Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You could make the same point about the Green Party in the US.
I think the Green Party makes the same point. If people were truly interested in being environmental good, the Green Party would be a major party.
Ok so Hamas is worse than I thought. But they still aren't as bad as israel on negotiation.
How can Hamas be better at negotiation when they won't negotiate at all? And I have listed several sacrifices Israel has made - good will gestures - to see if other side will renounce violence. What equivalent gestures has Hamas made?
Most of the time since 2005 there has been peace. And the death count has dropped by well over an order of magnitude.

Attacks have gone up ... I listed the numbers of rockets launch earlier in this thread .... Israel has gotten better at protecting its citizens. Not only have the number of rockets launched gone up, but they have gotten bigger, more accurate, and of a longer range.
 
I think the Green Party makes the same point. If people were truly interested in being environmental good, the Green Party would be a major party.

But the Green party doesn't get votes as it will split the vote, and because the reality is that its policies won't be thought through or consistent.

How can Hamas be better at negotiation when they won't negotiate at all?

Because at least their leadership entertains direct talks, which is better than the Israelis manage.

And I have listed several sacrifices Israel has made - good will gestures - to see if other side will renounce violence.

But its still building settlements.

What equivalent gestures has Hamas made?

Ceasefire.

Attacks have gone up ...

There's about 50 attacks a year now, excluding wars, of which ~1 of them is fired by Hamas. Those attacks cause very few deaths or injuries. In 2013 there were no casualties.
 
Last edited:
But the Green party doesn't get votes as it will split the vote, and because the reality is that its policies won't be thought through or consistent.
Good thing the Green Party wasn't running in the PNA elections then, eh?
Because at least their leadership entertains direct talks, which is better than the Israelis manage.
I think you've misread this. Both sources I linked directly quote Hamas as saying that they will not talk to Israel directly.
"Direct negotiation with the Zionist enemy is not part of the movement's policy, and it is not even under consideration..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...th-Israel.html

“Direct negotiations with the Israeli occupier is not on the agenda of Hamas; if negotiations are necessary they must be indirect...”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/mashaal...rael-directly/

Ceasefire.
Several times during the war Israel unilaterally offered a ceasefire, usually at the request of the UN, and invited Hamas to honour the ceasefire. Israel even instituted some of these unilateral ceasefires without demanding Hamas to reciprocate. At no time did Hamas unilaterally offer a ceasefire.

For example:
On July 14th the UN asked for 5 hour unilateral ceasefire on Israel's part to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza - which Israel agreed to without asking Hamas to also cease its fire. Later, Hamas did announce it would honour the ceasefire. This is in contrast to the previous day: "The renewed bombing came one day after a failed attempt at a ceasefire proposed by the Egyptian government. It asked Israel and Hamas to halt their fire on Tuesday morning and dispatch envoys to Cairo to discuss further terms.
The Israeli cabinet agreed, but Hamas, which said it was never consulted on the ceasefire, rejected it in "its current form"."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...-halt-fire-gaza-strip-201471620212427540.html

On July 26 Israel unilaterally extended a negotiated 12 hour truce by 24 hours at the request of the UN, and invited Hamas to honour the 24 hour extension as well. "Hamas rejected Israel's decision to extend the truce, saying Israeli tanks first had to withdraw from the territory."
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/26/gaza-israel-hamas.html

etc.
etc.
etc.


There are also several examples of Hamas breaking ceasefires by attacking Israeli forces and firing rockets at cities before the end of a negotiated ceasefire.

There is a good analysis of the ceasefires here by the Wall Street Journal.
http://graphics.wsj.com/gaza-cease-fire/
 
Good thing the Green Party wasn't running in the PNA elections then, eh?

Its not just the UK Green party, generally the vast majority of minor parties are more disappointing than mainstream parties when they get into power.

You can say the same about Rand Paul in the US, he has a lot of interesting ideas, as well as being ******* crazy on a number of issues.

I think you've misread this. Both sources I linked directly quote Hamas as saying that they will not talk to Israel directly.

And Israel says the same ****.

There is a good analysis of the ceasefires here by the Wall Street Journal.
http://graphics.wsj.com/gaza-cease-fire/

I agree that it is a good analysis, and it is quite clear both sides broke ceasefires.
 
....

And Israel says the same ****.
Israel was talking to PA - which the UN, the US, the EU recognize as the legitimate government of Palestinian territories. Israel at least recognizes the PA as a legitimate government.
I agree that it is a good analysis, and it is quite clear both sides broke ceasefires.

I reach a different conclusion, but of course anyone reading this thread can make their own judgement.
 
