists and should take such action as is necessary to deter future rocket fire or other acts of aggression.

It should also be noted that Palestinian President Abbas criticized Israel, not the terrorists responsible for the rocket fire. His latest remarks provide just another illustration that he does not appear to be a viable partner for peace.

This generation of leaders in the area appears to not have anyone who is particularly interested in peace, and in fact I haven't heard of any serious move for peace talks in a large number of years. All I can say is for that to occur it won't be with Netanyahu and Abbas in power.

 

[CJ 2.0]

This generation of leaders in the area appears to not have anyone who is particularly interested in peace, and in fact I haven't heard of any serious move for peace talks in a large number of years. All I can say is for that to occur it won't be with Netanyahu and Abbas in power.

Doesn't matter who is in power in Israel. The Palestinians have no interest in peace, regardless of who is at the helm (and they wouldn't let anyone take the helm who was actually interested anyways).

 

[donsutherland1]

This generation of leaders in the area appears to not have anyone who is particularly interested in peace, and in fact I haven't heard of any serious move for peace talks in a large number of years. All I can say is for that to occur it won't be with Netanyahu and Abbas in power.

I disagree. If the Palestinian leadership is ready to conclude peace with Israel, it can have an agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that Israel would give up some settlements to achieve peace.

Netanyahu says Israel would give up 'some settlements' for peace | Reuters

If the Palestinians are serious, they would make a counter offer--perhaps increasing the number of settlements--so that the real bargaining on the exact number and specific ones could be established. I have seen little indication that Israel would not give the Palestinians most of the West Bank in exchange for a peace agreement.

 

[gunner]

I disagree. If the Palestinian leadership is ready to conclude peace with Israel, it can have an agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that Israel would give up some settlements to achieve peace.

Netanyahu says Israel would give up 'some settlements' for peace | Reuters

If the Palestinians are serious, they would make a counter offer--perhaps increasing the number of settlements--so that the real bargaining on the exact number and specific ones could be established. I have seen little indication that Israel would not give the Palestinians most of the West Bank in exchange for a peace agreement.

If only it was that simple, Don

Paul

 

[donsutherland1]

If only it was that simple, Don

Paul

I agree. Unfortunately, typical of ethnic conflicts, an uncompromising zero-sum mentality takes hold. Unlike Jordan and Egypt, who did not see Israel as lying on their territory, the Palestinians believe that the entire region is theirs. That perspective crowds out pragmatism. With pragmatism, they could have had peace and a sovereign state. They passed up President Clinton's generous proposal and it remains to be seen if anything will be quite as generous going forward. With natural population growth in Israel's West Bank population centers, I tend to doubt it. Delay has opportunity costs.

 

[gunner]

I agree. Unfortunately, typical of ethnic conflicts, an uncompromising zero-sum mentality takes hold. Unlike Jordan and Egypt, who did not see Israel as lying on their territory, the Palestinians believe that the entire region is theirs. That perspective crowds out pragmatism. With pragmatism, they could have had peace and a sovereign state. They passed up President Clinton's generous proposal and it remains to be seen if anything will be quite as generous going forward. With natural population growth in Israel's West Bank population centers, I tend to doubt it. Delay has opportunity costs.

And so it goes on. Without some 'brave' and conciliatory decisions from both sides, I fear, you offer to accurate an assessment. It has gone very quite on the latest 'peace' endeavour, hopefully there is more happening behind the scenes, but I doubt it.

Paul

 

[Cardinal]

I disagree. If the Palestinian leadership is ready to conclude peace with Israel, it can have an agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that Israel would give up some settlements to achieve peace.

Netanyahu says Israel would give up 'some settlements' for peace | Reuters

If the Palestinians are serious, they would make a counter offer--perhaps increasing the number of settlements--so that the real bargaining on the exact number and specific ones could be established. I have seen little indication that Israel would not give the Palestinians most of the West Bank in exchange for a peace agreement.

In turn I disagree, as I've seen no indication the Palestinians are willing to cede any of their own demands. As to the willingness to give up settlements, I believe that if Netanyahu were serious about peace he'd make moves to freeze settlements right now. It would if nothing else demonstrate good faith on Israel's part, a quality on both sides sorely lacking at the moment. Treating settlements as bargaining chips doesn't demonstrate good faith.

