Palestine / Israel Conflict

 maybe "heated" was the wrong impression then   

Let's just hope one day the conflict will be over..... who knows what the future will bring....

I feel bad for the Palestinians they've been duped and are suffering mightily for it.

LizzyNY wrote: However, it does seem that if the countries where the terrorists operate had acted to stop them earlier they might have been successful. Instead they let the genie out of the bottle and now we're all suffering the consequences.

Not sure that really makes sense to me. It was the USA who got rid of Saddam Hussein and therefore 'let the genie out of the bottle'.

LornaDoone wrote: I recently saw a discussion about Islam in general and one author noted that there are peaceful Muslims but they believe that world wide peace will only be achieved when the entire world is following Islamic rule.

There are only three choices in their religion:  1.  you will convert, 2. you will be subjugated 3. or they will war with you until you either convert, be subjugated or are dead.

Sure, but that also goes for Christians, Jews, Hindus etc etc etc. There will ALWAYS be people who believe their religion gives them the right to tell everyone else of another religion how to live (or die). It's a fact of life.

LornaDoone wrote:That's what the core teachings of their book tells them to do.

Ahem. So the bible teaches the same thing. And before anyone goes demanding specifically where in the bible (because as far as I can remember, it's not specifically stated), there's nowhere in the Qu'oran either where this is a core teaching. It, like the bible, is something that can be understood from how you choose to interpret the writing. It is however specifically stated that 'people of the book' (in other words Jews, Christians and Muslims) can't be harmed. So bad luck all you Bhuddists out there!

LornaDoone wrote:So yes, Islam is a religion of peace that will only have peace once their religion is the only religion in the world.

Sorry Lorna, but this is bullshit. Firstly, that attitude is not in any way unique to Islam but is a tenet of every world religion I can think of.

Secondly, historically Islam has been (comparatively) one of the more peaceful and open minded religions to live under. In over 1,600 years of Islam, there isn't a great history of religious intolerance (no Spanish inquisitions, no pogroms) and while Europe descended into the darkness of the middle ages, it was the muslim countries that kept the flame of science and literature alight. I'm not claiming that the middle east has been nothing but a joyful place to live because there's nowhere on earth where that would be true, but in comparison to Christian Europe, midlde eastern countries have generally been open minded and tolerant. It's only been in the past half-century or so where the religioius intolerance and hatred that Christianity has had for centuries made the leap to Islam. Personally I don't think it's entirely coincidental that this coincides with the importance of oil in this world, the easy availability of (and willingness of governments to sell) weapons and the existence of a media that gives every monomaniac a voice in the household of every person around the world.

Thinking that Hamas and their ilk represent ALL muslims is as mistaken as thinking that Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christians.

LornaDoone wrote:It is a religion but to Hamas and groups like them, it is also a political movement. 

Again, I'd say that was true for many religions - especially the further back in time you go. Due to a rise in apathy and atheism, Christianity may be more of a spent force in the world today, but for centuries it was the power behind the throne (and often on the throne too).

Politics and religion have always been, and sadly I think always will be inseperable. Would the US be the country it is today without thousands of people fleeing religious persecution in 17th century England? Would the state of Israel even exist if it weren't for anti-semitism worldwide? India and Pakistan have been two countries for only the past 60+ years because Hindus and Muslims couldn't win in their fight for control of the country - leaving tens of thousands slaughtered.

Hamas, ISIS et al aren't a huge threat to the rest of the world and our way of life but they're a definite death sentence to many muslims (ask anyone even remotely liberal what life is like under the taliban, or under the ayatollahs).

Katie, I have never met a Christian who believes that you MUST convert, be subjugated or die. Christians believe in forgiveness through Christ and the way to Christ is through the repentance of our sins. Religious people believe in keeping
traditions and converting to a specific religion in order to be saved, as it happened
during the dark and middle ages with the Catholic church. But even so, that is not the case now in modern times. These atrocities that we are witnessing is mostly in the Middle East  where religious traditions dominate their life.

Murder, war, and infanticide are not and have never been religious principles. They are political and cultural means to a man-made end. Whatever the religion, if God -- whatever that means to any given group or individual -- truly touches your heart, there is no room for the kind of hate that allows these kinds of acts. I don't stand in judgment of anyone's beliefs, because who's to say what origins are more legitimate or mythology more plausible, but the minute I hear that a 'religious' belief system dictates the destruction of human beings, I'm out and there's nothing anyone who believes that can say that has any ideological credibility to me.

