Gaza

[french frank]

it is being said that 80% of the Israelis polled think the army should carry on with what it's doing, and people wonder at Hamas treating Israels as if collectively complicit?

I don't know, on the other hand, what percentage of Palestinians want Hamas to continue firing their rockets, even after they have agreed a ceasefire.

Accepting that most people utterly condemn the violence on both sides (regardless of one's reasons for empathising with one side or the other), would it therefore be wrong to suggest that the Israelis kill Palestinian civilians but Hamas sentences them to death?

[MrGongGong]

I don't know, on the other hand, what percentage of Palestinians want Hamas to continue firing their rockets, even after they have agreed a ceasefire.

Accepting that most people utterly condemn the violence on both sides (regardless of one's reasons for empathising with one side or the other), would it therefore be wrong to suggest that the Israelis kill Palestinian civilians but Hamas sentences them to death?

Who else stands up for them ?
(again)
If people are treated in such a despicable way one can't blame them for supporting the only organisation that will actually DO something even if they are like Hamas ?

[french frank]

Who else stands up for them ?
(again)
If people are treated in such a despicable way one can't blame them for supporting the only organisation that will actually DO something even if they are like Hamas ?

That doesn't answer the question. In fact, it's a contradiction, surely? The Israeli attacks are the (vile, disproportionate) retaliation for the Hamas rockets, which is what I meant by saying they were the 'sentence of death' on civilians. Hamas knows that the inevitable result of the rocket attacks will be the deaths each time of hundreds of their fellow Palestinians, especially women and children. What kind of 'support' is that?

[amateur51]

That doesn't answer the question. In fact, it's a contradiction, surely? The Israeli attacks are the (vile, disproportionate) retaliation for the Hamas rockets, which is what I meant by saying they were the 'sentence of death' on civilians. Hamas knows that the inevitable result of the rocket attacks will be the deaths each time of hundreds of their fellow Palestinians, especially women and children. What kind of 'support' is that?

I think it's a case of "they may be bastards but at least they're our bastards".

[french frank]

I think it's a case of "they may be bastards but at least they're our bastards".

'We' don't come into it. How is Hamas benefiting its own people? They obstruct any chance for peace.

The first priority is to stop the violence in Gaza; Hamas has the means to achieve that if it stops firing rockets. Then there can be international talks about the rights of the Palestinians, in Gaza and Israel.

Hamas is not the Palestinian people: Hamas is complicit in the deaths along with the Israelis. Supporting Hamas is not supporting the Palestinians.

[Frances_iom]

IT DOESN'T

That is the line that some very nasty people want us all to believe

It's maybe important to also remember that Zionism is a classic case of terrorism achieving its goals (but we aren't supposed to mention that at all)

agree - why should anyone be surprised at Israeli action - they built the country based on murder, terrorism and theft - all paid for by American money (conscience money ?) - just read the comments of all independent visitors to the concentration camp that is Gaza - the Israeli admin had no intention of dealing honestly with negotiations with Palestinians (read recent comments in the Economist not a natural friend of Palestine) merely stringing them along whilst yet more settlements were established

[johnb]

Then there can be international talks about the rights of the Palestinians, in Gaza and Israel.

I assume that is meant as a black humour. Since when have international talks achieved anything at all (other than Israel annexing more and more of the West Bank making a just settlement increasingly unviable)?

The two sides are locked into this conflict (in the widest sense). They see their identities as being defined by the conflict. What the international community would regard as a just settlement would mean such dramatic changes for Israel that I suspect they prefer the current confrontation.

Neither side can escape from the situation without strong action being taken by the US government but that will not happen because of the very powerful Israeli lobby and because of the cowardice of the president.

[french frank]

I assume that is meant as a black humour.

No, it's not black humour. 'Talks' don't have to involve Israel - but it's for the UN to exert pressure on the US. Now that their personnel are being killed as well, perhaps Netanyahu will be hauled before the ICC.

Seeing this as just 'black humour' condemns the Palestinians to being annihilated.

[MrGongGong]

That doesn't answer the question. In fact, it's a contradiction, surely? The Israeli attacks are the (vile, disproportionate) retaliation for the Hamas rockets, which is what I meant by saying they were the 'sentence of death' on civilians. Hamas knows that the inevitable result of the rocket attacks will be the deaths each time of hundreds of their fellow Palestinians, especially women and children. What kind of 'support' is that?

I think what if often missed is that in portraying Hamas as a purely "terrorist" organisation people miss out on the fact that it IS the elected government (I'm not saying that they are a branch of the Tufty Club and are a rather nasty group indeed) and as such provides the infrastructure. Providing water when your water has been stolen, providing schools when your children are attacked, providing a semblance of organisation in a besieged country.... maybe are GOOD reasons for support.
If they stopped firing rockets it wouldn't get their land back, it wouldn't stop Israel oppressing the Palestinians...