 

[donsutherland1]

From Reuters:

Although the terms of the mooted accord have not been published, Palestinians say early indications suggest they will be offered less than what former U.S. President Bill Clinton laid out in 2000 in the so-called Clinton Parameters.

As hope withers, Palestinian president heads to Washington | Reuters

This isn't too surprising. Some of Israel's West Bank population centers have increased in size over the past decade. It would likely be impractical to go back to what was offered in 2000. At the same time, it should be noted that a failure to conclude peace under the present undisclosed terms would likely lead to a situation where even less generous terms will be practical a decade from now.

 

[donsutherland1]

One other note from the above Reuters article that highlights Palestinian intransigence: Compromise on certain core issues e.g., the demand for a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees to Israel was equated as "treason." When compromise is defined as treason, there is no flexibility to accommodate the needs of the other party. Yet, that's the term that was used. Hence, even if the Palestinians agree to continue the diplomatic process, there is no meaningful commitment to make the trade-offs necessary to secure peace.

 

[alexa]

From Reuters:

Although the terms of the mooted accord have not been published, Palestinians say early indications suggest they will be offered less than what former U.S. President Bill Clinton laid out in 2000 in the so-called Clinton Parameters.

As hope withers, Palestinian president heads to Washington | Reuters

This isn't too surprising. Some of Israel's West Bank population centers have increased in size over the past decade. It would likely be impractical to go back to what was offered in 2000. At the same time, it should be noted that a failure to conclude peace under the present undisclosed terms would likely lead to a situation where even less generous terms will be practical a decade from now.

Of course this is true. This is Israel's foot on the ground policy. However it goes against both International law and the Oslo agreement.

As the possibility of a viable contiguous Palestinian state has been removed, the only possibility left is a One State solution. Hence the increase in involvement of BDS and so on.

I am not getting into the argument but that is the opposite position and I believe the more likely outcome.

 

[ido_]

As the possibility of a viable contiguous Palestinian state has been removed, the only possibility left is a One State solution. Hence the increase in involvement of BDS and so on.

There is no problem to create a contiguous Palestinian state.

I am not getting into the argument but that is the opposite position and I believe the more likely outcome.

How can it be likely when neither side is interested in this solution?

 

[alexa]

There is no problem to create a contiguous Palestinian state.

Viable contiguous state was what I said. I should have said if, I realised that. I believe that this is the last chance Israel will have to negotiate for a two state solution. That should be seen in context to Don's post which believes that Israel can take more and more of the Palestinians land for ever.

How can it be likely when neither side is interested in this solution?

Fair enough. I am aware most people do not want one state. Nonetheless what is going on cannot continue. Hence I see BDS which has very strong support now making changes itself. I am also aware that Israel is losing support of Jews in the US and UK. They live in a society where they are treated as equal and have the same rights as everyone else. More and more are finding they cannot support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians - this is of course in the US more true of the younger generation.

If Israel does not offer a just settlement then I see the rich and the talented leaving Israel because of the effect of BDS. A different state will then come about. I have read some suggestions as beginning as a federal state, possibly including other countries. That might work but what I think is most sad is that I think Israel has had so much more power than the Palestinians that she has not seen the need to make a just settlement. BDS I think will change her mind. Again remember this was written in response to Don implying that Israel would just take more land for another ten years. I believe that time is up and this is Israel's last chance. I am not alone in that thought.

PS an Israeli on another forum said that when Rabin was killed everyone knew the peace process was over. I have picked him up on that and he has confirmed this and I pointed out to him that if he knew that, the Palestinians did too.

Why did the hope of a two state solution and peace die with Rabin?

 

[ChezC3]

The Palestinians lost their best chance when given everything they demanded (and re-demanded after the initial demands were met) but for the nonsensical "Right of Return" and Arafat refused.

This, another testament to a long line of wrong-headed decisions by palestinian leadership.

 

[quantumechanic]

Fair enough. I am aware most people do not want one state. Nonetheless what is going on cannot continue. Hence I see BDS which has very strong support now making changes itself. I am also aware that Israel is losing support of Jews in the US and UK. They live in a society where they are treated as equal and have the same rights as everyone else. More and more are finding they cannot support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians - this is of course in the US more true of the younger generation.