Israel was talking to PA - which the UN, the US, the EU recognize as the legitimate government of Palestinian territories. Israel at least recognizes the PA as a legitimate government.

It's like doing a deal with the democratic president but not the republicans in congress. Hamas matters.

I reach a different conclusion, but of course anyone reading this thread can make their own judgement.

On a rocket by rocket basis you have no idea who fired them. And expecting Hamas to agree to a peace deal they weren't even involved with is a fairy tale.
 
It's like doing a deal with the democratic president but not the republicans in congress. Hamas matters.
I don't know a lot about US politics, and don't want to get sidetracked. But the world has pretty well decided that the PA speaks for the Palestinians and that Hamas' actions and own statements have delegitimized it.

I believe the turning point for the Arab nations came when Hamas turned to nuclear terrorism by targeting Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona. (Links below). Hamas claimed responsibility and said that they were deliberately targeting the nuclear facility. And that they did so more than once. One report I saw mentioned M-75 rockets - which have a warhead of 175kg. If you look at a map of the area you'll see that should Hamas have gotten the flukey shot that managed to breech the nuclear containment the radioactive cloud would have blanketed 75% of the population of Gaza and the West Bank before it impacted the main Israeli population centres that are just tens of kilometres away. I think Hamas stopped speaking for Palestinians when Hamas declared that they would murder as many Palestinians as it took to hurt Israel.

I'm guessing that Jordan, Egypt, and the other Arab nations on the Red Sea weren't too pleased to be dragged into Hamas' nuclear terrorism either.

Do you still think Hamas has anything useful to contribute to a discussion on finding a peaceful solution?

Article 2 (1) of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism states:

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally…(b)…uses or damages a nuclear facility in a manner which releases or risks the release of radioactive material: (i) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or (ii) With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment; or (iii) With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act.
[Emphasis Added in text above]


http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...rorism-hamas-targets-israel-s-dimona-reactor/

http://rt.com/news/171760-hamas-dimona-nuclear-rocket/

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Prot...in-Zichron-Yaakov-120-km-north-of-Gaza-362087

All of this falls into line with my contention that Hamas deliberately attempts to have its civilians killed for the PR gains.

http://time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/
On a rocket by rocket basis you have no idea who fired them. And expecting Hamas to agree to a peace deal they weren't even involved with is a fairy tale.

There is very good information on who launches the rockets. On the one hand Israel has made the radar tracking public. You can watch rocket launches in real time. It is part of their early warning system and why, despite many Israeli cities being hit and damaged by rocket fire there are so few Israeli casualties... people are getting into shelters. Also - Hamas claims responsibility for their rocket launches. They announce them because it is part of their mandate to launch rocket attacks at Israeli cities.

The fairy tale is believing that Hamas is interested in peace under any circumstances. Yesterday they let it be known that they consider Lebanon to be part of 'Historical Palestine'. That is to say.... their stated aim is to wipe out Israel. And now it appears after that they may want to absorb Lebanon into their Palestinian Homeland. "The Lebanese daily Al-Hayat reported that during a Hamas political rally on February 4 in Gaza, senior Hamas figure Mahmoud Zahar called on the authorities in Syria and Lebanon to allow the group to establish military units subservient to its military wing in Palestinian refugee camps in those countries. These units, according to Zahar, “will conduct the resistance (also) from northern Palestine and take part with us in liberating it." [Emphasis Added] Haaretz Feb 18/2015
 
I don't know a lot about US politics, and don't want to get sidetracked. But the world has pretty well decided that the PA speaks for the Palestinians and that Hamas' actions and own statements have delegitimized it.

Much as you might like to believe this, its a fairy tale.

If you want peace you have to deal with Hamas. Full stop end of story.

----------

There is very good information on who launches the rockets. On the one hand Israel has made the radar tracking public. You can watch rocket launches in real time. It is part of their early warning system and why, despite many Israeli cities being hit and damaged by rocket fire there are so few Israeli casualties... people are getting into shelters. Also - Hamas claims responsibility for their rocket launches. They announce them because it is part of their mandate to launch rocket attacks at Israeli cities.

If Hamas claims responsibility for their rocket launches then you should be able to find non-Israeli sources that they fired the rockets that broke the various ceasefires (other than the first one, which I'm sure was them).

----------

I believe the turning point for the Arab nations came when Hamas turned to nuclear terrorism by targeting Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona.

I think we can both agree that that is stupid.
 
Much as you might like to believe this, its a fairy tale.

If you want peace you have to deal with Hamas. Full stop end of story.

that's true as long as Palestinians insist on being treated as one entity, despite that they're currently de facto split into two physically separated territories overseen by regimes with very different agendas.

