Speaking of Israel...

[Hooahguy]

Agreed. My general view is that Israel has a right to defend itself against the rocket attacks, but clearly the bombings arent helping anyone and are only causing harm. Harm for the Palestinians who are hurt by the bombings, and harm for the Israelis who come in harm's way when the Palestinians fight back. Why Israel keeps thinking that the bombings will work is beyond me.

But at this point its silly to think that there will ever be a diplomatic solution, it will only end with one side wiping out the other side, whichever side that is.

[Beskar]

But at this point its silly to think that there will ever be a diplomatic solution, it will only end with one side wiping out the other side, whichever side that is.

Part of why my suggested solution would be for settlements to be erected for the Palestinian population in the neighbouring countries and the various areas, and they be granted citizenship in those areas and compensated. It isn't the most ideal situation in the world, but if I was in that situation, being compensated to live with a home and work, would be a better alternative than nothing at all.

This would obviously be a policy carried out over a stretch of years from agreements and practical standpoint. Obviously working better if the compensation is generous, perhaps assistance from foreign aid budgets.

Israel would most likely end up burdened with the greatest cost in the arrangement, as it should be if they want those territories.

[Papewaio]

So you want the rest of the world to pay for a diaspora mark II?

[Beskar]

So you want the rest of the world to pay for a diaspora mark II?

Nothing perfect, hence this situation in the first place. But I think working on ending a humanitarian crisis would be a good spend and as stated, those involved in causing it are the ones with most of the burden.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of why my suggested solution would be for settlements to be erected for the Palestinian population in the neighbouring countries and the various areas, and they be granted citizenship in those areas and compensated. It isn't the most ideal situation in the world, but if I was in that situation, being compensated to live with a home and work, would be a better alternative than nothing at all.

This would obviously be a policy carried out over a stretch of years from agreements and practical standpoint. Obviously working better if the compensation is generous, perhaps assistance from foreign aid budgets.

Israel would most likely end up burdened with the greatest cost in the arrangement, as it should be if they want those territories.

So, like the people of Diego Garcia?

Nope - not acceptable - you would be condemning the Palestinians to a worse fate than they face now - and denying them the right to the land they have bled over.

[Beskar]

Nope - not acceptable - you would be condemning the Palestinians to a worse fate than they face now - and denying them the right to the land they have bled over.

Actually, I meant for the ones in Palestine to actually stay there, idea being, Israel would find the conditions too costly to move them, so they will accept them as legitimate people/owners of that area. I was referring for settlements for the refugees and citizenships, which is a big concern.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Extreme nationalists cruelly stomping civilians being used as cover by religious extremists who launch the dumbest of bombs in order to prompt retaliation using the smartest of technology, all for the sake of hopefully getting the favor of Europe who created the entire situation in the first place.

What a joke.

[Husar]

European exceptionalism/ingenuity!

[Idaho]

Extreme nationalists cruelly stomping civilians being used as cover by religious extremists who launch the dumbest of bombs in order to prompt retaliation using the smartest of technology, all for the sake of hopefully getting the favor of Europe who created the entire situation in the first place.

What a joke.

David Lloyd George - created the northern Ireland conflict, the Arab Israeli conflict, the Cyprus disaster.

So with the latest bombing the death toll reaches over 300 with 8 members of the same family dead.

Americans are a strange lot. They seem more prone to narratives that create an "other", an enemy. Once that division is made, all sympathy and action flows from that. This explains why they have always been so poor at wars of occupation. They can't switch from being invading aggressors to defensive peacekeepers.

[Idaho]

If anyone was still in mistaken belief that Israeli is not deliberately trying to destroy the viability of the Palestinian state:From The New York Times:

How the West Chose War in Gaza

By preventing payment of Hamas workers salaries and free passage to Egypt, Israel and the West laid the groundwork for the latest escalation.
http://<br /> http://www.nytimes.com...-the-west.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

David Lloyd George - created the northern Ireland conflict, the Arab Israeli conflict, the Cyprus disaster.

So with the latest bombing the death toll reaches over 300 with 8 members of the same family dead.

Americans are a strange lot. They seem more prone to narratives that create an "other", an enemy. Once that division is made, all sympathy and action flows from that. This explains why they have always been so poor at wars of occupation. They can't switch from being invading aggressors to defensive peacekeepers.