If Hamas thinks it has to wage war, they should do it like men, not cowards who use innocents for fodder and shields. If Israel were really only defending itself, it wouldn't lie about things that are already tragic and use them as excuses for more bloodshed (yes, I'm talking about the three teenage boys and the "missing" soldier). If Hamas wanted peace, it would stop digging tunnels and using them to attack Israel. If Israel only wanted to stop the incursions, they would find a way to plug the tunnels instead of bombing the land and people above them into oblivion.

But they don't, so they won't.

So we can do what we can in our own lives, but it won't have any direct effect, unless and until the people themselves decide that enough is enough.

From the very beginning of time religion has been used as an excuse for rebellion/war even when political reasons were at hand.

Why religion? Religion is easier to use to manipulate and brainwash the masses. It's
better than having to explain one's political views.

katie we'll agree to disagree so i won't go over you point by point dissertation.

conversion, subjugation or death.  three choices.  I stand by my comments and given what is happening in country after country with radical Islam I don't see that being out of line with what is happening TODAY.

History is over.  I'm worried about the now.


Two sides of the debate:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

What the son of one of the founder of Hamas has to say about Hamas:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/hamas-founders-son-hamas-terrorist-organization-hu/

Katiedot wrote:

LizzyNY wrote: However, it does seem that if the countries where the terrorists operate had acted to stop them earlier they might have been successful. Instead they let the genie out of the bottle and now we're all suffering the consequences.

 Not sure that really makes sense to me.  It was the USA who got rid of Saddam Hussein and therefore 'let the genie out of the bottle'.

Hamas, ISIS et al aren't a huge threat to the rest of the world and our way of life but they're a definite death sentence to many muslims (ask anyone even remotely liberal what life is like under the taliban, or under the ayatollahs).

Katie - To clarify, until the US stupidly toppled Hussein he had Hamas (and anyone else who might challenge his power) under tight control in Iraq. If he was able to do it why couldn't the other countries in the region do it, too ? I'm sure some tried, but once Hussein was gone as a threat in the region, other countries with their own political/religious agendas encouraged and supported the terrorist groups we're dealing with today.

Hamas and ISIS and all their offshoots and allies are a threat to the rest of the world. It is not as immediately severe as the threat to other Muslims, but don't fool yourself into thinking they don't want to bring their insanity to the rest of the world. More immediately, the threat they pose is the destabilization of the Middle East and the involvement of the West. I don't think this will happen tomorrow, but barring peaceful solution (which seems impossible) the future doesn't bode well for anyone, IMO.

We usually agree on most things, and I really don't want to argue about this issue any more. It is depressing and seems to have no solution. I completely understand Nicky's desire to put it out of her mind and only wish there was some way for a peaceful outcome.

I pretty much agree with you Lizzy. I didn't say they weren't a threat, I said they aren't a huge threat. IMO, when it comes to crazy psychos who will send our countries up in a ball of fire, it's Putin you want to watch.

The middle east is fucked, has been fucked forever and will remain so. The hotheads running around creating the new caliphate are a greater danger to their coreligionists than they're ever going to be to the rest of the world but luckily there's no shortage of even crazier hotheads to challenge them and try to take their power. We can look forward to more news headlines about bloodshed and internicine fighting.

I'm with Nicky on this one too.

Yesterday Michael Bloomberg (former billionaire mayor of NY) was on tv talking about the political impact business investments could make in Africa and the Middle East. I'd agree with him if I thought any of the money would find its way to the people of those countries. It would help ease tensions if people could improve their standard of living. Unfortunately, most of the money would probably go to big corporations and the rulers of the countries who would use it for their own purposes, IMO.

 

No landgrab, no Hamas. And how will the world deal with ISIS ?

Atalante wrote:No landgrab, no Hamas. And how will the world deal with ISIS ?

Good question.

I think Lizzy makes a good point also.  So many of these radical groups are able to gain power either by taking it by force or promising people who are suffering that THEY will make it better for them. Often citing the US or non-beliving religious groups as their enemy and the reason for their suffering.

If all this aid that the US already sends to these countries was actually used to help the people there would be less opportunity for radical groups to gain strongholds.

But it doesn't get to the people who need it and these radicals then put the blame on some external country or some "other" religious group and the cycle of death and destruction continues.

There's a saying we used to say as kids about what happens when say for instance a rebel fighter who starts out "fighiting the good fight for THE people" but then gets in charge and has access to the resources of a country and the money that goes with it... "People sure get funny when they get a little money!"

