Israel claims it is defending itself, but I have a question.

[Viva_Daddy]

Where are the pictures of Israeli towns or villages destroyed - you know, like the ones in Gaza? Could it be there aren't any? I'm sure that, if they existed, Israel would publish them, just for propaganda purposes if nothing else. I think it's significant there hasn't been any.

Not that I WANT to see such pictures, but I find the pictures and videos of the destruction of Gaza to be devastating and heart-breaking.

Could it be that Israel is up to something more than just "defending itself"?

[hack89]

1. There are rockets being fired at Israel

That is what they are defending themselves from.

[Iggo]

5. That's what they tell me.

[leftynyc]

67. Even if you don't have a tv

There have been many reporters in both Israel and Gaza that talk about how many (yesterday it was around 100) rockets fly from Gaza into Israel. Don't let your disdain for Israel overcome your good sense and make you ignore reality. Just this morning one landed very close to a school.

[Recursion]

20. There are rockets being fired in both directions, in response to each other

Only one of them is actually killing civilians, though. The other is just trying to.

[hack89]

33. So perhaps Hamas needs to rethink their tactics

Unless provoking the IDF to kill their people is their tactic. Don't you have faith that Hamas knows what they are doing?

[Recursion]

42. I think they're following the template pretty closely

Think the IRA in the 30s or the ANC in the 60s or the LTTE in the oughts.

The depressing fact is that terrorism has been the most successful tactic against occupations yet invented.

[hack89]

45. There are fundamental differences though

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 01:23 PM - Edit history (2)

The Israelis have effectively walled off the Palestinians - there have been no suicide bombings in a long time. Hamas' ability to kill Jews is extremely limited and with the blockade will remain so.

The IRA and ANC won by making their countries ungovernable. Hamas can't do that to Israel.

[joshcryer]

50. This is an excellent point.

Israel does this through entrance interviews, too, so literally no one is coming in and doing something without some serious failure in the entrance interview system (which so far has proved to be infallible, I have to wonder if they have an AI lie detector; yes they exist).

Basically the "fight from within" is not going to happen to Israel because of their policies.

[intaglio]

56. Carry on blaming the victims

You always do it

[hack89]

64. Hamas is not a victim

They never have been. The people of Gaza are double victim - of both Hamas' stupidity the the response it provokes.

[intaglio]

65. But Palestinians are the victims of Israeli oppression

and Israeli weapons. Strangely Hamas is made up of Palestinians, I wonder why? could it be because of Israeli oppression?

[leftynyc]

69. hamas is a terrorist organization that

has right in their charter - in writing - that their aim is to destroy Israel and kill Jews. They don't want their own country - they want Israel - ALL of Israel.

[leftynyc]

68. hamas is a victim?

Spare me.

[intaglio]

72. As you replied to my other post you know why it can be said

I repeat, Palestinians are and long have been subject to oppression by (and summary death from) Israeli forces. Do you want them to just lie back and think of Israel?

What was your opinion of the Provos? Do you think their long struggle was uncalled for?

[leftynyc]

74. I don't support the actions

of terrorists. And since hamas is too cowardly to allow another election, I blame them for the oppression of Gaza.

[intaglio]

75. Since the oppression of the Palestinians began with the formation of Israel

Are the Palestinians to blame for that? Please, tell me how

[snooper2]

93. I fired a rocket at my neighbors house on the 4th

she brought me a beer LOL

[4now]

2. Netanyahu was looking for any excuse to end the "peace negotiations".

Knowing that this close to a US election no American politicians would say a word.
He chose to kill so many Palestinians so that the world would know Israel has the power and the US is the puppet.

[Viva_Daddy]

10. I don't think Netanyahu wants peace.

Just a piece of land here...a piece of land there...until Palestine itself ceases to exist...or moves entirely to Jordan...and then Jordan will be next.

[truth2power]

11. And the natural gas fields off the coast of Gaza...

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

[hack89]

46. The really big gas fields are not off Gaza

Israel does not need the Gaza fields to be energy independent.

[intaglio]

57. Oh. tut-tut Israel and the energy companies need that gas to make money

Money is the primary purpose of natural gas exploitation

[truth2power]

84. Yeah, I was going to say that, in response...

If the elites can make another nickel, what are another 2000 lives?