Part of the decision on Archangel in support of White Russia as well, if I recall. Not to mention his willingness to cave in to the Germans in 1940.

[Kralizec]

Agreed. My general view is that Israel has a right to defend itself against the rocket attacks, but clearly the bombings arent helping anyone and are only causing harm. Harm for the Palestinians who are hurt by the bombings, and harm for the Israelis who come in harm's way when the Palestinians fight back. Why Israel keeps thinking that the bombings will work is beyond me.

But at this point its silly to think that there will ever be a diplomatic solution, it will only end with one side wiping out the other side, whichever side that is.

I respect the sentiments expressed in this post, but for the pessimistic prediction...I hope not, and I frankly expect not. Hamas is not capable of it. Even the situation changed dramaticly and Israel faced an existential threat, there'd be plenty of warning signs long before it - Israel has plenty of foreign goodwill to count on, in the first place the US.
Israel might consider driving out the Palestinians entirely, but I expect not. They would have to embrace the prospect of being a pariah on the world stage, and such a 'final solution' would arouse so much internal disssent that even an extremely right-wing government would hesitate.

Then again...the general sequence of things could continue for at least a decade or two, by which point settler outposts literally saturate the west bank. The rest of the world now maintains that they're all illegal and should be dismantled, but that might be an impossible option in the far future. Leaving the Palestinians even more overcrowded and concentrated than they currently are.

I seriously wonder what the underlying strategy beneath the settlement policy is - it just might be to create a fait accompli for future Israeli politicians, ensuring that there's no way going back.

[Pannonian]

I respect the sentiments expressed in this post, but for the pessimistic prediction...I hope not, and I frankly expect not. Hamas is not capable of it. Even the situation changed dramaticly and Israel faced an existential threat, there'd be plenty of warning signs long before it - Israel has plenty of foreign goodwill to count on, in the first place the US.
Israel might consider driving out the Palestinians entirely, but I expect not. They would have to embrace the prospect of being a pariah on the world stage, and such a 'final solution' would arouse so much internal disssent that even an extremely right-wing government would hesitate.

Then again...the general sequence of things could continue for at least a decade or two, by which point settler outposts literally saturate the west bank. The rest of the world now maintains that they're all illegal and should be dismantled, but that might be an impossible option in the far future. Leaving the Palestinians even more overcrowded and concentrated than they currently are.

I seriously wonder what the underlying strategy beneath the settlement policy is - it just might be to create a fait accompli for future Israeli politicians, ensuring that there's no way going back.

With the borders defined by previous agreements, continued settlement is basically land-grabbing, which according to just about every legal understanding is casis belli and provides a iusta causa for the Palestinians to retaliate as they see fit. Of course, the onus is on the Palestinians to repel the Israelis themselves, and they're too weak to do so, and quite frankly I don't care enough about them to want us to help them do so. The Melian dialogue applies. The strong (Israelis) do what they will, the weak (Palestinians) suffer what they must. There is no justice involved except practical reality.

For anyone wishing to excuse the settlements, I ask a couple of questions: are the settlers subject to Palestinian law, and do they pay taxes to the Palestinian authorities? If neither is true, but they are supported by the Israeli state, then they are invaders. If both are true, they are immigrants. For people like Frag, I'd ask a further question: would you be happy if Muslim inhabitants in your country refused to pay taxes or obey your country's laws, but pledged allegiance to and were supported by a foreign state? If it happened in Britain, I'd expect my government to do everything legally possible to eliminate the problem, and if we weren't strong enough, call on every favour we have to help us do so.

[Papewaio]

Last time someone tried something like that with the British it caused the Falkland war.

[Pannonian]

Last time someone tried something like that with the British it caused the Falkland war.

Someone may try to nitpick by saying that an invasion is crossing the border in arms. Which is only true where the country being invaded is strong enough to forcibly eject unarmed invaders, thus necessitating any invasion to be done with arms. If you trust your supporting government to back you with arms in the event of any attempt to evict you, you can cross the border and occupy foreign land unarmed, and it is no less an invasion than if you'd done so in full uniform and military regalia. If you enter and live in another country, you are either a guest of that country, a citizen of that country, or an invader.

[Hooahguy]

The ground offensive has begun.

Interesting to see what happens now.

[drone]

I know the best solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the only downside is that it involves cobalt nukes.