This seems to apply over and over in so many countries - including the US - and I don't get it.

You come into power, you have money and so everyone else somehow loses value and only what YOU want becomes of any value?

We see it in North Korea with the ruler of that country perpetuating years of oppression to stay in power and in gold toilets and steaks.

We see it in Russia with Putin and his cronies privately owning natural resources and controlling the flow and sale of those resources to line their own pockets... and now doing everything they can to grab back as much of the Ukraine as possible.

Even the Ukraine goverment heads who were run out of the country.  Their lavish homes revealed once they ran.

These people have power and they take the resources to line their pockets and sell everyone else a bowl of bullshit about how their terrible lot in life is someone else's fault!

Over and over - Sudan - the fight for the oil and the riches that come with it.

We see it time and time again and frankly, I don't know how you change that as long as you have greedy men in power or men who perhaps were seeking a better life for all, changing once they got in charge!

The saying goes "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That's why democracy is supposed to be better than autocracy and dictatorship - the ultimate power is supposed to rest with the people. Unfortunately it rarely happens, including here in the US.
People become so disillusioned with corrupt, self-serving politicians they give up on the system and just take care of themselves This "every man for himself" attitude perpetuates the corruption. And so it goes - around and around and around. So sad.

Very true Lizzy - vicious circle that needs a break

And just when you think you know what you know you get a group like ISIS...

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/08/05/pkg-damon-isis-christian-threats.cnn.html

And I guess my comment about all those peace loving citizens - if you say nothing then by your silence you give tacit approval.

Doesn't matter to me if you're Muslim, Jewish, Christian. 

We're so busy trying not to offend (or want to bury our heads in the sand) that we forget that's how evil takes over. 

If nothing else I hope the actions of these people in the name of religion are used as a lesson to OUR children that people like those of ISIS and HAMAS are the true evil doers and that what they are doing is wrong and NOT how religious teachings are supposed to be applied.

What frustrates me are the mothers who say the death of their children is okay because it's the will of Allah or that it is worth it for the "cause"!  Good God! Can we say brainwashed from birth?

I don't think a benevolent loving God would ask for the death of children as payment for belief in HIM.  THAT comes from MEN who have bastardized the teachings.

Silence is not golden - silence in the face of these atrocities is deadly.

LornaDoone wrote:What frustrates me are the mothers who say the death of their children is okay because it's the will of Allah or that it is worth it for the "cause"!  Good God! Can we say brainwashed from birth?

 I totally agree with what you're saying.

I don't know if you've seen any of the WW1 commemorations these last couple of days?  I'm looking at how friends signed up to fight the war and how as a result entire streets and neighbourhoods lost an entire generation of men.  Mothers and wives proudly walked alongside their soldier sons/husbands as they left for war and how men not fighting were given white feathers for being cowards.  I also think that when these palestinian mothers say the death of their children is ok is much along the same lines.  Their children aren't soldiers but they're dying (kind of) in defense of their own land.  It's not a religious thing, it's terratorial; even the UN agress that Israel is illegally occupying land that belongs to the palestinians [the reasons why and the rights and wrongs of this are another discussion].

what a shame


for all of us

Palestinian minister of justice has visited the ICC. Oh Amal where are thou, ...  

This CNN reporter makes an interesting point. She calls it "media malfeasance."

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/08/07/nr-cupp-hamas-goal-overlooked-by-media.cnn.html

Good afternoon, bit late to the party....hay ho....

On the subject of energy, please read this article by Robert Kennedy jr. It's old,  I found it fascinating when I first read it back in 2008 and it has stayed with me for 6 years....in that time USA rolled out (fibre optic) broadband....So a grid would have been achievable?  Maybe I'm a dreamer....

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/rfk_manifesto200805



Last November, Lord (David) Puttnam debated before Parliament an important bill to tackle global warming. Addressing industry and government warnings that we must proceed slowly to avoid economic ruin, Lord Puttnam recalled that precisely 200 years ago Parliament heard identical caveats during the debate over abolition of the slave trade. At that time slave commerce represented one-fourth of Britain’s G.D.P. and provided its primary source of cheap, abundant energy. Vested interests warned that financial apocalypse would succeed its prohibition.



