This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Israel in the Gaza Strip

Jump to new
You just don't get it do you Whiskers.

They CAN'T leave! That's not Hamas' fault, or any other Palestinians.

It is the result of Israeli actions, and Israeli actions alone. Long before Hamas came to power.

Israel doesn't have child suicide bombers, it doesn't need to. But it's actions directly lead to the deaths of children as a result of them not receiving health care. How on Earth is that any better?

If Israel wont allow people in its enforced ghetto to receive health care, how is there ever going to be peace?

Before you get into big picture stuff, if you can't resolve the most simple of simple things, and a human right, you can kiss anything else goodbye.


So no, in Palestine you don't have the life of your child as one of your choices. Choices made regarding a child's right to live are in Israeli hands. That is where your premise is flawed.
 
wayneL said:
Yes you do.
Click to expand...

It might be how you interpret it, but you cannot know what I endorse... just what you think I think... dare I say because you are still contaminating my point about the conflict resolution process and issues with your judgemental interpretations of my position.

So if you want to be clear about what I believe, ask a precise question and I'll give you an answer which does not require interpreting anything.

Back to the process and issues, I agree, there is a lot of historical stuff that still has raw nerves on both sides, but in getting a resolution to the conflict both sides have to focus on the here and now put aside their judgemental positions and get first things first and come to realise and accept a process to work by and a heirachy of issues to be addressed of which these past issues would be some to put on the list.

But, there has been a number of processes in the past and could be again tomorrow... BUT FOR the very highest issue in any conflict resolution process... to recognise the other parties right to exist.

UNLESS both parties accept this as a prerequisate, then the conflict resolution process per se has not even begun and has nowhere to go. All that has been happening is quite a bit of horse trading to get both sides to even come to the table to start with. Unless that is done in good faith by both parties the conflict resolution process cannot start... hence from a behavioural and managerial perspective I can understand Israels frustration with Hamas and treating them with a great deal of contempt, while they still call for the inialiation of Israel.

Of course once a state of war exists then the rules change quite a bit... and a cease fire has to be agreed and respected before the whole process can start again.

Chops contrary to your assertion, in fact I do get it. I've passed a course not only in conflict resolution, but Group Conflict Resolution, ie the facilitation of many people at a time through the conflict resolution process.

Chops, what if the palastine authorities and Hamas had put more resources into hospitals in their own areas rather than spending the money on ancient very inaccurate rockets and the like in a futile attempt to effectively do little more than antaganise Israel?

I'm just putting a question of logic, reasonableness, to you. It's a matter of the quality of choices people make for their circumstances. The Palastine authorities are responsible for those sort of decisions that they made themselves.

Since I'm talking about proceedures and issues, the 'Right Fighter' behavioural pattern is part of a larger pattern known as 'Toxic People'.


Now having pointed that out many politicans everywhere have some degree of toxic characteristics. Certainly the extremist's of the cultures on both sides in that region are very toxic.

I'm in no way condoning anything Israel has done, but given their resources and alias, do you really think the Palastine authority have made good decisions for the benifit of their citizins over the years... particularly provoking militarialy, someone who is no small fry but is aligned with the world's only super power.

Wouldn't they have been much smarter to look after their people and procreate children rather than blowing them up... teaching them to be intellectually smarter to win friends to politically resolve their problems rather than their toxic martyr indoctrination which is exponentially reducing their number compared to their opposition?

But if you have a reasonable comprehension of the notion of Right Fighters and Toxic people generally, you would realise that their intellect and reasoning capacity is limited by their psychological disorder.

They tend to be very judgemental, attack issues personally rather than expressing more in the 'third person', and blame everyone but themselves for their problems.

Just ignoring the rights and wrongs for the moment, which is the smartest strategy? Do you really believe the Palastine authorities could not have made much better decisions for their own people?

In the news this morning it has been reported that Israel let a number of humanitarian aid trucks through, but no one came to pick the stuff up. Hamas just kept firing rockets so they eventually closed it off again. That doesn't demonstrate much empathy by Hamas for their own injured civilians and children, let alone good judgement to at least cease fire while the aid trucks were let in.

