to not understand how you can fire missiles targeting civilians and it not be a war crime

[Itsaboatjack]

now I'm not especially knowledgable about the problems in the middle east but surely firing missiles into a city intentionally killing civilians is some kind of war crime?

I know that's a common argument, but it's one I have a hard time accepting. Why should the Palestinians have accepted partition? It was a wholly foreign imposition, driven by colonial interests. Most of the Palestinians who were displaced had lived on land in their families for centuries -- why should they give up any claim to it because the UN and the Brits wanted them to?

I know it would have made everything so much easier, but I don't think it's too hard to understand why they rejected it.

I don't think it's fair to say they are just as responsible for their plight. Mostly I blame the internationals really.

But surely crashdoll you can understand why Palestinians feel anger towards Israelis,objectively speaking?

Without a doubt civilians can be arseholes in any and every country worldwide.

But no civilian,arsehole or not,deserves to live in the on going atmosphere in Israel or Palestine.

Oh I do understand. I don't condone either side at all.However, the media, the BBC, in particular is biased (anti-Israel) and this bothers me.

No it wasn't. My family have lived in Israel for over 10 generations (religious not zionist at the time obviously). My grandparents lived in Hebron and had to flee because of the Arab riots of 1929. We are not a wholly foreign imposition, with all due respect!

The first settlers came to Israel/Palestine in the late 19th century and BOUGHT the land as did subsequent settlers. No Palestinians were thrown off the land. The British Peel Commission recognised that the lands settled were swamps, deserts etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission

There was no reason why the Palestinians couldn't have lived peacefully with the Jews.

And if they would have accepted the Peel partition, the UN partition, the Israeli offer of peace after 1967 or implemented the Oslo accords properly, then they would have their own state.

As Abba Eban once said 'The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity'.

With respect to Hamas and the elections -- they drew up a new manifesto before the elections, which did not call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Their campaign was mainly about wanting to end the corruption and abuses of Fatah and observers think this was the main source of their support. They have not changed their charter, but they generally use the newer manifesto in its place.

It is true that rhetorically they have not distanced themselves enough from calling for the destruction of Israel, but practically speaking it is not a real goal for them. How could it be? They are no position to achieve it. Especially since coming into power, whatever they say to their followers, they are working within the assumptions of the road map, including that Israel will continue to exist.

They are however playing the long game -- if Israel should ever be much weaker, perhaps without US support, then probably any moderation gets thrown out again. Which is why Israel should compromise now, from a position of strength. If it becomes weak, it will be too late.

You're right, Hamas did drop it. But they don't recognize Israel's right to exist and believe terrorism is legitimate.

I don't think the Israelis have anyone that they can actually negotiate with. And I partly blame Israel for this for destroying Palestinian civil society and state institutions over the last few years instead of building them up.

I'm very pessimistic about the possibility for peace. I don't think the Palestinians are in a situation where they can actually build a democratic and peaceful state, especially with Lebanon, Syria and Egypt so unstable.

YANBU op.

x-post

Oh I definitely didn't mean the Jews were a foreign imposition!! Thank you for clarifying that. I meant all the partition plans and mandates and all of that.

I am also completely pessimistic on the chances for peace. It all depends on having a state for the Palestinians and there is just no way in hell that can emerge any time soon. And the conflict in Syria is already spilling over into Lebanon... and there are worries Jordan is the next state to go into turmoil... and Libyan weapons are crossing the Sinai in bigger and bigger numbers...

I am very fearful for Israel to be honest. I don't approve of how the leadership is handling things, but obviously I don't want any more harm to come to its people, and things look bad for them on every single front.

Although their special ops/intel are kicking ass right now. I don't really have a problem with that whole strategy, not that it's all that legal either

It's a tragic and depressing situation for us to discuss, I can't even begin to imagine the horror of living through it.

I do wish someone had a solution. Some way of bringing ordinary Israelis and Palestinians together, the people who just want to get on with their lives. Especially women - all the 'representatives' always seem to be men, esp. on the Palestinian side. Some leaders who actually want peace would be nice as well.

As for claims of media bias, both sides attack neutral broadcasters because each side wants bias - in their own favour.

I think the actions of the Israeli Government are indefensible, inexcusable and unjust... DB is part os a charity organisation that used to visit Gaza to deliver food and medicines, but they have been banned since 2009. The people are suffering, herded into a limited space and treated worse than cattle. DB says when he spoke to most young boys, they'd had enough of the severe harshness of life, and were happy to be recruited by fundamentalists (such as Hamas and Hezbollah) because they literally had NOTHING to live for. So it's the environment they live in that breeds extremism. If the Gazans had happy, free, prosperous lives, why on earth would they blow themselves up?? This is not to excuse the loss of Israeli civilians due to crude missiles, but given the extensive arsenal of weapons that Israel has (including nuclear), Hamas can hardly carry out the same destruction that Israel can (and does).

Unfortunately I don't think an amicable solution can be reached yet, whilst the US unconditionally supports the State of Israel. The American congress is largely run by Israeli sympathisers who would see any kind of peace as giving leverage to Hamas and Iran. Similarly, I also doubt the Arab states, like Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would want to see peace as they have a divide and rule policy in place (if Iran and Israel are in conflict, indirectly, it would mean a more stable SA and the other Gulf States).

crashdoll no British media outlet is overtly or subtly anti Israel. Especially not the BBC! I am utterly amazed you would think it was.