That debate lasted roughly a year, and Parliament, in the end, made the moral choice, abolishing the trade outright. Instead of collapsing, as slavery’s proponents had predicted, Britain’s economy accelerated. Slavery’s abolition exposed the debilitating inefficiencies associated with zero-cost labor; slavery had been a ball and chain not only for the slaves but also for the British economy, hobbling productivity and stifling growth. Now creativity and productivity surged. Entrepreneurs seeking new sources of energy launched the Industrial Revolution and inaugurated the greatest era of wealth production in human history.



Today, we don’t need to abolish carbon as an energy source in order to see its inefficiencies starkly, or to understand that this addiction is the principal drag on American capitalism. The evidence is before our eyes. The practice of borrowing a billion dollars each day to buy foreign oil has caused the American dollar to implode. More than a trillion dollars in annual subsidies to coal and oil producers have beggared a nation that four decades ago owned half the globe’s wealth. Carbon dependence has eroded our economic power, destroyed our moral authority, diminished our international influence and prestige, endangered our national security, and damaged our health and landscapes. It is subverting everything we value.



We know that nations that “decarbonize” their economies reap immediate rewards. Sweden announced in 2006 the phaseout of all fossil fuels (and nuclear energy) by 2020. In 1991 the Swedes enacted a carbon tax—now up to $150 a ton—and as a result thousands of entrepreneurs rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from wind, the sun, and the tides, and from woodchips, agricultural waste, and garbage. Growth rates climbed to upwards of three times those of the U.S.



Iceland was 80 percent dependent on imported coal and oil in the 1970s and was among the poorest economies in Europe. Today, Iceland is 100 percent energy-independent, with 90 percent of the nation’s homes heated by geothermal and its remaining electrical needs met by hydro. The International Monetary Fund now ranks Iceland the fourth most affluent nation on earth. The country, which previously had to beg for corporate investment, now has companies lined up to relocate there to take advantage of its low-cost clean energy.



It should come as no surprise that California, America’s most energy-efficient state, also possesses its strongest economy.



The United States has far greater domestic energy resources than Iceland or Sweden does. We sit atop the second-largest geothermal resources in the world. The American Midwest is the Saudi Arabia of wind; indeed, North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone produce enough harnessable wind to meet all of the nation’s electricity demand. As for solar, according to a study in Scientific American, photovoltaic and solar-thermal installations across just 19 percent of the most barren desert land in the Southwest could supply nearly all of our nation’s electricity needs without any rooftop installation, even assuming every American owned a plug-in hybrid.



In America, several obstacles impede the kind of entrepreneurial revolution we need. To begin with, that trillion dollars in annual coal-and-oil subsidies gives the carbon industry a decisive market advantage. Meanwhile, an overstressed and inefficient national electrical grid can’t accommodate new kinds of power. At the same time, a byzantine array of local rules impede access by innovators to national markets.



There are a number of things the new president should immediately do to hasten the approaching boom in energy innovation. A carbon cap-and-trade system designed to put downward pressure on carbon emissions is quite simply a no-brainer. Already endorsed by Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama, such a system would measure national carbon emissions and create a market to auction emissions credits. The supply of credits is then reduced each year to meet pre-determined carbon-reduction targets. As supply tightens, credit value increases, providing rich monetary rewards for innovators who reduce carbon. Since it is precisely targeted, cap-and-trade is more effective than a carbon tax. It is also more palatable to politicians, who despise taxes and love markets. Industry likes the system’s clear goals. This market-based approach has a proven track record.



There’s a second thing the next president should do, and it would be a strategic masterstroke: push to revamp the nation’s antiquated high-voltage power-transmission system so that it can deliver solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy across the country. Right now, a Texas wind-farm manager who wants to get his electrons to market faces two huge impediments. First, our regional power grids are overstressed and misaligned. The biggest renewable-energy opportunities—for instance, Southwest solar and Midwest wind—are outside the grids’ reach. Furthermore, traveling via alternating-current (A.C.) lines, too much of that wind farmer’s energy would dissipate before it crossed the country. The nation urgently needs more investment in its backbone transmission grid, including new direct-current (D.C.) power lines for efficient long-haul transmission. Even more important, we need to build in “smart” features, including storage points and computerized management overlays, allowing the new grid to intelligently deploy the energy along the way. Construction of this new grid will create a marketplace where utilities, established businesses, and entrepreneurs can sell energy and efficiency.