The point I'm trying to make from a conflict management point of view is put yourself in the other party's shoes for a minute and think about what you would do in the same circumstance.

Chops, what do you suppose Israel would do, or more to the point what would you do, if a new Palestine Authority denounced past policy of annihilation of Israel and ceased fire?
 
Well this is quite a laugh!

We have someone who fancies himself as a conflict resoluter who is actively escalating conflict in this thread with a pious, arrogant and biased attitude.

I am amused! LOLOL

...you actually passed this course? Good grief!!!!
 
I'd like to highlight that according to this mornings news Hamas is again emphasising that they have many, I think the report was talking about thousands of people ready to die for their cause... the annihilation of Israel.

Seriously, how can you take their hyprocitical hysteria in their own press releases about their so called horrific child casualties in the war seriously with their holier than thou ranting about the selfrightiousness of their cause and all their martyrs ready to die for their cause.

So, it seems if one of their children could infiltrate Israel as a human bomb they died a martyr, but if the child is killed by Israeli soldiers in a state of war before they can infiltrate Israel as a human bomb it's a criminal act by Israel that their child died. .

Talk about frigin unreasonable people.
 

With all due respect Wayne, are you interested in playing the issue or the man.

I emphasise the point I made earlier that you have not yet grasped.



Wayne, I'd prefer not to get into judgemental bashing of forum members, but there is clear demarcation of what is acceptable, right, wrong or good judgement when discussing an unrelated party's behaviour as this thread intends.

I'll gladly answer any question you have and provide further references about the process and the issues if you would just nominate any issue or part of the process I have discussed that you may have a problem with.

For example, the welfare of the children in this conflict.
 
Both sides have and are behaving in an indefensible way. And yes, of course, they should be mature and reasonable and obey all the rules of conflict resolution, each side making concessions, and leave the table with a valid plan for the future. That's how it works in theory.

But if you were Palestinian forced to make way for the land of Israel from 1948, I expect you'd feel less than OK in the face of attitudes such as are exemplified in the quotes above.

Of course suicide bombings, whether by adults or children, are completely unacceptable. And I'm not making excuses for a single act of violence in this whole horrible mess. But maybe if Palestinians had the resources of Israel including its mighty American backing, they would not resort to their rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

I don't find what's happening on either side acceptable, but just don't feel you can ignore the historical background.
 
How pompous.

Whiskers, what you have failed to grasp is that with all your conflict resolution mumbo jumbo, is that you have stumbled at your own first hurdle, in judging by your own set of values what is right or wrong. In so doing you are kicking along the conflict in this thread with your comprehensive bias and sanctimonious judgements.

I submit that:

a/ you have no idea of the issues in the whole conflict

b/ you have no idea what you are doing with regards conflict resolution

For a true unbiased approach, look to Julia's post one above this one. I would give the job to Julia and make sure you were at the antipodes of the conflict.

If you want to take a view as you have, fine. That's what everybody is doing in this thread. But to waffle about conflict resolution while doing so is ludicrous.
 
Reading this it is impossible not to be struck by the similarity between this war of words and the actual mess over there being fought with explosives.

If a fight between two prizefighters in the ring has an end and a point to it, it is acceptable to back one side over the other. But if the fight is in the street, stopping traffic, breaking windows, hurting innocents, and there is only enmity, stupidity, and hatred - in other words it is pointless, then I fail to understand how onlookers can take sides and still consider themselves better than the antagonists.

The Middle East problem is a pointless exercise displaying the very worst excesses of human cruelty and stupidity. In my view, taking sides is not only illogical, but even more stupid since we should know better.
 

You honestly, honestly cannot be as unaware as what you have just posted.

You still clearly DO NOT get it.

It's irrelevant what Hamas or other Palestinians should have, would have, could have done.

What is relevant is Israel's continuing and ongoing interference in the health care of the people it is occupying!!! In light of that, IT DOES NOT MATTER how good health care is, because you probably can't get to it anyway. You simply have absolutely no clue the extent of check points and other obstructions that mean you may not be able to move 2 or 3 blocks to get to treatment.

