Perhaps. Recent scholarship about the Ben Gurion government, from the days of the Jewish Agency through the early days of Israel proper, seems to suggest that there was a strong desire and intent within that group for insuring that the Israel included as few Palestinians as possible. The discussions of “transfer,” as the expulsion of Arabs was called then, are well documented, and it seems pretty clear that at least among some of the Israelis, even if the Palestinians had accepted partition, they (the Israelis) would still have pushed for adjustments. The UN plan in '47 was very unwieldy, and very bizarre in its geometry, partly because the Brits had sort of dumped everything on the new UN and washed their hands of the mess they had created themselves.
So while I’d agree there was a lot of missed opportunity in 1947–and in 1948, because if the other Arabs had simply insisted that the Palestinians accept partition, and refrained from invading, things might have been a lot different. But Israel was not passive, either; many there wanted to clear out as much space as possible, and that meant getting rid of Arab populations one way or another.
‘UN right to speak out on Gaza strike, says Cameron’:
The United Nations was right to speak out against an Israeli attack near a UN-run school in Gaza, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.
Palestinian officials said at least 10 people died in the attack on Sunday. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the attack “a moral outrage and a criminal act”.
Mr Cameron would not say if he agreed with those words. He thought it was “an appalling loss of life”, adding that civilians must not be targeted. He told BBC Breakfast there had to to be an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, adding that the “fastest way to stop this conflict” would be if Hamas rocket attacks on Israel stopped.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called for a political solution to be “imposed” by the international community.
He said: “How many more deaths will it take to stop what must be called the carnage in Gaza? The tradition of friendship between Israel and France is an old one and Israel’s right to security is total, but this right does not justify the killing of children and the slaughter of civilians.”
Mr Cameron’s comments follow a row between Ed Miliband and Downing Street after the Labour leader said the prime minister was “wrong” not to oppose Israel’s attacks. No 10 said it was shocked Mr Miliband would “play politics with such a serious issue”.
Health officials in Gaza say 1,800 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed and more than 9,000 injured since the conflict began nearly four weeks ago.
Sixty-six Israelis have died, all but two of them soldiers. A Thai national working in Israel was also killed.
Janster
3383
It’s not the action itself, it’s the German reaction, they massacred entire villages because of this…
And the Allies bombed German cities indiscriminately. What point are you trying to make? It was a different conflict, at a different time, fought under different conditions by different people.
Violence breeds violence. The Palestinians have relied on terror attacks… indiscriminate rocket and mortar attacks and suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians for decades. They hardly hold any kind of moral high ground here. I think it’s deplorable that the Israeli military appear to have become so inured to the violence that they barely seem to care what they are actually hitting with their bombs and shells (and the Israeli populace certainly is no longer even trying to hold them accountable), but the Palestinians should recognize this tactic. Hamas would be delighted if they could hit an Israeli hospital, daycare, or old age home with a good solid rocket.
Zak - I remind you that Hamas’s fighters are civilians. And it’s supporting the fallacy that casualty figures justify terrorist actions.
Soapy - So targets in certain (wide) areas should be off-limits? Entirely? You can see the problem there, right? They’re not aiming for the schools.
Moreover, take the UNRWA schools in Gaza, where rockets have just been found for the THIRD time recently. And you know what happened the first two times? Given right back to Hamas.
(Meanwhile, they’ve firebombed UNRWA summer camps for Palestinian kids and tried to assassinate it’s leadership in the past)
Well, supposedly the latest attack that hit a school/shelter was aimed at three dudes on a motorcycle riding past. It doesn’t seem very smart to risk collateral damage in that case; three anonymous terrorists (if they were) aren’t worth the risk of hitting civilians. It’s lapses in judgment–or deliberate insensitivity, take your pick, depending on POV–like that that have people frustrated to say the least with Israel.
Though in response to Soapy, though there isn’t much public coming out of Israel in terms of negative reaction, there are Israelis who are quite agitated about the methods, and in some cases the goals, of the IDF. The BBC, for instance, had a story this morning about Israelis who are obtaining, translating, and publishing the lists of Gazans killed by Israeli strikes, to drive home the fact that these are people, not statistics. So it’s not entirely a lock-step thing with the Israelis, thankfully.
No of course not, but on the whole there is a lot less opposition and outcry to the current war than past wars. Netanyahu has a blank cheque still.
And to reinforce your point about collateral damage, Hamas hiding rockets in schools, hospitals or UN shelters does not and should not make those places valid military targets. You do not shoot the hostage to get the hostage taker.
Janster
3389
Let me make it a bit clearer.
By doing what they were doing, the French resistance caused many deaths of their own, they however kept going despite these things happening, as they saw the higher goal being worth it. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t horrible for those affected, there was certainly bad blood running long after ww2 was over because of this. Hamas is doing EXACTLY the same, they are sacrificing their own population in order to win goals, but the French because they are not arabs apperantly got away with it without being labeled terrorists by everyone else…not including the Germans, or in Israel’s case …the Israeli’s.