The other obstacle is the web of arcane and conflicting state rules that currently restrict access to the grid. The federal government needs to work with state authorities to open up the grids, allowing clean-energy innovators to fairly compete for investment, space, and customers. We need open markets where hundreds of local and national power producers can scramble to deliver economic and environmental solutions at the lowest possible price. The energy sector, in other words, needs an initiative analogous to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which required open access to all the nation’s telephone lines. Marketplace competition among national and local phone companies instantly precipitated the historic explosion in telecom activity.



Construction of efficient and open-transmission marketplaces and green-power-plant infrastructure would require about a trillion dollars over the next 15 years. For roughly a third of the projected cost of the Iraq war we could wean the country from carbon. And the good news is that the government doesn’t actually have to pay for all of this. If the president works with governors to lift constraints and encourage investment, utilities and private entrepreneurs will quickly step in to revitalize the grid and recover their investment through royalties collected for transporting green electrons. Businesses and homes will become power plants as individuals cash in by installing solar panels and wind turbines on their buildings, and by selling the stored energy in their plug-in hybrids back to the grid at peak hours.



Energy expert and former C.I.A. director R. James Woolsey predicts: “With rational market incentives and a smart backbone, you’ll see capital and entrepreneurs flooding this field with lightning speed.” Ten percent of venture-capital dollars are already deployed in the clean-tech sector, and the world’s biggest companies are crowding the space with capital and scrambling for position.



The president’s final priority must be to connect a much smarter power grid to vastly more efficient buildings and machines. We have barely scratched the surface here. Washington is a decade behind its obligation, first set by Ronald Reagan, to set cost-minimizing efficiency standards for all major appliances. With the conspicuous exception of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California, the states aren’t doing much better. And Congress keeps setting ludicrously tight expiration dates for its energy-efficiency tax credits, frustrating both planning and investment. The new president must take all of this in hand at once.



The benefits to America are beyond measure. We will cut annual trade and budget deficits by hundreds of billions, improve public health and farm production, diminish global warming, and create millions of good jobs. And for the first time in half a century we will live free from Middle Eastern wars and entanglements with petty tyrants who despise democracy and are hated by their own people.




Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-governmental organization that promotes clean water throughout the world.

Bit of a strange thing to post, as with my next breath, I am grateful that the U.S.A and U.K still have an interest in the Middle East..... God bless those men and women who flew into danger this week delivering humanitarian aid to the people on Sinjar mountain. 

This has been a week of change, terrorism has become "barbaric". 
We have seen the return of Barbarism, cutting off head and slicing children in two..... My own Country has seen it's fair share of troubles, but never this......We are thankfully free of conflict, but this morning on the news "A major security operation is under way in Belfast ahead of an anti-internment rally by republicans."

I thought we were past all that.....and I don't want to go back......especially in light of the "new Barbaric style of terrorism".........So you see the whole world is not safe.....This has been the summer where I continuously held my breath.

the mirage

And for the first time in half a century we will live free from Middle Eastern wars and entanglements with petty tyrants who despise democracy and are hated by their own people.



but what will be their answer to that?
It will need lot of brain to manage the situation

funny how the start of all that madness was the internal combustion engine
which was one of the promoter of the 2nd industrial revolution
that brought prosperity but also
imprisoned ppl into factories

that lead to today power and money of few
letting their population to  starve


hope internet communication
(3rd revolution?) can help fixing things

Good point it's me.

We have about 53 years of oil left on the planet.  We have NO CHOICE but to find alternatives.

Internet communication will most likely be the next battleground though.

It's already started with large corporations trying to get our government to privatize the internet especially high speed internet.

But here in the US we have a Congress that is controlled by idiots who have sold their souls to conservatives who have only ONE goal, to increase their treasure chests at the expense of everyone else.

If we were a smart country we would be mandating that ALL new buildings include solar and/or alternative methods to heat and power them.  (That's what they've done in Dubai).  And all older buildings be retrofit with alternatives means of powering them.

But then again, that costs money.  Money that our Congress will not spend because it's not in the best interest of those who make their money from oil and providing utility services to the masses.  And that includes those who make money from the stocks of those countries. 

Which I guess is anyone who has a 401k or pension.

yep
they won't do the big change
so ppl need to do it
one by one
hoping in big news from technology

This is interesting, from a poster at The Washington  Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-negotiators-return-to-cairo-to-resume-gaza-truce-talks/2014/08/11/846d3286-2144-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html


Gypsy1
12:30 PM PDT

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours." - Former Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini in his post-World War II memoirs.