It's very easy for Hamas to prevent the PA from negotiating any agreement with israel......and if Hamas is occasionally a bit slow on the uptake, israel can easily provoke Hamas into sending a rocket barge across the border to disrupt things :p
 
...

If you want peace you have to deal with Hamas. Full stop end of story.
The rest of the world seems to think that peace will be achieved despite Hamas, not because of it.
If Hamas claims responsibility for their rocket launches then you should be able to find non-Israeli sources that they fired the rockets that broke the various ceasefires (other than the first one, which I'm sure was them).
I'm pretty sure my links earlier in this thread including quotes from Hamas stating they either rejected extending the ceasefires offered by Israel and the UN (though Israel did unilaterally cease their fire regardless on humanitarian grounds), or Hamas stated that they had fired rockets to retaliate for the Hamas militants that Israel had shot inside Israel, emerging from the attack tunnels.
I think we can both agree that that is stupid.
Amen.

And I'll give you one in exchange. I'll admit that Israel is screwing up in the West Bank. If I were King of Israel I'd hand over the almost all the territory the PA wants, except for East Jerusalem (which by the way mostly means the Old City) and the militarily strategic settlements nearby. I'd identify an equivalent amount of territory inside Israel and adjacent to the West Bank to turn over to the PA to make up for the Jerusalem bits I'm keeping. I'd leave the settlers in place and tell them they can either choose to return to Israel or not. I'd withdraw Israeli police and military from the rest of the West Bank. At that point I'd invite the PA to negotiate a final peace deal involving the Palestinians in the West Bank. I've already given them 80% of what the PA has been asking for. I'd ignore Gaza initially in the hopes that Gazans would see what they're lives *could* be like if they chose peace, and toss Hamas out on their ears.
 
that's true as long as Palestinians insist on being treated as one entity, despite that they're currently de facto split into two physically separated territories overseen by regimes with very different agendas.

It's very easy for Hamas to prevent the PA from negotiating any agreement with israel......and if Hamas is occasionally a bit slow on the uptake, israel can easily provoke Hamas into sending a rocket barge across the border to disrupt things :p

How exactly do you plan to achieve a long term peace without negotiating with Hamas?
 
How exactly do you plan to achieve a long term peace without negotiating with Hamas?

Most arab states haven't negotiated a long term peace with israel. Why expect more from Hamas than from the majority of Arab states?

You usually blame Israel for the fighting claiming Hamas is just defending itself. On that assumption then, to stop the fighting israel needs to find some response to Hamas's rockets other than the military operations that have failed to eliminate Hamas's rocket capability. Israel has gained little from the effort, so it's time they re-evaluate their response policy anyway.

Aren't you sure Hamas won't attack Israel if it doesn't attack Hamas?
 
Most arab states haven't negotiated a long term peace with israel. Why expect more from Hamas than from the majority of Arab states?

They have the Arab peace plan which is pretty serious.

----------

Most arab states haven't negotiated a long term peace with israel. Why expect more from Hamas than from the majority of Arab states?

You usually blame Israel for the fighting claiming Hamas is just defending itself. On that assumption then, to stop the fighting israel needs to find some response to Hamas's rockets other than the military operations that have failed to eliminate Hamas's rocket capability. Israel has gained little from the effort, so it's time they re-evaluate their response policy anyway.

Aren't you sure Hamas won't attack Israel if it doesn't attack Hamas?

Maybe they would. In which case they'd be seen as the bad guys.
 
right....an unrealized plan, not something any of them negotiated with Israel much less signed.

Sure, but it's a pretty reasonable plan all things considered. It follows the blueprint of any likely deal. 1967 borders with land swaps, with the right of return with some wooly statements (there's no reason israel couldn't demand people returning have a job offer and somewhere to live and perhaps some amount of savings - and for it to be a one time only deal). There's plenty as a starting point for negotiations. The only bad thing is that the Golan heights have to be returned to Syria.

The only reason negotiations haven't gone anywhere is because Israel has refused to negotiate it. And the blame for that lies totally with the Israelis.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but it's a pretty reasonable plan all things considered....

It was at least a departure from the previous arab position of "No peace deals, no diplomatic recognitions, and no negotiations" that they'd stuck to in previous decades.

And it's too bad a Hamas suicide bomber murdered 30 israelis and injured another 130 or so on the same day the initiative was announced.......that sort of put the damper on the proposal......especially on the idea that Hamas had any interest in it.

It's also too bad that the arabs seem to have all but dropped the proposal themselves.....although they do occasionally remind the western media that once upon a time right after 9/11 they did offer up such a plan.