Of late there has been more reporting from Palestine's angle. That' not a bias towards one or the other,that's offering two sides of the situation.

Edam

There is a strong (although weakened lately) civil society in Israel which is very active. It's more limited on the Palestinian side but it's also there.

I think that's the way forward for now because both sides have pretty crappy political leaders at the moment. It's important for Palestinians to see Israelis other than settlers and soldiers and for Israelis to see Palestinians other than as terrorists.

it's important to remember that prior to the 2nd intifada, Palestinians freely moved about, studied and worked in Israel. The restrictions on Palestinian movement have been an unfortunate response to the terrorism and have added to the growing extremism on both sides.

Elaine, I hope against hope civil society flourishes and people build connections with people across the divide. Faint hope, perhaps, but it looks like nothing else will help.

There are thankfully a lot of civil society groups working to bring Palestinians and Israelis together -- it's one bright spot. Thanks to one of my freelance jobs I read a lot of case studies of these groups. It's something that the EU in particular has tried to fund a lot.

It's getting harder and harder now though, as more violence makes it harder to bridge the divide, and also creates physical obstacles.

But for example you have a lot of Israeli professional groups (doctors, lawyers, architects, professors) who try to help their Palestinian counterparts and their communities. You have groups trying to bring children together. Micro-loans for women, small enterprise funds, it's really fascinating.

Violence threatens all of this though. There's only so much civil society can do.

Indeed, it's very difficult to make friends with someone when all you can see is 'their lot' bombing your children, and all they can see is 'your lot' firing rockets at yours.

Killing children over a scrap of desert.

Humans really are fucking stupid.

My biggest concern is Israels nuclear capacity, those headers have never stopped fighting since the beginning of time and I am still amazed that the UN has not jumped on Israel from a great height like they have done to other countries who were at the stage of being near nuclear ready. Iraq was invaded and devastated due to alleged weapons of mass destruction but there were none, yet Israel who have shown themselves to be a hateful waring nation are allowed nukes, whats that all about?

bureni, double standards. There's threat of war on Iran due to potential nuclear capacity and an an insane leader, yet Israel has BOTH a nuclear arsenal AND an insane leader but the world turns a blind eye. Why?

Pinkoyster I agree with you completely. There are victims on both sides but the despair and appalling treatment of the Palestinians far far far outweighs that of the Israelis. There is no sense of equality. At all. Or proportionality. Which makes it hard to retain or garner sympathy for Israel in this david v Goliath war. Ask any charity worker of any race culture country or religion who was worked in that area and most will tell you that their sympathies lie with the Palestinians. My friend went out there to help but was unable to do anything due to Israeli restrictions and sanctions ( not even providing clean water to a prem baby unit).

The reason in simple, Israel is nothing more than an American missile site just like the one they had in Turkey during the Cuban missile crisis. Everything in Israel is funded from america from running water to their massive nuclear arsenal, this is a country with little to no natural resources that imports practically everything but there seems to be no shortage of the American dollar to pay for it.

"I find it depressing that people in this thread criticise a country for defending themselves against systematic terrorist attacks to their civilian population.

I'm so willing to bet that these posters haven't lived in similar circumstances and if your schools, your children, your cities were attacked you would be crying for military protection and retaliation."

Exactly, Israel destroys homes and schools, kills children, stops them getting medical treatment and going to hospital, restricts the building materials, food and aid going in to Palestine, of course they have the right to defend themselves against systematic attacks from Israel.

If you were living in similar circumstances as the Palestinians, what would you be saying?

Elaine - you are glossing over huge amounts of history.

If someone stole your house and then offered you "half" back, would you say yes?

It's called An Nakba for a reason, people were driven from their homes at gunpoint, their villages and homes destroyed, and you expect them to want to make peace with thieves and murderers.

As for terrorism, I see no mention of the Stern Gang and their ilk, whose terrorist activities lead to the creation of the Israeli state.

As for illegal activities, why are settlements continuing to be built on stolen land?

The sad things is, that the two things the Israeli state wants most are security and acceptance. They have neither and they only have themselves to blame.

Well, I don't really agree with that characterisation of Israel, but just to say -- they are not 'allowed' nukes, virtually everyone agrees that Israel is in violation of the norms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (although it is not a signatory of it). Officially Israel does not even admit it has nuclear weapons, although obviously they do.

Israel developed its nukes many years ago in secret (with some help from France).

If it were doing the same thing today, a lot more people would be freaking out about it.

Nobody really expects Israel to ever use its nukes. They are pretty much a deterrent against existential threats, i.e. if Arab armies are on the verge of overrunning Israel and destroying it, they would be used to nuke some Arab capitals. It's a pretty effective deterrent in that sense.

The concern with countries like Iran having nuclear capability is that there is less certainty they would not actually use nuclear weapons, and unlike Israel they sponsor a variety of terrorist groups in different countries who might benefit from that capability.

I don't actually agree with those concerns -- I think they're overstated. But that's the argument.

"indeed, it's very difficult to make friends with someone when all you can see is 'their lot' bombing your children, and all they can see is 'your lot' firing rockets at yours."

It is very difficult to make friends with someone who but restircts your food, water, medical supplies, access to basic human rights like a home by stopping construction materials, stops your access to medical help, blows up your fishing boats, burns your olive trees so you do not have a livelihood and then when you fight back use it as justification for bombing your civilians.

I can't believe anyone actually believes that if they were in that situation they wouldn't fight back against Israel.