If Israel does not offer a just settlement then I see the rich and the talented leaving Israel because of the effect of BDS. A different state will then come about. I have read some suggestions as beginning as a federal state, possibly including other countries. That might work but what I think is most sad is that I think Israel has had so much more power than the Palestinians that she has not seen the need to make a just settlement. BDS I think will change her mind. Again remember this was written in response to Don implying that Israel would just take more land for another ten years. I believe that time is up and this is Israel's last chance. I am not alone in that thought.

PS an Israeli on another forum said that when Rabin was killed everyone knew the peace process was over. I have picked him up on that and he has confirmed this and I pointed out to him that if he knew that, the Palestinians did too.

Why did the hope of a two state solution and peace die with Rabin?

I disagree with virtually everything you said, but don't see much point debating it as I doubt we'd get anything but angry. I'm curious about one thing though, what makes you think that the opinion of one Israeli is conclusive evidence of the I\P peace process being over?

 

[GI Joe]

Of course this is true. This is Israel's foot on the ground policy. However it goes against both International law and the Oslo agreement.

As the possibility of a viable contiguous Palestinian state has been removed, the only possibility left is a One State solution. Hence the increase in involvement of BDS and so on.

I am not getting into the argument but that is the opposite position and I believe the more likely outcome.

Its not true at all. The facts on the ground dont violate international law and Oslo nor do they preclude the possibility of a viable Pal state. All the settlement growth was within existing municipal boundries which have not grown and remain about 4% of the WB and built up areas still only occupying under 2% of the WB despite their growth. This growth was also in areas that will be part of a land swap in any deal. Olmert offered a better deal than Clinton despite much of the settlement growth that had occured by then. That was probably the best deal the Pals could have gotten and they should have taken as I dont think there will be anything as close.

Here is a prior post I made on the subject

First off the settlements only comprise 3 or 4% of the West Bank. The Main blocks which have roughly around 90% of the people are located ajacent to the Green line. These settlements are going to stay with Israel either unilaterally or by negotiated peace deal which would probably include land swaps or them. These settlements are not an obstacle to peace anymore than the settlements in the Sinai were obstacles. If they were obstacles then Israels withdraw from Gaza would have resulted in less terror not a geometric increase in attacks.

The majority of the settlements are not illegal per international law and Res 242. They are disputed territory and per 242 Israel is not required to leave all of it. But this is for another discussion

The real obstacle to peace is essentially the same as it always has been since Israels founding in 48. This was Arab/Pal agression, incitement, terrorism and various others things directed at Israel. Also it was their obstructionist unrealistic view hoping for the impossible as well as making demands for the impossible

The longer the Palestinians engage in terror hoping for the impossible that they will defeat Israel to get from river to sea, and hold out for demands or concessions that they will never get, the worse their situation will get and the worse peace deal they will get. Right or wrong the reality is Israel is much more powerful and can continue with the status quo much longer with more minimal effects on its society than the Palestinians can. The Palestinians can either accept this reality, get what they realistically can and move on avoiding needless misery or they can continue to live in misery holding out for the impossible and eventually having to take a worse deal.

 

[ido_]

Viable contiguous state was what I said. I should have said if, I realised that. I believe that this is the last chance Israel will have to negotiate for a two state solution. That should be seen in context to Don's post which believes that Israel can take more and more of the Palestinians land for ever.



Fair enough. I am aware most people do not want one state. Nonetheless what is going on cannot continue. Hence I see BDS which has very strong support now making changes itself. I am also aware that Israel is losing support of Jews in the US and UK. They live in a society where they are treated as equal and have the same rights as everyone else. More and more are finding they cannot support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians - this is of course in the US more true of the younger generation.

If Israel does not offer a just settlement then I see the rich and the talented leaving Israel because of the effect of BDS. A different state will then come about. I have read some suggestions as beginning as a federal state, possibly including other countries. That might work but what I think is most sad is that I think Israel has had so much more power than the Palestinians that she has not seen the need to make a just settlement. BDS I think will change her mind. Again remember this was written in response to Don implying that Israel would just take more land for another ten years. I believe that time is up and this is Israel's last chance. I am not alone in that thought.

That is much more likely scenario than the one state solution. But in any way, Israel is not losing legitimacy because there is no Palestinian state, Israel is losing legitimacy because of settlement expansion, thus a much more likely scenario if such pressure will be applied on Israel will be freezing all expansion in the west bank and unilaterally annex the settlement blocks, evicts the isolated outposts, give all Palestinians in this territory the option to become citizens and disengage from the rest of the west bank which will likely end up like Gaza

PS an Israeli on another forum said that when Rabin was killed everyone knew the peace process was over. I have picked him up on that and he has confirmed this and I pointed out to him that if he knew that, the Palestinians did too.

