Comment by YZF | Hacker News Reader

Comment by YZF | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't have a solution. There's plenty of trauma on both sides. I don't want to start dredging up all the horrible acts of violence experienced by Israelis. This sort of thinking is not productive. It's more useful to think given where we are right now what can be done...

Part of the issue with rebuilding is that the raw materials get confiscated to support the war effort.

The bombing is at least partly related to the reduction of other options. Israel used to have the option of driving tanks in to get at some particular problem but now Gaza is so heavily mined and full of anti-tank weapons that this can't be done. It also has a significant tunnel network which makes infantry less of an option. So if someone fires a rocket at you from Gaza you have fewer options. This is just a pure strategic calculation, not really political. Part of that calculation is also the moral side, the impact on the population and the public opinion side of bombing, hence the "knock on roof" protocols and various pre-warning to allow people to evict buildings that are targets to a bomb. But surely a lot of innocent people still do get hurt, this tends to happen in war...

At any rate, this is very much not black and white. I think these days in Israel there is a lot less interest in peace mostly because getting burned with previous attempts has left deep scars in the general population. Anything that can be done to try and normalize things is welcome...

It is indeed not black and white. But when you are surrounded on all sides by a wall, when living conditions never improve, when hospitals lack even the most basic equipment, and when there is no improvement in sight, doesn't armed resistance make sense?

Hamas sometimes takes it a bit too far, I'll definitely admit that, but I think resistance is a valid approach to their conundrum. When you are outgunned and outnumbered, does that mean you just give up?

As far as I know, the walls came up as security measures because of the second Intifada. Before that, people lived in Gaza and worked in Israel and people travelled between for shopping, etc. (This isolation gave serious economic problems in Israel too.)

So the isolation and security came up because of violence, the terror against civilian Israelis is not an original reaction to the wall.

But I suspect you know this.

So when a population misbehaves, you setup a ghetto to isolate it? We're talking about upwards of a million people here by the way. Is that really the right way to handle things?

Looking at the whole picture, I maintain that resistance is justified.

You don't contradict that you were aware of my points..?

If e.g. Finland or Estonia started to shoot rocket artilleri towards St Petersburg, the reaction would certainly be much worse than Israel's at Gaza...

(And because of Karelia etc for Finland and generations of slavery for Estonians, they have as good reasons as the Gazans.)

The situation is:

Side A attack side B's civilians. You only complain about side B's quite moderate defense against A's attacks. (Again, installed to stop the attacks.) Then you motivate that further attacks from A are understandable, because of B's defense.

It is such a sad case of hypocritical and hateful circular logic I get vertigo. :-(

I did not respond because you are oversimplifying the issue. The history of the Israel-Palestine conflict is long and bloody. Claiming in such a confident and final manner that the building of the wall was because Gaza started is very narrow-sighted.

Your analogy is incorrect.

When a sovereign nation attacks another, war ensues. That is very clear. But when resistance elements arise within a city that is supposedly part of a sovereign nation, you don't build a wall around the city. That's how you would handle it in the Middle Ages.

But the issue is even more complex than that, since the resistance aims to gain independence from the state. So I would say that the Gaza situation is somewhat similar to that of the IRA and the UK.

I don't recall the UK building a wall around Ireland and carpet bombing it every few years?

Woah woah woah man... quite moderate? The destruction of a third of Gaza and the death of thousands of people is quite moderate?

I give up. This discussion is going nowhere :(

What I've read, is that the border to Gaza was open enough for commuting and shopping trips -- until the systematic attacks on civilians.

You had no problem with that description in your previous comment.

But good references to non partisan sources would be interesting?

(AGAIN: If the ones controlling an area -- including doing elections, defense, police and taxes -- put all their economy into rocket artillery against another country's civilians, the reaction will not be mild... And Gaza is not part of a city, it was a free area.)

If Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist, the walls will be broken and the major part of the settlements moved. Israel has shown several times that they can exchange land for peace, even within right wing governments.

No one can believe that. That's one of the big lies of the Israeli government. Settlements will never be given back and the mission is to get all the land. That was the idea from the beginning and they think they have their god on their side.

So the basic problem is that the Jews and/or the democratic country are evil? Sigh... :-(

Arafat got at least two offers for a Palestinian state (at Camp David and once later), with about 91% of the West Bank iirc.

The later offer was when Barak needed Arafat's support of a peace agreement before an election (so the Palestinian side had a good negotiating position).

Arafat didn't accept either -- which was one thing. But there was no counter offer like "Give us XX and YY and customs advantages ZZ and ...". Instead Arafat started a terror campaign.