Gypsy1
12:16 PM PDT

In the weeks leading up to the Six Day War, Arab leaders repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation. Together with Egypt's ejection of United Nations forces, the closing of the Straits of Tiran, and the massing of troops on Israel's northern and southern borders, the fiery rhetoric created a state of existential fear in Israel.

Cairo Radio Statements:

May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"  
May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"  
May 25, 1967: "The Gulf of Aqaba, by the dictum of history and the protection of our soldiers, is Arab, Arab, Arab."  
May 25, 1967: "Millions of Arabs are ... preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."  
May 27, 1967: "We challenge you, Eshkol, to try all your weapons. Put them to the test; they will spell Israel's death and annihilation."  
May 30, 1967: "With the closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of the Arab forces encompassing it from the South from the North and from the East."  
May 30, 1967: "The world will know that the Arabs are girded for battle as the fateful hour approaches."  

Iraq
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa." – President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

So other than the fact that Israel is still standing, has anything changed?

And this is today.

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/islamic-state-selling-message-glossy-english-magazine



"...The magazines portray the Islamic State as they see themselves, boasting of their victories and painting a romantic image of the restoration of an Islamic golden age based on holy war. Whole sections are devoted to praising the execution of perceived heretics and the demolition of ancient monuments...

...The Islamic State assumes and demands loyalty from all Muslims worldwide, as they made in clear in their declaration of a caliphate (khilafah) on the first day of the Muslim month of Ramadan.
The answer is even more presumptuous: "The first priority is to perform hijrah from wherever you are to the Islamic State, from darul-kufr to darul-Islam."..."

Baria Alamuddin, Amal's mother, is the foreign editor of Al Hayat 

http://bariaalamuddin.com

"Baria is an award-winning journalist and broadcaster in the Middle East and the United Kingdom. She is currently the Editor of Media Services Syndicate, Foreign Editor of Al Hayat "

LizzyNY wrote:So other than the fact that Israel is still standing, has anything changed?

Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in 1979. Sadat ( Egyptian president) and Begin ( Israeli priminister) won the Noble Peace Prize. Of course Sadat was later assinated. Israel gave back the Sinai to Egypt and later Taba beach outside of Eliat.

Another Israeli priminister Rabin won Nobels Peace prize for signed an agreement with the Palestinians. Of course he was assinated too.

I think things have calmed down between Israel and Jordan. They have remained enimies with the Syrians of course. But still a fairly stable situation with Assad in power.

Iraq has had to many  wars of their own. 

Lebanon has remained a constant worry for Israel.And of course  the Palestinian terrorities in the Westbank and Gaza.

The Arab spring has destabalized the region and unfortunately
made jihadist groups more powerful.  

I still think a two state solution is the only possibility but Israel building more and more settlements on the Westbank and palestians getting more and more desperate,  which is why Hamas got elected.

Yes,  Israel is still standing, but still fighting a war, just a different type of war. I don't know if it is ever going to end...

Dumb question: Is this current round of "conflict" officially a war? Does it have a name? Can a commission investigate violations of the rules of war if there is not an officially declared war? 

Okay, three dumb questions.

Not a dumb question.

And I'm not sure, but I think the UN human rights council will have decided whether it was a war, but I think they denounced it - maybe genocide was the word used - at every level - on humanitarian grounds, but so many UN votes recently I could be completely wrong

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Dumb question: Is this current round of "conflict" officially a war? Does it have a name? Can a commission investigate violations of the rules of war if there is not an officially declared war? 

Okay, three dumb questions.

The ICC situation is explained at the link below.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/gaza-war-crimes-justice-palestine-sign-icc

The BBC report this as the 4th war in 10 years, and cheerfully added that even if this ceasefire continues, both sides expect a 5th war within the next 18 months.

Surprised me because I would have classed it as a conflict rather than a war. Hey ho.

Maybe they call it war due to the amount of dead people this has caused and the amount of bombs which got used.... ?????? I would call it war too. 

I think the Russia/Ukraine situation is more a conflict. Even though there is fighting and people get killed it is not a bomb attack like in Gaza.....Just my thought but what do I know.....  

A friend just sent me to this site: http://www.israelvideonetwork.com to see a video titled "Boycott Israel". (It isn't what you think, but it does make one reassess the players in the game.) It's amazing - Check it out!

(Sorry I couldn't post it here - don't know how.  )

Nicky - Thanks for the correction. This video is something everyone should see - if only to remind us that there is much work to be done in the world.

Zionists should pay up for everything they have destroyed.

