Israel Declares War For The First Time Since 1973.

Reminds a bit of US actions over the last 20 years. The US war against Iraq saw US forces based in Saudi Arabia, leading to Al Queda with ties to the Taliban. 9/11 happened, and the US went into Afghanistan to root out the political faction responsible for the attacks.

Attacks from both sides were all for show. Iran informed the world that they were going to launch missiles at Israel, even giving their flight path so that they could be shot down without hitting anything. It was Iran's way of saving face.

Just saw that the post I am replying to is from Feb, so the questions are open to the floor. So what is Israel supposed to do? Just let thousands of their citizens be slaughtered every few months from Hamas raids? Continually have rockets launched at their citizens?What's the solution here? This isn't some underground terrorist organization within Gaza. This is the government of Gaza doing this.

In the same way, do the Hamas attacks justify what Israel is doing? Are the Hamas attacks bringing more recruits to Israel's side? How was Israel oppressing Gaza before the attack that killed thousands of Israeli's?There were no Israeli's in Gaza. Gaza had complete autonomy within their own borders, and they had been given massive amounts of aid to build infrastructure and a country of their own. What Israeli attacks did happen were in retaliation for rockets that Hamas sends over the border. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza as of 2007. There were no Israeli's at all in Gaza when the Hamas attacks occurred last October. Gaza was under 100% Palestinian authority, and Hamas was and is their chosen government.The Palenstinians have also been offered a two state solution multiple times, and they have turned it down time after time after time.So why aren't you as adamant for Palestinians to seek reconciliation? None of this was happening in Gaza. Gaza was under 100% Palestinian rule. In fact, it was against the law in Gaza for an Israeli to even walk the streets in Gaza.So what more was Israel to do? There were no settlements in Gaza. They offered a two state solution multiple times. Israel only retaliated when fired upon. Israel tried it your way, from all appearances.Added in edit:3 out of 4 Palestinians support the Oct. 7 attack that killed thousands of Israeli's.

quote:

---

Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.
reuters.com

---

How does Israel reconcile with a group where 75% support the slaughter of your people?

The asymmetry I am seeing is that Hamas can apparently do whatever they want, and they are justified in doing so for whatever reason. Israel responds to thousands of its citizens being killed in a terrorist attack, and everyone clutches their pearls.At the same time, I will fully agree that how Israel carries out the removal of Hamas from Gaza is very, very important. I do think they could have done it differently, just as many US military actions could have been carried out in a more ethical and moral manner. The hard part is that there is nowhere for Palestinians to go. The US levelled Fallujah to get rid of ISIS, but at least the citizens could escape the city. Do you think some sort of military incursion was justified? Hamas was sending suicide bombers across the border, so Israel closed the border. There were no Israeli's in Gaza. What happened in Gaza is the responsibility of Palestinians. They had aid money coming in, but what did they do? Instead of using the money for infrastructure and improving Gaza they used it for terrorism, and to line the pockets of Hamas leaders. Israel didn't do that. What I find frustrating is that Israel is expected to do what no one expects the Palestinians to do. Hamas has sworn to rid all of Israel of Jews, the infamous "From the river to the sea" chant. This is part of Hamas' charter, plainly written out. People think that's fine. However, Israel is supposed to take it on the chin and absorb any and all terrorism. It just seems like there is a real asymmetry in expectations.

I would also say that there are only bad choices and worse choices when it comes to how Israel should confront the violence that is being visited on them. At what point is it no longer terrorism? When Germany invaded France (twice), was that terrorism? When a government entity is purchasing and launching missiles into your country, is that terrorism?In my eyes, Hamas is not like Al Qaeda or ISIS. Hamas runs the government of Gaza. They are the government. They funnel aid money into weapons and military training.And at what point is a population responsible for the actions of their government? Were Allied forces justified in bombing German cities during WW II? That's fair. It appears that I was not informed of some of Israel's wrongdoings.There is also the problem of aid money going towards weapons and military training in Gaza, not to mention the ongoing attacks by Hamas and every indication that they will never stop. The goal of Hamas is remove Jews from Israel, and no amount of relaxation of fishing waters or farmland is going to change that. It's not a genocide. If it was a genocide then Palestinians in the West Bank would be under attack right now. Israel is attacking Hamas. Hamas is not a race of people. If the Palestinians had rounded up the Hamas leadership and handed them over this would be done. A country is justified in taking out a government that threatens and is actively attacking them. One of the issues is that I don't know what can be believed in the reports. Many, many times there have been reports whose sole source is Hamas, and they turn out to be lies. There is also the issue of Hamas puposefully using their own population as a shield. For example, they launch missiles from schools and hospitals hoping that Israeli's will have the moral and ehtics that they lack. Then open the Egyptian border. Why hasn't that happened?

That's my generation, so I can confirm what you are saying. Our Woodstock was a bit different than the one our parents' generation went to. The closest Gen X has been to larger protests was the protest against the Iraq war in 2004, but that was nothing like the late 60's.At the same time, Gen X experienced the hangover from those protests in the late 70's and 80's. I'm thinking of films like Platoon, The Deer Hunter (late 70's), Apocalypse Now, and Rambo which scratched at a lot of old wounds in society. It was our father's generation that went to war in Vietnam, so there was still some connective tissue there. Law enforcement knows they are being watched and will be judged for what they do. I'm hoping this will prevent something like what was seen at Kent State. However, humans judgement can be extremely impaired in stressful situations which makes me worried.