[ManiacJoe]

3. Does a town need to be destroyed to meet your definition of "defeneded"?

There are no Israeli towns/villages destroyed because Hamas is not good enough in their attacks to make that much damage. The rockets Hamas is using are not that accurate. The Israeli defenses do a good job at shooting down the rockets that get close to the major towns/villages.

On the other hand, the IDF is very good at its military offensives and has the quality weapons to achieve its goals.

[4now]

4. Yes. The IDF has proved to be very good at killing innocent children.

[ManiacJoe]

6. They are also good at killing Hamas members.

[4now]

9. 217 were armed militants - 1396 were Palestinian civilians

Of those, 222 were women and 418 were children.
So the IDF is much better at killing civilians then militants.

From Washington Post Gaza counter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/gaza-counter/


217 were armed Palestinian militants. Of those, 2 were children.
1396 were Palestinian civilians. Of those, 222 were women and 418 were children.

[Mosby]

13. those numbers are coming from hamas

[4now]

15. No they are not

"Statistics on death tolls during active conflict are often difficult to track accurately. A note on our sourcing:

For death toll numbers from within Gaza, we receive daily or sometimes twice daily updates from the head of the Information Management Unit in the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories field office in the West Bank. The field office gets updates from multiple sources within Gaza, including U.N. agencies and the Palestinian Medical Authorities. They then create and continually update a spreadsheet of all available data. These numbers are often not complete, but represent the best available data and do tend to clarify over time. Israel disputes the numbers provided by the United Nations, saying that a large number of those killed, particularly males over 18, were armed terrorists and not civilians.

For death toll numbers of Israeli soldiers, we rely on Israel Defense Forces press releases and their Twitter account. For Israeli civilian deaths, we rely on news reports and our reporters in Israel and Gaza. These numbers are similarly tentative initially but clarify over time."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/gaza-counter/

If you have a better source on the death toll in Gaza please share the link.

[intaglio]

58. This ^^^^

Thanks

[blkmusclmachine]

7. The Israeli government is lying. Bald face lies.

Lying liars lie.

[BillZBubb]

34. True.

[leftynyc]

70. But hamas tells the truth?

I'll save my shaming finger for the terrorists.

[Maedhros]

8. Israel is not "defending" itself. It has already defeated its enemy and is now an occupying force.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked#

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.

Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.

[elias49]

12. This thread feels like a weird reprieve from the crushing weight

of Ferguson.

Helluva a thing. Familiarity breeds

[Viva_Daddy]

14. No, this is very much like Ferguson.

Here are cops, safely cocooned in their "protective gear" (re: Iron Dome), still terrified of the "darkies" and over-reacting/over-compensating for that fear.

[elias49]

17. Yeah, but the difference is we know how the MidEast will end

not so much Missouri.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. "Darkies" -your word-like her

[Boom Sound 416]

16. Are you kidding?

Or am I missing the point.

Try a little search called suicide bomber and anything remotely about Israel.

For example

Search : "suicide bomber" and let's say "bugs friggin bunny".

That ought to be close enough to get you some info.

[Recursion]

19. When was the last suicide bombing in Israel? (nt)

[Boom Sound 416]

21. Search it yourself and get to the point

[Violet_Crumble]

48. I think the point's pretty clear...

The question of the OP was basically what's Israel defending itself from. You bring up suicide bombings as though they're still happening. Their point in asking you when the last one happened was to point that out.

[Boom Sound 416]

61. You sure?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I'm sure. I'm happy to talk you through it till you get it...

Though as yr still not getting the point even after having it explained to you, I'm not sure how successful it'd be...

[hack89]

47. Right before Israel build a big wall

Don't blame dumb - you are smarter than that.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Oh, yeah. That big wall Israel built that took a shitload of the West Bank...

I figure you don't like giving the Palestinians credit for making good decisions, but an enterprising and committed suicide bomber could easily have found many of the parts of that 'big wall' that weren't built yet to get to where they wanted to go...

[Recursion]

18. I keep coming back to this: why is Israel blocking *exports* from Gaza?

How on earth is that a "security" issue?

[Boom Sound 416]

22. It's a sanction if nothing else.

[Recursion]

23. Nope. Israel has to claim it's for security, otherwise it's an act of war

A blockade is an act of war, which legalizes Hamas's attacks. Gaza, like Israel, has a right to defend itself.