There are always two sides to everything.  Those of each side will see their own cause/reasons as just and justifiable.

Neverending circle jerk IMO.

Atalante -  By your reasoning Al Qaeda should pay to rebuild the Twin Towers.

You can NEVER justify landgrab. Just imagine someone comes over to your house and takes it, just like that. Now how would you react to that ?

Which is what happened to the Jews when they were initially cast out of THEIR lands by the Egyptians.  Or like they were cast dragged out of their homes, put on trains, their possessions including their land and homes stolen by the Nazis and then killed in ovens.

Like I said, never ending circle jerk.  This will never end. And I find it fascinating that you always seem to forget that part Atalante.

LornaDoone wrote:Which is what happened to the Jews when they were initially cast out of THEIR lands by the Egyptians. 

Yeah, but that was 4,000 years ago or more.  There's a time to let go of grudges.  Saying that Israel belongs to jews is like saying all of Europe belongs to the Italian government because it was part of the Roman empire two thousand years ago.  Or that the US has to go back to native americans, you're going to disband your government and be ruled by the tribal elders instead and you're all going to have to learn to speak Choctaw or whatever. Oh, and you don't get a choice in this: the United Nations is going to tell you which of the first nations is now going to run your life.

The fact is that the state of Israel was created from land that was already inhabited and had been for thousands of years. This is the reason why the Arabic countries were so against the state of Israel because they were under the understandable impression that that land belonged to them (because it did).  That probably would have ended up ok if Israel hadn't then EXPANDED its land by TAKING OVER most of Palestine.  The UN has made 42 resolutions telling Israel to give that land, which doesn't belong to them, back to Palestine.  This is the bit of land that they're fighting over.  Not Israel itself, but the land it's illegally taken and occupied.  

Don't confuse the two issues.  What's going on now is that the Palestinians are asking for their country back.  A country that has been illegally occupied by Israel, who knock down homes, bulldoze farming land and build their own gated communities on the homes of other people.

These pictures may help.  This is Palestine in 1947:


This is what was left of Palestine once the state of Israel was created in 1948 completely against the will of the people already living there:
 

And, since then, Israel has illegally taken land not belonging to them, this is what's left of Palestine in 2005:
 

Would any of you just sit by quietly and allow this to happen to your own country?  So why do you expect Palestinians to?

I'm NOT saying Palestinians are the innocent ones: there are no innocents in this war. BOTH sides have committed great wrongs, behaved disgracefully and generally shamed all humanity.  The solution is that Israel withdrows to her legal borders and the Palestinians accept the existance of Israel and start running what's left of their country properly.  

I don't hope to change anyone's mind about Palestine in any way but I hope at least this explains their anger at what's happened to their country and why they've turned to terrorism to fight back. It doesn't justify what they're doing (nothing can) but it does explain it.

Thanks for describing it so well. I 100% agree with that and it is so true I could not explain it better    

The problem is that many don't want to hear that part of history and if you try to explain the "other side the Palestine side" people make you look like you are against Jews/Israel.... It is a difficult subject to discuss and that's why peace is so far away from us...

I think I might be more sympathetic to Palestine had they not put Hamas in charge of their government.

Today they admitted that members of Hamas DID kidnap and kill those three teenage boys.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/world/meast/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And today they also lined up people suspected of leaking information and shot them in front of hundreds of people.

http://abc7.com/news/hamas-kills-18-suspected-informers-to-deter-leaks/277069/

Hamas is not seeking justice and land for the people of Palestine.  They are seeking the destruction of Israel. 

You keep making comments that the Palestinians are justified in their actions because land was taken from them.  So it's okay for Hamas (who supposedly act as Palestinians wish them to act) to kill teenagers and bombard Israel but it's not okay for Israel to defend itself because they took land in Gaza.

 But I thought that Israel withdrew from Gaza.  Is that not correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

Did they go back in and reoccupy Gaza?  I had not heard that.

I have deep sympathy for both sides.  No, I don't think Palestinians are 'justified' in killing, but I do think it's understandable.  Just as I can understand Israel's difficult position.  With regards to Palestine, put yourself in their position: imagine if overnight someone takes over the state you're living in, against your will, and starts treating you like a second class citizen, bulldozes down your garden and kicks you out of your job because, obviously, you don't speak the language and have a different religion.  Would you, and everyone else in your state just sit quietly and accept that?