As said before, Terrorism has been a rather effective strategy for the Zionists, they got the Palestinians land as a result.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/now-diplomacy-has-failed-boycotting-israel-might-be-the-only-way-we-can-protect-the-people-of-gaza-9638191.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/world-disgrace-gaza-un-shelter-school-israel

[french frank]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...a-9638191.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-school-israel

But, apart from the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israel (which I would also support), you're just repeating ad nauseam what we - i.e. you and I - both agree on. Totally.

But my point is that there's no morality in taking as per the Dawkins line on rape and paedophilia - that there are 'milder' forms of both. Nor are there milder forms of indiscriminate violence. You have to set the Hamas violence alongside that of the Israelis', and separate it from the suffering of the Palestinian people.

[MrGongGong]

You have to set the Hamas violence alongside that of the Israelis', and separate it from the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Indeed one does
But the constant "big boy did it and ran away" attitude doesn't encourage those with moderate views to feel that they have any say whatsoever.

When Israel has powerful people in the world who seem to be able to defend it's actions regardless then all that will do is encourage more suffering.

The complicity of western governments in this will come back to haunt us many times over and in horrible ways IMV
the comparison with Europe in the first half of the last century IS appropriate.

[P. G. Tipps]

But my point is that there's no morality in taking as per the Dawkins line on rape and paedophilia - that there are 'milder' forms of both. Nor are there milder forms of indiscriminate violence. You have to set the Hamas violence alongside that of the Israelis', and separate it from the suffering of the Palestinian people.

God knows I'm no fan of Dawkins (smiley) but I know exactly what he means when he refers to grades of sexual offences. The same generally applies to any type of offence including civil ones breaking the speed-limit in a restricted area. So many of us can well understand that slapping someone on the face is of a quite different order from, say, shooting him/her in the head.

As for the Gaza situation, the completely over-the-top action by the Israelis resulting in so many women and kiddies being slaughtered is a needless abomination and wholly self-defeating. That is not to take sides. Rockets are constantly lobbed at Israeli civilians and that is also an abomination, though the Israelis appear to be well capable of destroying the huge majority of these in mid-air.

However even the US now seems to be getting somewhat restless over this latest Israeli action. Until Israel is prepared to give up the occupied territories and consider a two-state solution with the Palestinians there will be no chance of any sort of peace.

Of course outside observers have known that all along and yet both sides involved in the violence seem determined to try and slaughter each other instead.

Deeply depressing indeed and, of course, much much worse for the poor relatives of the slaughtered innocents.

[aeolium]

'We' don't come into it. How is Hamas benefiting its own people? They obstruct any chance for peace.

The first priority is to stop the violence in Gaza; Hamas has the means to achieve that if it stops firing rockets. Then there can be international talks about the rights of the Palestinians, in Gaza and Israel.

Hamas is not the Palestinian people: Hamas is complicit in the deaths along with the Israelis. Supporting Hamas is not supporting the Palestinians.

Hamas does though have a lot of support among the Palestinians themselves. Not only did they win an election, but after Israel's 2008-9 Operation Cast Lead offensive, support actually increased for Hamas to over 50% compared with low-teens for Fatah. Partly this can be explained because Hamas is perceived as less corrupt, but also it is heavily involved in social welfare schemes which the old Palestinian Authority neglected. And a consistent demand of Hamas - which is being repeated now - is that it will stop the violence (at least, for a truce) if Israel will lift the crippling blockade. And that is surely another reason for the support for Hamas - that a cessation of violence on both sides will not prevent the Palestinians in Gaza from severe suffering, even if it will stop the large-scale killing that is going on now. The Palestinians - and Hamas itself - see no prospect of international talks bringing about peace. When have they ever looked like doing so, given the Israelis' refusal to acknowledge that their occupation of land beyond the 1967 UN borders is illegal? The sense that they are in a war with Israel, that the international community will not help them, is entirely comprehensible. The international community clearly will not help the Palestinians by doing the only thing that could bring about peace, namely force the Israelis on pain of subsidy withdrawal to negotiate on the basis of UN resolutions.

[french frank]

The international community clearly will not help the Palestinians by doing the only thing that could bring about peace, namely force the Israelis on pain of subsidy withdrawal to negotiate on the basis of UN resolutions.

Well, someone has to 'talk' to somebody to achieve that. It doesn't somehow automatically 'happen'.

Hamas may be less corrupt, be supported by a majority of Palestinians, involved in social welfare scheme &c &c - but it still believes that the mass killing of its people is a necessary lever to force the 'international community' to act. In a moral sense, that is complicity. If the blockade were lifted, essential supplies could reach the people. Would Hamas then increase its rocket attacks, given that its primary concern is not, apparently, the 'welfare' of the people?

The key fact is: is the international community more likely to act if Hamas continues with its violence; or is it more likely to act if Hamas renounces violence? Because I also can't see that a solution will be achieved without the international community taking the Israelis by the metaphorical throat.