[Boom Sound 416]

26. Well their we patently disagree. That's fine.

Let's just be hopeful then for resolve.

[leftynyc]

71. The UN determined the blockade is legal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Take it up with them.

[joshcryer]

51. Because a boat leaving had to arrive to begin with.

Arriving means they could've brought something in.

It's not really that complicated.

Why doesn't Hamas just let a third party inspect all shipments (with both Hamas and Israeli inspectors)?

Simple enough.

[Recursion]

99. Forbidding all offloading isn't very difficult

They don't even have to have a berth with offloading facilities.

Why doesn't Hamas just let a third party inspect all shipments

Why doesn't the US allow China to inspect ships coming in to Oakland?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I don't see how Israel couldn't allow everything but weapons to come in.

Maybe I don't understand the logistics.

Allow everything but weapons in. That seems like a practical solution.

[Recursion]

88. I'm not talking about letting anything into Gaza. They're blocking *exports*

I've yet to hear a reasonable argument for that.

[former9thward]

24. When you attack someone you take the consequences.

Just ask Germany and Japan. Gaza attacked. Where are the pictures of destroyed U.S. towns and cities from either WW I or WW II? That did not stop us from destroying our attackers.

[malaise]

25. There are no such photos

This is genocide and land theft with support from the West.

[nookworld]

28. Hard to feel sorry for Palestinians

they attack a vastly superior military and then cry when they get their asses kicked.
then they do it again.

[BillZBubb]

30. So, attempting to defend their rights is futile? They should just give Israel what it wants?

I have a lot of respect for the Palestinians' will to fight the occupation of the West Bank and entrapment in Gaza. Their tactics aren't usually very wise and the outcome is almost assuredly against them. But they have no other alternative except to give the Israelis the West Bank and control of the Jordan river.

[nookworld]

31. It's futile to go to war against a superior military

without question.

It can't possibly succeed.

[BillZBubb]

32. Nonsense. Tell that to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese.

Tell that to any successful partisan movement.

Certainly insurrections can't usually succeed in the short run. It is asymmetric warfare and those involved know it is a long term strategy, costly strategy. Often the price is worth paying.

[nookworld]

37. I don't buy the comparison to Viet Cong

This is their homeland & religious holy land.
There are no jungles for rebels to hide in
Military technology has advanced leaps & bounds since the 1960's.
Today the superior technology will win...every single time.

What real purpose does firing rockets across the border serve??

[BillZBubb]

39. I can see you are a newbie here with just a few posts.

Maybe you need to read up a bit on military strategies and insurgencies before you post anymore.

You made a blanket statement that It's futile to go to war against a superior military. I gave an example that disproved your statement. You were wrong.

If you want to make the argument that Palestinian resistance can never work, you are wrong again. But, I won't explain it to you. Do a little reading and you'll find out how it can work.

[nookworld]

40. It's futitle with today's technology

the Superior Military will win.

the nature of warfare has changed greatly with the introduction of high technology.

[Recursion]

43. Then why did Israel have to leave Gaza and Lebanon?

I think you have it exactly backwards: modern warfare favors the insurgent.

[joshcryer]

53. Global outrage.

Israel could completely flatten Gaza if it wanted to (which is why I was dismayed by the Warshaw Ghetto posts, totally completely and utterly different scenario; show a flattened block and presenting it as if all of Gaza was flattened, a joke).

If Israel would act the way they're being portrayed, then they'd be sanctioned and probably wiped off the map by Muslim invaders. Not saying Israel isn't using excessive force, but they are regularly accused of far worse atrocities (genocide comes to mind).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. "...They would be wiped off the map by Muslim invaders..."

I'm not countenancing endless war or a garrison state but isn't that what the invaders tried unsuccessfully to do in 48, 67, and 73.

[BillZBubb]

44. Wrong. You can speculate all you want, but you are wrong.

Please spend some time educating yourself on this issue. It is not just a matter of technology, in fact military superiority is only one factor.

The US had all the advanced technology in Iraq and still was almost stalemated by an insurgency. It was only after the US was able to bribe Sunnis not to fight that the insurgency calmed down. Money stopped that insurgency, not technology.

[Calista241]

66. Israel isn't invading to occupy Gaza

And doesn't have to secure that territory like the US did in Iraq.