Israel isn't 'defending' itself any more than if I punched you in the face and you hit me back and I hit you back again could be called defending myself.  The WHOLE of Israel (both the country AND the disputed, occupied parts) is on someone else's land that was taken away from them.  The people whose land Israel is built on are angry at losing their country.  Surely that's something you can understand even if you don't agree?  

In their anger, the Arabs then went and did something that hindsight shows was a really stupid thing: they wanted their own country back and so declared war on Israel.  And lost.  

Not only did they lose the fight, they lost more of their land to Israel which as a result of winning has more or less doubled in size.  That puts Israel in an awkward position because they're absolutely right in saying that if they give back the land that they're illegally occupying (in other words, going back to their legal 1967 borders) then they'll be under attack - by the people whose land they live on.  How to persuade the Arabs to give up forever their own land and accept that it's now Israel?  I don't know, I truly don't.  Until that stage can be reached, Israel is stuck in a disastrous position of owning a country that's half not theirs, that they can't give up and can't keep.  However their heavy-handed, bullyboy, out of scale retaliatory behaviour in occupied lands isn't doing them any favours and is pushing peace further and further away.  I sometimes wonder whether they really want peace at all.

Yes, Gaza is still occupied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories:  Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, and declared itself no longer to be in occupation of the Strip. However, as it retains control of Gaza's airspace and coastline, it continues to be designated as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly and some countries and various human rights organizations.

Palestinians live, basically, in a prison - perhaps concentration camp might be a better description - to which Israel has the keys.  They can't leave Gaza or the West Bank unless Israeli guards allow them to. If they have been allowed out, they can't return to their homes and families unless Israeli guards permit it.  Frequently, in both cases, Israel refuses such permission.  Let's be clear about this: we're not talking about suspected or potential terrorists here.  We're talking about normal civilians: academics invited to attend conferences abroad, high school students given US State Department scholarships to study in the United States, mothers wishing to visit daughters abroad, American citizens returning to their families, humanitarians bringing wheelchairs – the list goes on almost without limit – have all been denied permission by Israel to leave or enter "their own land".  

While in some parts Israel has allowed a Palestinian “autonomous” entity to take on some municipal functions as education, health care, infrastructure and policing, Israel retains overall power.  According to international law, an occupying force is responsible for the protection of the civilian population living under its control. Israel, however, ignores this requirement, routinely committing violations of the Geneva Convention. Israel is one of the leading violators of these conventions today and has been targeted by at least 77 UN resolutions while the Palestinians have been targeted by 1.  I say that again: 77 United Nations resolutions against Israel for misconduct.

Israeli regularly confiscate private land; imprison individuals without process – including children – and physically abuse them under incarceration; demolish family homes; bulldoze orchards and crops; place entire towns under curfew; destroy shops and businesses; shoot, maim, and kill civilians – and Palestinians are without power to stop any of it.

When a child is arrested, for example – often by a group of armed soldiers in the middle of the night – parents can do nothing. Knowing that their son is most likely being beaten by soldiers on the way to the station, stripped and humiliated in prison, quite likely physically abused in multiple additional ways, and destined to be held – perhaps in isolation – for days, week, or months (all before a trial has even taken place), parents are without the ability to protect their child. Quite often, in fact, they can't even visit him.

1,182 Israelis and at least 9,012 Palestinians have been killed in this conflict since 2000.  Of that, 131 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,026 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis.

Palestinians are no angels but neither are the Israelis.  The Palestinians voted for Hamas as a last-ditch desperate attempt to get Israel off their backs.  Yes, one of Hamas' aims is to wipe Israel off the earth.  This has become possible because they've been backed into a corner and have nothing left to lose.  Take a look again at the maps of Palestine in 1946 and in 2005.  Israel has never stated that its aim is to wipe Palestine off the earth.  It doesn't need to: it's already accomplished it.

A disappeared country, Palestine (the green bits) in 1946 and in 2005:

WOW the articles are too long and complicated to me!
I'll just put this in short: Palestine was just unlucky and too weak to defend themselves after WWII. Somehow the Zionists picked their land so the history got written in this way. Destiny.

Sevens - The Zionists didn't just pick this land. It was their homeland from biblical times and there have always been Jews living there. During and after WWII many countries wouldn't accept Jewish refugees, so if they couldn't find refuge elsewhere they tried to get to Palestine. After the war the UN stepped in and set up the two-state "solution" which has led to today's problems.

Centuries of dispute over land that BOTH have been kicked out of and both claim as their homeland.  Never ending circle jerk.