Its pure racism at work dude.
The Resistance movements in world war 2 attacked military targets and military objectives. Hamas on the other hands uses terrorist methods to attack primarily civilians. Also, they do not have powerful allies waiting in the wings, nor are they notably weakening Israel or pursuing any cogent or rational larger strategic objective.
No; they are either being manipulated for the personal gain of a few, or puppets of foreign policy. Their tactics are terrorism, their objective to sow terror in Israel, and their actions over the years have worsened considerably the lot of Palestinians, not improved it.
If you really want to get into it, it would have been better had the French (and especially Norwegians) only passively resisted the German occupation. Possibly this would have translated to more Allied soldiers dying, but this is preferable to suffering and death in the occupied civilian population. In any case the strategic impact of the various resistance movements is very much overstated for socio-political reasons.
Yes, and I’d point out again why - Hamas has made “heroic” efforts to piss of basically EVERY Israeli. Including Arab Israelis. They went in with something like a 96% approval in a poll. Which is unheard of. Especially in Israel.
Janster - Keep trying to blacken the name of the French Resistance
(And I’m willing to believe it’s YOUR racism at work, bluntly)
I don’t know if Janster is racist, but he certainly is crazy.
I can understand people who are naive enough to believe a war without collateral damage is possible (even though the US couldnt do it under far better circumstances). What i can’t understand is someone who condemns Israel for killing civilians by accident in a nasty urban war while they applaud Hamas for INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.
If their own government turns these locations in to military bases, how does that not make them valid targets?
As the thread title says, what else is Israel supposed to do? Just not attack a location where terrorists are lobbing rockets at their civilians because it used to be a school? What would you expect your own government to do this in situation?
So terrorism is transitive? If you attack a valid military target, and your opponent uses terror tactics in reply, that makes you a terrorist because you “made” them attack civilians?
While I agree it’s a difficult problem, maybe the solution is not to simply lob a bomb at it. Maybe put some effort into finding out if the building is full of women, children and UN workers first.
Alstein
3396
and then they all escape. Israeli’s only duty to the folks in Gaza is not try and intentionally kill them.
If Iron Dome didn’t exist and the Gaza rockets were killing scores of civilians, Israel would probably be sending whole divisions in there and occupying the whole thing.
I’m not defending Israeli policy, they are doing apartheid actions, but Hamas is one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet, and Israel has a responsibility to defend their citizens from them.
If the folks in Gaza don’t like it they can revolt against Hamas, (and if Israel didn’t support THAT I’d say there is a case for war crimes)
Grifman
3397
So you are asserting that the French resistance were terrorists because the Germans conducted reprisals against French civilians due to actions of the Resistance? So the French resistance were terrorists against their own people? LOL, that’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.
Hamas are terrorists because they attack civilians, not because any retaliations the Israeli’s undertake in response.
And what if there are? Just ignore the rockets?
With Hamas’ habit of putting military targets right next to civilian locations, Israel would quickly find themselves unable to retaliate at all.
What you talk about is not a solution as it does nothing to address the issue.
Aleck
3399
While this point has been made upthread, the answer to this sort of situation – or, rather, the solution to this sort of situation – isn’t military.
When Hamas attacks Israel, they gin up support among Palestinians for taking a swipe at “the oppressor.” They also anger Israelis, who in turn support their government. When Israel retaliates, they gin up patriotic support among Israelis – and anger Palestinians, who, in turn, support Hamas. Lather, rinse, repeat. It’s a cycle that doesn’t actually get you any closer to any sort of solution, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of how people react to being attacked.
Look at the US reaction to 9-11. The perpetrators of the act wanted the US to reconsider its policy in the Middle East and withdraw from the Holy Land, and flying planes into buildings was both a way to strike back and a way to raise Americans’ consciousness of the concerns of Muslims with regards to the American presence in the Holy Land. They figured that, by doing something so horrific, Americans would say “what could make someone do such a horrible thing?” and that would lead to pressure on the American government to change American policy in the Middle East.
Of course, that’s not how people work. The American reaction was “those motherfuckers are crazy and need to be put down like rabid dogs!” and to support the government in a wave of patriotism.
So the answer to the question of “what is the solution” is a difficult one. One thing that pretty much anyone can tell you: semi-discriminate bombing (which is what Israel is doing these days – they’re trying not to hit civilians) is not going to solve the problem, at least not in any sort of long term fashion. If Israel wants peace, they need to make Hamas less popular, and attacking Gaza (with the inevitable collateral damage) makes Hamas more popular. It’s not sexy, but history would seem to indicate that the answer for how to reach a more permanent solution is a combination of propaganda, economic development, and intercultural exchange.
But, by all means, lob a few bombs if that makes you feel better.
You’re ignoring the basic fact that nothing Israel can do will make Hamas less popular, and Israel has a duty to protect it’s citizens.
(And, er, Intercultural exchanges happen very close to exclusively with the West Bank for a reason! Hamas ATTACKS Palestinians for doing that…)