Why did the hope of a two state solution and peace die with Rabin?

I disagree with that statement, from what I know Rabin opposed the two state solution and Peres was the one pushing forward to this kind of solution. And the idea never died, on the contrary it is supported by larger parts of the Israeli public. The problem the Israeli public have is not with the two state solution, even part of the settlers I talked to agree this is the only solution, the problem is that most of the Israeli public don't think the current Palestinian leadership is honest enough to go forward with a peace treaty due to the 2nd intifada.

 

[GI Joe]

[alexa;1063048093]Viable contiguous state was what I said. I should have said if, I realised that. I believe that this is the last chance Israel will have to negotiate for a two state solution. That should be seen in context to Don's post which believes that Israel can take more and more of the Palestinians land for ever.

Nothing has changed to prevent a viable Pal contiguous state.
This is not Israels last chance to negotiate a two state solution but it may be the Pals last chance before Israel imposes a unilateral solution. It should be seen in the context not that Israel believes it can take more Pal land(its not Pal land but disputed territory) forever but in the context that Pals believe thier rejectionism can go on forever until their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel or at minimum some unrealistic deal there is no hope they will get.

Fair enough. I am aware most people do not want one state. Nonetheless what is going on cannot continue. Hence I see BDS which has very strong support now making changes itself. I am also aware that Israel is losing support of Jews in the US and UK. They live in a society where they are treated as equal and have the same rights as everyone else. More and more are finding they cannot support Israel's treatment of the Palestinians - this is of course in the US more true of the younger generation.

Whats going on can continue as long as the Pals want it to.

BDS does not have very strong support nor has it grown much. The few victories it has made are insignificant and many have themsevles experienced negative consequences.
Israel has not lost support of the Jews in the US and UK nor for that matter has it lost the support of the US as a whole. Support for Israel in the US remains high.


All Israeli citizens live in a society with equal rights too. Just like all societies there are problems and room for improvement.
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and have a long history of hostility and aggression against Israel. Non citizens of the US and UK and any other country for that matter do not enjoy equal rights with those of its respective citizens, especially non citizens that are hostile.Israel treats the Palestinians the way they do as a consequence of their long history of agrgession against Israel but its still better that just about any other country would in the same situation.
Why do you think Israel needs to treat Palestinians who are hostile non citizens with equal rights to their own citizens despite this being a requirement expected of no other country in the world?

If Israel does not offer a just settlement then I see the rich and the talented leaving Israel because of the effect of BDS. A different state will then come about. I have read some suggestions as beginning as a federal state, possibly including other countries. That might work but what I think is most sad is that I think Israel has had so much more power than the Palestinians that she has not seen the need to make a just settlement. BDS I think will change her mind. Again remember this was written in response to Don implying that Israel would just take more land for another ten years. I believe that time is up and this is Israel's last chance. I am not alone in that thought.

PS an Israeli on another forum said that when Rabin was killed everyone knew the peace process was over. I have picked him up on that and he has confirmed this and I pointed out to him that if he knew that, the Palestinians did too.

Why did the hope of a two state solution and peace die with Rabin?

Israel over the years has made many generous peace offers that were more than fair only to be rejected by the Pals. The deals included land swaps where Israel keeps most of the major settlements along the green line which contain 90% of the settlers anyway and leave all the other settlements including all of the outlying settlements. In return the Palestinians get an equivilent land swap which would include a passage to link the West Bank to Gaza. The Palestinians rejected all such proposals.

To date Pal/Arab aggression, wars and rejectionism of peace with Israel since before Israels formation has been the cause of Pal misery and the positon they are in. Actions have consequenses and they are feeling theirs. They used aggression and lost, they dont get to demand terms.



I will continue with a post I made in Jan 2010

 

[GI Joe]

Here is a post I made in Jan 2010 that explains a lot



The Pals need to capitulate


Generally Israel nor any other country in the world is going to do something against their self interest and security if they dont have to, especially when it involves current hostilities . All countries will use the power they have to minimize threats against them. Until there is some sort of paradigm shift that makes doing something in their interest and security it will not happen because they have the power to whats best for themselves .