Which means Hamas has to bring the fight to the Israeli's. In this case, Israeli technology sets a very high bar for Hamas to overcome.

[BillZBubb]

85. Of course it is a high bar, but you are wrong about where the fight has to occur.

I wish people would do a little reading on insurgencies and asymmetric warfare before they make comments on this situation.

Technology is an advantage, but it is not a decisive advantage.

[Calista241]

87. First time someone's accused be of being ill-informed

Hamas is digging tunnels because they haven't been able to attrit the Israeli's appreciably through the tactics they're currently using.

And I don't see the Israeli's suddenly opening the border for other reasons and allowing attacks that Hamas has so far not been able to successfully prosecute.

Hamas's only real options are:

1. Upgrade their rocket forces
2. Stage a breakout / raid through the wall into Israel
3. Lure Israeli military forces into gaza and into a trap.

Effective Asymmetric warfare requires mobility, stealth and access to resources. Hamas has none of these things.

Sun Tzu (who basically invented the concept of asymmetric warfare) said "the wisest strategy avoids the enemy's strength and probes for weakness."

What weaknesses do the Israelis have that are exploitable by Hamas? Hamas is trying to attack a superior opponent on that opponents home territory. And when Israel does invade gaza periodically, Hamas is unable to capitalize.

Killing 50, 60, 200, or a thousand soldiers does not change the situation or alter the balance of power.

[BillZBubb]

96. You have listed some of the problems and goals of an insurgency, but not nearly all.

You are also misunderstanding what the goals of the insurgency are. They don't have to change the balance of power. The Palestinians will never have the military might of the Israelis. They simply have to make the cost of the status quo unpleasant enough that the Israelis come to the bargaining table ready to make a fair and just peace.

The primary goal, apologies to Sun Tzu, is to survive as a fighting force. The Palestinians have to take the long view.

They can continue the struggle by acknowledging that one of their strengths is the ability and willingness to take casualties. That is a possible weakness on the Israeli side. The implications of this approach are dreadful, but it is a strategy.

Also technological side, Israel, incurs much higher economic costs to support their military structure. Replacement costs are high. The Palestinians have an advantage there as well, although they cannot realize the benefits until the US stops bankrolling Israel's military.

The Palestinians also have a potentially winning external strategy--win over the rest of the world to the justness of their cause. The Palestinians have been very poor at exploiting this strength. The Israelis have been moderately successful in marketing the fight as against terrorism rather than the maintaining of an occupation.

These are just a few strategic areas where the Palestinians have some potential advantages. There are many more tactical items as well. These could be decisive over a long, drawn out conflict. We are already starting to see some of the support for Israel around the world decline.

The Palestinians unfortunately are their own worst enemies as far as implementing a coherent long term approach. Exhibit A for that would be the contemptible suicide bombing campaigns of a few years back.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. You are ignoring Sun Tzu's admonition

You are ignoring Sun Tzu's admonition that it is best to leave your opponent with a path of retreat lest he fight to the death because he has no other choice. We could afford to lose the Viet Nam War. Israel can't afford to lose a war. They have no path of retreat.

[BillZBubb]

94. Not so. The Israelis can retreat to the 1967 borders.

It is the Palestinians who have nowhere to go.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Do you think an invading army is going to stop at the Green Line , especially Hamas...

Do you think an invading army is going to stop at the Green Line , especially Hamas whose goal is to liberate all of Palestine?


Hamas, imho, is playing the long game. They want to make it so unpleasant the Israelis will leave. But this presumes they have some place to go.

And the long game is a long time, longer than our lifetimes, that's for sure.

[BillZBubb]

97. You've covered a lot ground here.

First, Hamas is not a significant player at this time. They are the end result of the radicalization of some Palestinians. If Israel made a just and honest peace with the Palestinians, Hamas would wither away.

Second, the Israelis will remain the dominant military in the region for a long, long time. There will be no invading army from Palestine.

Yes, Hamas is playing the long game, as it Israel. But Hamas will not
last if there is a vibrant Palestinian state.

[HERVEPA]

60. How very comdescending, oh superior intellect.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I know yr very new, but ever heard of the occupation?

You make it sound as though the Palestinians woke up one day and went 'Not much happening today. Why don't we just go and start unprovoked attacks on Israel for no reason at all even though they've always been the bestest neighbours anyone could possibly have!' The reality is that they've been living under Israeli occupation for many decades and have a right to resist, just not a right to kill civilians (a lesson Israel could learn as well)...

