an oddly titled article - its amazing to me that there is international political pressure to quickly re-contain / restrict a group of people in need of basic food, supplies, and services.
I agree -- the international community should decisively deal with the problem of violent thugs in control of the Gaza Strip, and be done with it, rather than letting everyone involved suffer slowly, and then having to deal with it decisively at some later date.
I could never understand Israel with respect to Gaza. The closest I could come up with--Israel increases the pressure on Gaza to the near-breaking point, only to suddenly withdraw. At that point, they make a slight and subtle but meaningful advance on the West Bank. The West Bank, unlike Gaza, is economically and strategically valuable. But still...does it really take a blockade to do this?
Israel's policy hasn't been entirely consistent in its aims. There are rival political forces which disagree. Just like US policies sometimes change after elections.
But Israel has other factors making it difficult to be consistent, too. Specifically, variable international pressure, and inconsistent support from the US.
The heart of the problem, which makes a policy difficult to agree on, is that on the one hand Israel ought to defend itself vigorously enough that zero innocent Israelis are killed by violent thugs. And on the other, Israel is under massive pressure not to do that, and not even the US will support Israel in defending its citizens enough to keep all of them alive.
So suppose a criminal breaks into your house. And he's got a knife, and you're frail, so you better shoot him. Add more details if you want, so it's clearly justified self defense.
Now add a reason that doing this kills the criminal's innocent son. He left his son tied up at home, and was planning to untie the kid when he returned, but he never got home, and the kid wasn't found in time and starved to death. Or the man actually was a good father, but he and his son were involved in a dangerous project, and he would have been fine, but now without his father's help, he is killed.
So, defending yourself caused an innocent to die.
But it wasn't wrong of you to do that. The fault lies with the criminal. He is responsible for getting himself shot by breaking into your house and trying to rob and murder you. And because getting himself shot is his responsibility, so are the consequences. He got his own son killed, not you.
More innocent Palestinian civilians have died than all of the Israeli casualties put together. But the Palestinian casualties would stop if their insane leadership would stop killing Israelis! Israel is between a rock and a hard place. Nothing they can do is right in the eyes of anyone.
I was your typical liberal anti-zionist "omg the poor Palestians" Jew until about a month ago. I did the free trip to Israel sponsored by insane wealthy philanthropists and the Israeli government. http://www.birthrightisrael.com (it's free with no catch, other than getting to experience brilliantly constructed propaganda -- they say you need to be Jewish to go along but they don't check. 2/3 of the people on my trip were atheist/secular, kind of like Israel itself. All that matters is that you are 18-26 at the time of the trip. Email me if you're interested in going, I can answer any questions.)
My conclusion after the trip is that the Palestinians bring it on themselves. I wish that Israel would stop killing innocents. But if they made radical concessions, like completely removing their military from the occupied territories, tearing down the racist segregation wall, and returning East Jerusalem to Arab control, acts of terrorism would increase.
So... I would love to hear what you or anyone think is the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, keeping in mind that the truly ideal solution, making Jerusalem an international city, will never be agreed upon by the Palestinians.
Its all a big mess my friend - I concede that I have no solution - Both sides have been at it for such a long time that I'm not sure a full fledged reconciliation will be accomplished - But we can hope though! (No more politics for me, it makes my head hurt)
Israel goes to great lengths to avoid killing innocents, even when the innocence of those people is in serious doubt. (e.g., the family of a terrorist, which makes no effort to get out of the way so Israel can kill him without collateral damage, and who gives him comfort, encouragement, and support, is not exactly innocent bystanders)
These lengths include:
- holding off on killing known terrorist leaders when they have a chance, knowing this puts Israel at greater risk, because they believe the method available to kill him has too high a risk of collateral damage
- sending their young men door to door, in very dangerous narrow streets with booby traps, snipers, because getting up close and personal is safer for the Palestinians, though not for the Israelis, who have the power to just bomb the area (which is what most countries would do, like Russia. But in fact, try to name another country which routinely takes similar risks to protect somewhat hostile non-citizens.)
Looks like that number is only for 2007, they haven't been as good historically which means it may be an anomaly, but let's hope not. And this isn't a great source either, it doesn't cite its sources.
oh, it's comparing killing terrorists with civilians. i thought you meant collateral damage vs Israel's own military casualties. not as amazing as it sounded, but still excellent.
the link actually mentions historical rates and how they've improved. but yes, doesn't cite sources.
Very much agreed - The nature of the conflict is such that both sides have legitimate arguments I suppose, but in my opinion, the IDF's actions border on war crimes - As a kid watching TV news many many years ago, an indelible image was left with me:
One of the notable things about those kinds of pictures, is you will see a Palestinian gunmen, in the midst of a crowd of "innocent bystanders". If they were so innocent, they'd get the hell away from the crazy, evil man with the gun, so he could be safely shot. Instead they act as human shields.
And on the flip side, the gunman is perfectly happy to use them as human shields.