The history of Arab/Pal rhetoric, wars, agression and terror against Israel that continues to this day makes the status quo a better safer more secure option than giving into what the Pals want which would make attacks against Israel easier and put all its major population centers at much greater threat. The reality is the status quo while far from perfect gives Israel more security and minimizes threats better than a peace deal under current conditions. Israels borders are not surounded by countries like Canada or like Western European borders, it is surrounded by despotic even genocidal regimes as well attacked from terrorist infested/controlled areas and whom all share a hatred for Israel . Even the countries who have a cold peace with Israel are just a coup away from a regime that wants to destroy Israel. No country in Israels situation would risk their security as Israel is expected to do as if its like N America or W Europe. Most countries in fact would react far more forcefully than Israel has.

The Pals have done this to themselves with the years of rhetoric,attacks, inaction stopping attacks and sqaundering every confidence building opportunity like the Gaza pullout. The second intifada was a complete disaster that the Pals brought onto themselves. In 2000, peace was on the horizon, Israeli confidence was high that it could be achieved and they were willing to take a chance on it despite the security threats. The paradigm shifted over the years making it more attractive to take that chance. There was a level of guarded trust that had been built up. There was cooperation on various matters especially in the growing economic and business ties. Almost overnight the violence of the second intifada wiped out everything and shifted the paradigm radically away from a peace deal. The Gaza pullout was a chance for the Pals to reverse some of the damage and build Israeli confidence as well as their own prosperity but they used the opportunity to launch more attacks. After Gaza no country would take any more chances let alone put all their major population centers in range unless there was a major shift in the Palestinian attitudes and actions.

Since Israel is more powerfull and can continue the status quo a lot longer than the Pals and under much less misery, the harsh reality is the Pals will need to capatulate. It is up to them to stop the rhetoric and attacks and try to build Israeli confidence. The Pals need to take the steps to shift the current paradigm. The longer the Pals wait the more they will suffer and the worse deal they will get. They can capitulate and realize they are not going to get everything they want or they can continue to fight, live in misery and lose. Right or wrong its the reality of how the world works and has always worked.


A note on economic and business ties. These are some of the best ways to shift such a paradigm to make it in a countries interest to take a greater risk on a peace deal. Because businesses want stability and cooperation not chaos and conflict, economic ties can be very strong and motivational factors since business leaders/groups have power and access to influence govs. One of the sad casualties of the intifada was the destruction of these ties. Once the pals stop the incitement and attacks they should promote business ties as a quick way to build more confidence, promote stability and cooperation and eventually shift the paradigm to make conflict unwanted, unthinkable and against everyones interests. Hopefully to the point of no return. Its a fact that countries with large economic ties and shared interests do not fight each other and will cooperate more effectively even when something might not be in ones interest but will help each other out for the long range greater interest. If the Pals want any deal they need to capitulate and if they want a better deal then this is the kind of thing they need to do. Otherwise they can continue to fight, live in misery and lose.




some quotes

"The Palestinians will, in fact, get their de facto state, though one that may be now cut off entirely from Israeli commerce and cultural intercourse. This is an apparently terrifying thought: Palestinian men can no longer blow up Jews on Monday, seek dialysis from them on Tuesday, get an Israeli paycheck on Wednesday, demonstrate to CNN cameras about the injustice of it all on Thursday — and then go back to tunneling under Gaza and three-hour, all-male, conspiracy-mongering sessions in coffee-houses on Friday. Beware of getting what you bomb for." -- Victor Davis Hanson


"Instead, the elite Westerner talks about “occupied lands” from which Israel has been attacked four times in the last 60 years — in a manner that Germans do not talk about an occupied West they coughed up to France or an occupied East annexed by Poland. Russia lectures about Jenin, but rarely its grab of Japanese islands. Turkey is worried about the West Bank, but not its swallowing much of Cyprus. China weighs in about Palestinian sovereignty but not the entire culture of Tibet; some British aristocrats bemoan Sharon’s supposed land grab, but not Gibraltar. All these foreign territories that were acquired through blood and iron and held on to by reasons of “national security” are somehow different matters when Jews are not involved." -- Victor Davis Hanson


"I wish I could attribute the absence of any conventional Arab offensive in the last 20 years to a change of political climate or a willingness to abide by past accords. But unfortunately it is more likely that the Egyptians or Syrians concluded that the next time their tanks headed to Tel Aviv, there was nothing stopping the counterassaults from ending up in downtown Cairo or Damascus." -- Victor Davis Hanson