Might Makes Right is a very, uh, neocon way of thinking. Did you feel the same way about the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or past history where the aggressors have been vastly superior military forces? Coz I can think of a few that you really wouldn't want to be saying they 'cry when they get their asses kicked'.

[MFM008]

54. 500 children

horribly murdered. Im sure there is a lot of crying going on. These are war crimes and Israel will never be considered in the same light again.

[BillZBubb]

29. The Israelis are defending themselves...

from the futile attempts at resistance from those under its cruel boot heel.

Israel wants to grab as much Palestinian land as possible, but not so fast that the rest of the world steps in to stop it. Slow motion ethnic cleansing has worked for them so far. Of course, the Palestinians from time to time react to the daily outrages placed upon them by Israelis and Israel must defend itself from any such push-back. Any occupying tyrant does the same thing.

[oberliner]

35. "Israel wants to grab as much Palestinian land as possible"

In Gaza?

[BillZBubb]

36. Prominent Israeli's have suggested it.

But the West Bank is where the real target lies.

[oberliner]

77. I would be shocked if Israel attempts to take over Gaza

I know some have suggested it, but I really do not see that happening.

[DetlefK]

55. The Westbank. The modus operandi:

1. Some israeli soldiers and bulldozers show up at your house, kick you out and raze it to the ground.
2. They retreat.
3. Without a house, you go somewhere else.
4. The land is now essentially abandoned.
5. A settler shows up in a camper aaaaaaaaaaand your land is now israeli territory.

What do you think why Israel keeps destroying palestinian crops in the Westbank over and over again?

[oberliner]

76. But what does that have to do with the fighting in Gaza?

Is the land grab a different issue from what is going on in Gaza?

[DetlefK]

80. What do you think, why neither side is willing to agree to peace?

Because neither side is willing to accept a treaty where it feels it's worse off.

* Israel (well, the cranky old men who form its government) wants to be a jewish state. This is a response to the genocide of WWII, when a huge part of jewish community-life was wiped out. I don't remember who wrote the article, but it was from a Jew and he said, that becoming apostate won't cause other Jews to expel you from the jewish community. But if you openly declare that you don't support the state of Israel politically, then you become an outcast.
* Religiously extremist Jews want all the land that belonged to the jewish kingdoms (Israel and Judea) in the Torah again to belong to the Jews. That's why they want all of the land, including the Westbank.


* The Palestinians want to return to the land of their ancestors.
* Their hatred is a response to the land-theft that allowed the founding of Israel and that continues with government-sanctioned illegal(!) means to this day. Those israeli bulldozers razing entire villages? They have zero legal basis to do that! And the Palestinians can't get recourse in court, so what other choice do they have than violence?


Israel wants peace, but they can't compromise due to the trauma and for religious reasons.
The Palestinians want peace, but they want retribution for what Israel has done to them.

The only glimmer of hope I see is that the new generations of Israelis are less religious and at least those outside of the fascist media-bubble are more liberal. Once the scarred old warriors are no longer in charge, I guess the odds for peace will increase.

[oberliner]

83. Interesting analysis

I'm not sure I agree with your points though. For instance, I'm not sure that "The Palestinians want to return to the land of their ancestors". I think that most Palestinians would be happy to live a few kilometers away from the land of their ancestors as long as they can do so without interference from Israel. That is to say, with a functional autonomous Palestinian state. Much like the religious extremists you site among the Israeli Jews, there are religious extremists among the Muslim Palestinians who would like to see all of the land (including what is currently Israel) as an Islamic state, but for the most part, I think Palestinians would be happy with an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.

In terms of where the hatred and violence come from. The bulldozers you talk about are in the West Bank, not Gaza. The settlements are in the West Bank, there are none in Gaza. Yet, in spite of this, the violence has come primarily from Gaza (where there are no settlements) and not the West Bank (where there are many). Do you have any insights into why there is this seemingly incongruous situation between the two territories?

I also, sadly, do not share your perspective on the new generation of Israelis. I think they are actually more religious and less liberal. The more secular liberal-minded Israelis do not reproduce at anywhere near the rate as the religious and conservative ones do.