However, it's totally besides the point......as I said earlier, while few arab states have negotiated peace with Israel, they aren't making war on Israel either
 
It was at least a departure from the previous arab position of "No peace deals, no diplomatic recognitions, and no negotiations" that they'd stuck to in previous decades.

And it's too bad a Hamas suicide bomber murdered 30 israelis and injured another 130 or so on the same day the initiative was announced.......that sort of put the damper on the proposal......especially on the idea that Hamas had any interest in it.

It's also too bad that the arabs seem to have all but dropped the proposal themselves.....although they do occasionally remind the western media that once upon a time right after 9/11 they did offer up such a plan.

However, it's totally besides the point......as I said earlier, while few arab states have negotiated peace with Israel, they aren't making war on Israel either

They offered the plan again in 2007. And Israel could have said it made an excellent starting point for negotiations.

Israel might have to agree to give up the golan heights, but you'd make it a DMZ.
 
Sure, but it's a pretty reasonable plan all things considered. It follows the blueprint of any likely deal. 1967 borders with land swaps, with the right of return with some wooly statements ...
The only reason negotiations haven't gone anywhere is because Israel has refused to negotiate it. And the blame for that lies totally with the Israelis.

They offered the plan again in 2007. And Israel could have said it made an excellent starting point for negotiations.

Israel might have to agree to give up the golan heights, but you'd make it a DMZ.

The Arab Peace Plan was not really fully backed even by the Arab Nations. At the initial summit in 2002, only 10 of the 22 Arab nations bothered attending. The absent leaders included Egypt, Jordan, and more telling... the Palestinian President Arafat. Syria didn't like the term "normalization" and Lebanon didn't like the provisions regarding refugees. And Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Brigade (who made up more than half of the coalition that was the Palestinian Government at the time) totally rejected the plan in its entirety. Israel asked that the Second Intifada be suspended - a ceasefire - as a gesture of goodwill. Israel said that any peace discussions should happen without a gun being held to its head. The request for the ending of the 2nd intifada was denied. Over 1000 Israeli civilians were killed during that period.

As stated earlier Hamas' opinion of the peace initiative was a massive suicide bombing at a Passover seder, mostly killing senior citizens. The equivalent in Europe or the US would be a bombing of a Christmas Day dinner at a senior citizens home with the residents' families in attendance.

The 2007 peace conference at least had the full backing of the Arab Nations. Kind of. Hamas - which was now in power in the Gaza strip - didn't reject it the plan, but it didn't accept it either.
"The figures said the organization woulf adopt a policy of ambiguity on its stance vis-a-vis the peace initiative. However, senior Hamas officials admitted that they are opposed to parts of the initiative relating to a peace agreement with Israel or its recognition."Link

Israel had been attempting to negotiate before the conference. It had asked the wording on several clauses be modified, the most contentious two being the return of refugees and the status of Jerusalem. It was told that these clauses were non-negotiable.
Link
Link
Al-Jazeera

So.... in 2007 Israel was being asked to come to a negotiation on peace where there was to be no negotiation. It saw this as a "take it or leave it" proposal, and declined to participate. Another reason for rejecting the 2007 API was it demanded more territory back than Israel than the PNA and Israel had already agreed to. At that point the Palestinians and the Israelis had already almost reached an agreement. They had agreed on the territorial aspects, and got hung up on the status of Jerusalem and refugees. The 2007 API didn't take these concessions into account, it simply turned the clock back and demanded that Israel give up everything.

It's a shame really that the Arab Nations didn't update API in 2007 to take into account the concessions that Israel had already made to the PNA. In exchange for full peace with its neighbours Israel might have been more flexible regarding Jerusalem and compensating the refugees. Instead the Arab nations wanted to paint Israel into a corner and then use its predictable refusal as another way to score cheap PR points. Another wasted opportunity for peace. Another wasted opportunity to save Palestinian and Israeli lives. I wonder how many more genuine opportunities there are going to be.

Which leads to another point... Why is nobody concerned about the Right of Return of the Jewish Refugees who fled the West Bank and Gaza and other Arab nations? Prior to the war of 1948/49 there were numerous ancient Jewish communities in these territories. Some of these Jewish communities had been in existence since before Jesus. During the war of independence the Jews of the West Bank and Gaza fled into Israel. The first few settlements in the West Bank and Gaza starting in 1967 were these Jews returning back to the homes - homes that had been occupied by Jordan, and Egyptian troops. It wasn't until later that the new settlements were built on land not formerly owned by ancient Jewish communities. What about the 700,000 other Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled with no compensation by the Arab nations after 1949? The UN GA resolution 194 does not mention them at all. Perhaps Israel should compensate the Palestinian refugees with all the money paid by the Arab nations to compensate the Jewish refugees? That won't amount to much, unfortunately.