But there is no blame for all that refusal to even give a counter proposal; it is all a big Israeli conspiracy.

(Seriously, I feel a bit sick when I chat with hateful people.)

I was only saying that Israel government lies , i have not said that jews are evil. So stop lying and putting words i have not said. I have not even said that Palestinian government is good. I feel sorry for people like you , so brainwashed that can not even see reality.

Saying that the Israel government lies when every government lies doesn't add anything to the discussion. The difference is that Israel in his very short history has shown that they can exchange land for peace in an extent no other country recently did after winning wars from the weaker side.

The lies you are talking about are just part of a long term negotiation until Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist and live in peace. Once this milestone is achieved, Israel will not have any excuse to move forward with the peace process because the Israelis, and the jewish people will not tolerate more excuses.

See, this is a reasonable presentation of ideas, not accusing me of being hateful, thanks for being polite and stating your points. Maybe i don't agree with you, i still don't believe that Israel wants to give back anything when they are building more every year. So the exchanges of land they are so proud is returning land they have stolen before so nothing to be proud of. Apart from that i still think that Hamas is stupid not trying to reach a real peace, it would be good for all, cause having a neighbor like Israel could help to accelerate the development of a Palestinian state. IMHO the problem is that both sides think they can win and the other side lose and that makes real efforts for peace look they are in vain.

Do you truly believe that Israel carpet bombs Gaza, or is it just a figure of speech (to make an impression on a reader who doesn't know better)?

This is carpet bombing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phzRY0DdRXk

This is a typical Israeli strike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAT1uBNcOHU

And while we're at it, this is indiscriminate bombing of an Israeli town of Sderot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRz3nHwgjHY

My bad. Let's call it "indiscriminate bombing" instead then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqAmIcIpq_4

The "knock on the door" technique employed by the IDF seems very considerate by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjxsrqCdl-4

What makes you think bombing in that video was indiscriminate? On the opposite, I see single buildings being destroyed, while the neighbouring buildings stay intact. That's a very precise strike by any standard. Furthermore, there is nothing to convince me these buildings were not occupied by Hamas terrorists (which are known to hide behind civilian population).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcrWy3PT6zc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E

And yes, I agree with you that knocking on the roof is a very considerate "last warning". Which other country goes to such lengths to minimize civilian loss of life? There are early warnings, too, though: by phone, text and leaflets. That's why you don't see any people running out of that house: it is already empty.

When they are actively trying to murder people, yes. It's not right, but neither is sending in suicide bombers.

I doubt any of THESE people are actively trying to kill people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJtZekhROE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_w1aoJgO8

> doesn't armed resistance make sense

Not when stopping likely means your enemy is willing to help.

Don't take it personally but it sounds you're not really familiar with the details and the history of the conflict.

Gaza is not surrounded on all sides by a wall. They have a long border with Egypt that's been relatively porous until fairly recently when Egypt has begun to construct obstacles, they have the sea (under naval blockade but they're allowed to fish) and even the border with Israel is not 100% walled. You might be confusing Gaza with the wall that was erected between Israel and parts of the West Bank. It's true they are isolated which again is what happens when you piss off your neighbors. There are border crossings and people and goods do cross.

Their living conditions do improve, but slowly, and tend to regress when a conflict flares out. Again, partly by their choice of what to invest in.

Resistance is the cause of their (well Hamas or a portion thereof) conundrum and it's going to get them nowhere. What are they resisting? They're resisting the existence of the state of Israel.

As long as they continue "resisting" in the form of tunneling under the border, investing all their resources in arming themselves to the teeth, building and using an arsenal of rockets, supporting the ISIS contingency in Sinai, indiscriminately attacking civilians, inciting hate and racism, etc. they are going to find themselves in a bad spot. The answer to your question for most people is yes, if you're outgunned and outnumbered by many of orders of magnitude you "give up" or at least try and avoid outright war. They could get an agreement tomorrow if all they cared about was living peacefully in Gaza and improving their condition but they want to get territorial ownership of the entirety of Israel which they claim to be the rightful owners of from before 1948 when Israel was created. That's is closer to (but still not the complete, it's more complicated) root of the conflict.

If they stuck to peaceful forms of protest they'd have some chance of having their voice heard while at the same time improving their conditions vastly. If they seek a peaceful solution they must convince Israelis that peace is possible in some form. It seems they are thinking about taking Israel by force eventually and are willing to wait it out as long as it takes (at least the leaders, not necessarily the man on the street who has no say).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com