And it is absolutely cretinous, and completely laughable to argue for the obstruction of this fundamental human right. Seriously, I cannot comprehend how someone could be that below par of a human and to pass it off as a "well Palestinians are to blame for their ambulances being stopped" when the issue is one of access to healthcare in their own land, which is interfered with by a foreign country.
 
Whiskers said:
Chops, what do you suppose Israel would do, or more to the point what would you do, if a new Palestine Authority denounced past policy of annihilation of Israel and ceased fire?
Click to expand...

Look in my own backyard as to reduce actions that indicate exactly the same in reverse perhaps?
 
No-one who sides with either warring partner in this mess has "got it". Making good points serves merely to highlight how correct and incorrect both sides are at one and the same time. The only helpful position is to advance a platform for the cessation of hostilities and try to engage both sides in meaningful dialogue. It goes without saying that this is almost impossibly difficult, but it is the only humane course of action for the rest of us.
 
Lucas.

Like I have said many times throughout this thread, I do not support Hamas.

My position starts with upholding basic human rights. And in that, lies a way forward. It just happens to be that Israel impacts more on Palestinian lives in this regard than vice versa.
 
wayneL said:
How pompous.

Whiskers, what you have failed to grasp is that with all your conflict resolution mumbo jumbo, is that you have stumbled at your own first hurdle, in judging by your own set of values what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

I have asked you to be specific about that which you dissagree but you continue to talk critically in generalisations.

It would be very helpful if you would be specific about that you consider I have judged what is right or wrong by my own set of values. I have explained that certain behaviours are wrong, totally unjustifiable in any circumstance by law and international standards. Please specify say which ones you dissagree with.

In so doing you are kicking along the conflict in this thread with your comprehensive bias and sanctimonious judgements.
Click to expand...

So, what was happening for those umptheen posts before mine... and what are you doing exactly?

Are you interested in at least a theoretical Conflict Resolution process for this issue or just bagging Conflict Resolution generally?

I'm concerned at your agressive and dominant demeanor, being disruptive to the process. (Rule number one is not to allow any of the participants become domineering or disruptive to the process.)

I'll repeat again... specify a point you want to discuss and I'll post independant references for every detail to substantiate my statements. You could do like wise to justify the integrity of yours also.

If you would kindly notice, I as did Julia, addressed the issues not attacked the messenger as you continue to do.

I've invited you to participate in defining a possible resolution process and issues... so let's get on with that eh.

I submit that:

a/ you have no idea of the issues in the whole conflict
Click to expand...

That's usually the case with a conflict resolution facilitator or counsellor. They don't need to know all the issues at first. What they do need to know is what is acceptable behaviour (particularly in relation to children in the conflict) and what is not in the context of it's impact on getting the atmosphere set to begin the process.

b/ you have no idea what you are doing with regards conflict resolution
Click to expand...

I respectfully dissagree and suggest that you are passing unknowledgable, judgemental crititism thereby being disruptive to the process.

The process will work much better if people refrain from name calling and suggest a reasonable alternative or specify the particular issue you refer to rather than making critical, ambigious generalisations.

For a true unbiased approach, look to Julia's post one above this one. I would give the job to Julia and make sure you were at the antipodes of the conflict.
Click to expand...

I know Julia has had similar training for counselling for a somewhat different environment than me, but collectively, I'm sure we could colloberate in a 'phantom' Conflict Resolution Process for this thread since you are not displaying any intention to, and letting your preconceived notions about me interfere with your better judgement.

There seems to be a number of people who could take the phantom position of each side.

Just to start with the issues Julia mentioned, I think we pretty much agree on the position re the children.

I also agree and have said that the historical background can't be ignored... as I mentioned earlier those issues have to be discussed during the process.

Re the 1948 issues though, I expect there are few people whom were alive then and have recollection of those events still alive. So while there are teritorial issues there still, in terms of the current generation the more immediate and higher priority issues would most likely be more to do with living standards, health care and the like.