I tend to think that Afghani's prefer an authoritarian theocracy over a western style democracy, no matter who is offered as a democratic leader. Both sides need to look to the future and move on from the past. Palestinians need to realize that they aren't going to push all the Jews into the sea and reclaim a Palestinian state. Israeli Jews need to accept Palestinians as equal citizens, and figure out a way to share power so that both populations can thrive.Part of the problem is that the Palestinians have no allies, not even in the Arab Sunni world. Egypt seems like an obvious broker for some sort of talks, but they want nothing to do with the Palestinians.Even worse, Palestinians have been used as pawns by other governments. Saudi Arabia and Israel were moving closer and closer to normalization between the two countries. Iran didn't like this, which is most likely what led to the terrorist attacks last October. Iran used Palestinians and Hamas to poison talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia.What would happen if Israel and Saudi Arabia normalized relations? Saudi Arabia could be a wonderful ally for Palestinians, and serve the role of an honest broker. I think this is one way to forge a new path. I really don't think Jews and Palestinians can fix this one on their own. Each side is way too entrenched.

In my view, those were more about PR than actually fixing anything. There have to be constitutional level reforms, not wishy washy, feel good nonbinding agreements.Having two states is the obvious solution, but Palestinians have fought against this tooth and nail because they only want a one state solution, a Palestinian state. No Israel. That's where we are stuck at. A two state solution has been offered to the Palestinians multiple times, and they turn it down every time. I think the only way this gets pushed through is with the help of an Arab Sunni ally (e.g. Saudi Arabia, UAE).

I will fully admit that I could be completely wrong on this, but this is what I have been reading:

quote:

---

The leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization has accepted in principle the concept of a two-state solution since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez,[3] having previously turned down such proposals since 1937. In 2017, Hamas announced their revised charter, which claims to accept the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but without recognising the statehood of Israel, referring to it as "the Zionist entity".[4] Diplomatic efforts have centred around realizing a two-state solution, starting from the failed 2000 Camp David Summit and the Clinton Parameters, followed by the Taba Summit in 2001. The failure of the Camp David summit to reach an agreed two-state solution formed the backdrop to the commencement of the Second Intifada, the violent consequences of which led to a hardening of attitudes among the Israeli public towards a Palestinian state and marked a turning point among both peoples’ attitudes.[5][6][7] A two-state solution also formed the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative, the 2006–2008 peace offer, and the 2013–14 peace talks. Despite the failure of these, international consensus has for decades supported a two-state solution to the conflict.[8]
Two-state solution - Wikipedia

---

That happened in 2000, and Arafat turned it down:

quote:

---

In 2000, after Yasser Arafat rejected the offer made to him by Ehud Barak based on a two-state solution and declined to negotiate for an alternative plan,[18] it became clear that Arafat would not make a deal with Israel unless it included the full Palestinian right of return, which would demographically destroy[19] the Jewish character[when defined as?] of the State of Israel.[20][21] For this reason, critics of Arafat claim that he put his desire to destroy the Jewish state above his dream of building an autonomous Palestinian state.[22]
Palestinian views on the peace process - Wikipedia

---

And again in 2008:

quote:

---

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly admitted for the first time that he turned down a chance for a two-state peace deal with Israel in 2008 that would have given him nearly all the land the Palestinians wanted.

​

The offer by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert included a near-total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a land link to the Gaza Strip. The Old City of East Jerusalem, home to Jewish and Arab holy sites, would have been under international control.
Abbas Admits Rejecting Two-State Peace Plan With Israel in 2008

---

Added in edit:Also,
reuters.com

In 2000, Arafat wouldn't even negotiate. When it came down to actually realizing a two-state solution instead of just talking about it, Arafat walked away.The deal was all of Gaza and 92% of the West Bank under Palestinian sovereignty. How is that a shit sandwich? And that was just the initial offer. As you said before:"The radicalism would not have taken over.if the Palestinian people saw a chance in negotiations with Israel."Well, they were offered serious negotiations, and a pretty good deal right off the bat. That happened again in 2008, and again Abbas didn't take advantage of it.

All negotiations start out with oral proposals. There's no reason to write anything down until there's a basic agreement. That's a poor excuse.If you want to claim that Israel wouldn't budge at one meeting, then fine. Anyone knows that these types of negotiations aren't finished in one meeting. If Arafat were actually serious he would have pushed for more meetings. He didn't.These are the very start of negotiations that you claimed Palestinians wanted. They happened, but the Palestinians never seem interested in realizing them. Have you read anything besides propaganda?

Yes, I looked at them. It was pretty obvious that neither side was ultimately interested in a two state solution. However, Israel was willing to negotiate, the very thing that you said would lower radicalism.

Was the US part of the UK before 1776?Was Arizona part of Mexico before 1848? Would Mexico be within their rights to invade Arizona and make it part of Mexico? Why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we stand by a fellow democracy and help them defend their sovereignty. Don't forget about the sky falling.How long do we have to wait before you admit you were wrong? We liked it when the French helped us break away from the UK.