[LostInAnomie]

38. Does a person wearing a bullet proof vest...

... just have to take it when some idiot starts shooting at them? Nope.

Does Israel jsut have to take Hamas missles being fired at them even though they habe the iron dome? Nope.

Hamas could easily fire their missles from bombed out areas that are free of civilians, but they prefer a high casualty rate.

[intaglio]

59. Does a person taking a beating from a person in a bullet-proof vest

have to lie their whilst they starve, are denied access to water and sanitation, and are treated as less than dirt?

[kelliekat44]

63. When the Palestinian get the same kind of weapons that Israel has then Israel will be defending

itself.

[leftynyc]

73. So until then

Israel should just accept rockets raining down on them? The reality is if hamas laid down their weapons, they'd have peace. If Israel lays down their weapons, they'd be destroyed. It's right there in the hamas charter.

[grossproffit]

79. It seems that some want just that,

to see Israel destroyed. I'm a bit depressed reading many of the replies on this forum.

[leftynyc]

89. Try a different site

One where the far left doesn't insist they hold the majority of American's opinion on this issue.

[BillZBubb]

86. No, the reality is if the Palestinians stopped resisting, Israel would take the rest of their land.

If Israel actually tried to make a just and fair peace with the Palestinians, there would be peace. The Oslo accords actually started that process, but right wing Israelis killed Rabin and then scuttled the Oslo accords, making peace impossible.

The Saudi proposal would have brought peace and acceptance of Israel by all parties, but again Israel totally dismissed the Saudi's offer.

The tell, the clear proof, Israel doesn't really want peace, but instead the land is the settlements. They represent ethnic cleansing, not peace offerings.

[leftynyc]

90. That would be why they left Gaza

because they don't want peace. How lovely to see so many try and revise history.

[BillZBubb]

98. Israel left Gaza because it was too costly to occupy the area and protect the few settlements.

To claim Israel did it for Peace is the biggest crock of baloney in the world. And quit projecting. It is you who is attempting to revise history.

[leftynyc]

100. Uh - no

The biggest complaint is the occupation. The Gazans were given every opportunity to live peacefully side by side with Israel - there was no blockade -another complaint that the Palestinian leadership (read: terrorist hamas) has nobody but themselves to blame for. It simply amazes me how so many just want to pretend rockets raining down on them is something they would tolerate. The Palestinian leadership has failed their people over and over again - stealing their money - buying weapons and building tunnels instead of lives - and you want to blame Israel. What a joke.

[oberliner]

101. Hamas committed the Passover Massacre on the day the Saudi Plan was adopted

From Wikipedia:

The Passover massacre[1] was a suicide bombing carried out by Hamas[2] at the Park Hotel in Netanya, Israel on 27 March 2002, during a Passover seder. Thirty civilians were killed in the attack and 140 were injured. It was the deadliest attack against Israelis during the Second Intifada.

In the evening of 27 March 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber disguised as a woman approached the hotel carrying a suitcase which contained powerful explosives. The suicide bomber managed to pass the security guard at the entrance to a hotel, then he walked through the lobby passing the reception desk and entered the hotel's crowded dining room. At 19:30 pm (GMT+2) the suicide bomber detonated the explosive device he was carrying. The force of the explosion instantly killed 28 civilians and injured about 140 people, of whom 20 were injured severely. Two of the injured later died from their wounds. Some of the victims were Holocaust survivors.[3][4][5] Most of the victims were senior citizens (70 and over). The oldest victim was 90 and the youngest was 20 years old. A number of married couples were killed, as well as a father together with his daughter. One of the victims was a Jewish tourist from Sweden who was visiting Israel for Passover

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

The Hamas spokesman, incidentally, said: "We will never recognize the Arab initiative"

[BillZBubb]

102. So? Extremists on both sides use provocations to scuttle peace efforts.

By using that as an excuse to reject the Saudi plan, the Israelis did what they always do--look for an excuse to avoid peace that would cost them the land they covet.

Hamas was a fringe group within the Palestinian community then. The Palestinian Authority, with a popular peace plan in hand would have had little trouble removing Hamas. The vast majority of Palestinians were not Hamas supporters then.

By not taking the Saudi deal, the Israelis insured Hamas would grow in power--which is what the Israeli right cynically wanted all along. That gives them the lightning rod to hold up and claim "peace is not possible because they want to destroy us."