If you want to take a view as you have, fine. That's what everybody is doing in this thread. But to waffle about conflict resolution while doing so is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

To clarify yet again, the examples I have cited relate firstly to the questionable quality of the decision making of many of the palastine people and leadership in particular since they are on the most suffering end of the stick atm and trying to get people, like us on the thread, to stand in the other party's (Israels) shoes for awhile to try and see their perspective in the context of what is generally recognised as the ground rules for successful conflict resolution.

The harsh reality is that Hamas has provoked a military conflict that they cannot win and if the status quo remains the same as it's dire straits for the palastine people.

I ask you if you were a palastine with the objectivity that most outsiders have, would you keep ranting 'destroy Israel' and sending martyrs and rockets into Israel and reasonably expect Israel to do anything different to what they have done.

The raelity is while Israel has the upper hand and Hamas continues being extremely provacative with these sort of statements Israel is not going to ease off. Thats not taking sides, but stating the obvious behavioural obstacles of the protaganists.

The point is what are the obvious immediate steps Hamas can take to help facilitate a cease fire, allow humanitarian aid in (which was reported Israel tried to do today) and get to the negotiating table? There are some, but as late as today they have resoundingly expressed the desire to do the complete opposite.

At what point do they accept some responsibility for what they helped bring upon themselves.
 
I believe you, chops. Don't let me stop you making good points. But if it's a solution we are all after, it won't come about as the result of winning this particular war. There's no Hitler in this mix - no pure evil. You might say that the winner (if there ever is one) will be the moral loser by dint of having won. Recipe for disaster even if you completely obliterate your enemy.

Tiring though it might be to hear after all this time, John Lennon's attack on war itself and not the protagonists does seem to be the more enlightened approach.
 
Whiskers, with respect, although to us so far away and without the stress of generations of conflict, it may seem 'sensible' and 'reasonable' to dismiss the impact of the 1948 issue, I think it's something ingrained into the collective psyche of the Palestinian people.

You have only to consider the views of our own indigenous people, whom I doubt will ever change their view that they were invaded, to draw a small level of comparison.
 
Whiskers,

Too long. I'm not reading through reams of crap of you trying to substantiate an untenable position.

Crystallize it in a few sentences please.
 
And containing the behaviour of 1948 to that time is pretty ignorant. It's not as if Israel isn't continuing to steal land without recourse or compensation now...
 

The Balkans is another region that springs to mind as being periodically destabilised due to heady mix of religion, cultural memory and the strenght of its oral and aural traditions.

Serbian nationalists still used the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 as the justification for their outrageous 'ethnic cleansing' Kosovar war at the end of the 20th century.
 

Forget 1948, Israel existence is promised by their God centuries ago. That is the whole essence of existence of Israel, they are simply taking what is promised to them.

I think Israel blew its chance when Fateh was in power. Now they have to demilitarize Hamas, and then negotiate with them. It took around 30 years to do that with Fateh, with the advancement in science and technology, it will take only 15 or so years to do that with Hamas.

I do not understand why Israel not purse the great wall of china approach? Fit the latest state of the art anti-missile on their border? It would be simple I assume. But then again they have to first define the border and here lies the problem. There borders will always be occupied by arabs, no matter what they do, so I assume this problem can never be solved. It is what the scientist call NP-Hard problem.


An interesting point is the objective of Israel in this war. If the objective is to stop missile attack, then I am afraid after all this, if one rocket lands in Israel, they would not be victorious.
 

Indeed.

I could not work it out at the time. Fatah were moderate and secular, and were prepared to give Israel a lot more than any other group at the time.

Instead, they chose to humiliate them, disempower them and infiltrate them.

All this proved to do was radicalise and popularise the radicals.

In a lot of ways, Israel has only itself to blame in the rise of Hamas, as they chose to virtually eliminate a viable, moderate and sensible counterpart that was against violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Israel committing Genocide in Gaza
2 3
Replies
59
Views
4K
wayneL
Despair in Gaza
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
9K
noirua
R
15 Lessons in 2018
Replies
2
Views
2K
Skate
R
Illusions of The Stock Market
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
RickyY
R
World War III: Has it Started?
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
15K
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...