----------

T....

Israel might have to agree to give up the golan heights, but you'd make it a DMZ.

Almost every attack and war launched against Israel (except in 1948/49 of course) has been from or across a DMZ. Most of them supervised by the UN Observers. The Yom Kippur War that nearly destroyed Israel is the best known example of their lack of effectiveness. Even just a couple months ago several Israeli soldiers, inside Israel, were killed by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon with a line of sight missile attack. This attack was launched under the noses of UNIFIL with over 10,000 observers in place.

Israel doesn't really trust its security to the DMZs since they have proven to be near useless.
 
To whom would Israel give the Golan Heights today? Who is in charge on the Syrian side of the border?

That's true, but I was thinking you'd hand the territory to the UN security council to defend.

So.... in 2007 Israel was being asked to come to a negotiation on peace where there was to be no negotiation.

Oh please, its the oldest negotiation stance in the book. Everyone always says things are non-negotiable that turn out to be negotiable in the end.

Which leads to another point... Why is nobody concerned about the Right of Return of the Jewish Refugees who fled the West Bank and Gaza and other Arab nations?

So bring it up in the peace talks.

Almost every attack and war launched against Israel (except in 1948/49 of course) has been from or across a DMZ. Most of them supervised by the UN Observers.

If by DMZ you mean across a ceasefire line, sure. But the Golan Heights is much bigger than that.

What you'd agree would be that the UN security council would be required to defend it, and then if the Arabs attacked (which they wouldn't) you'd have dead Americans, dead Russian and dead Chinese which would undoubtably be taken rather seriously by those countries.

The Yom Kippur War that nearly destroyed Israel

I've just gone and read the Wikipedia article about the war, and Israel won decisively against the Arabs in that conflict. The idea that they were "nearly destroyed" is a complete fairytale.
 
Sure, but it's a pretty reasonable plan all things considered. It follows the blueprint of any likely deal. ....

it certainly had its positive points......and if the arabs had offered it 30 to 35 years earlier, I suspect it would have received a quite different reception than it did.

But over 30 to 35 years things changed quite a bit......by 2002 the arab states had all stopped getting into wars with Israel......all of them, even Syria.

It was only the non-state actors like Hamas that were active and they were beyond the control of the Arab League (as mentioned; a Hamas suicide bomber murdered 70 elderly jews in a hotel the same day that the Arab plan was offered). Basically there already WAS peace with the arab states and without a treaty that required israel to make concessions.

And the Arab League's commercial boycott had effectively ceased back in the first half of the 1990s when the monied GCC oil states stopped participating in it.....so again the Arab plan didn't really have much to offer when it came to economic benefits

Unfortunately it was a plan whose time had come and gone decades before it was offered up.
 
It was only the non-state actors like Hamas that were active and they were beyond the control of the Arab League (as mentioned; a Hamas suicide bomber murdered 70 elderly jews in a hotel the same day that the Arab plan was offered). Basically there already WAS peace with the arab states and without a treaty that required israel to make concessions.

The Arabs don't have normalised relations with Israel and I doubt they trade much with Israel. So Israel still has a lot to gain from normalised relations.

Plus the only concession the Israel would really have to make is the Golan Heights, and I'm not sure getting the UN Security Council to defend it would be much of a concession - in fact I think it would improve Israel's security.

Additionally Israel-Palestine isn't the only cause of Islamic terror, but its certainly a cause, and actually all the members of the UN Security council suffer because of Islamic terror to a greater or lesser degree.
 
That's true, but I was thinking you'd hand the territory to the UN security council to defend.
This would be the UN that didn't defend the nascent Palestinian Homeland in 1948 when it was invaded and occupied by Jordan and Egypt? The UN that created the UN administered International City of Jerusalem in 1948, and then let Jordan obliterate, gut, raze, and destroy the entire Jewish presence in the city - a presence that predated Jesus by a 1000 years? A presence that had survived the Babylonians, the Romans, the Crusaders, Mohammed's Muslims, and the Ottomans? The UN the stepped aside and let the Arab Nation armies pour across the Golan Heights in and the Egyptian army across the Suez in 1973? That UN? The 10,000 UN force in Lebanon that has not been able to stop multiple Hezbollah rocket attacks every year, including the one last month that killed a couple of soldiers?
Oh please, its the oldest negotiation stance in the book. Everyone always says things are non-negotiable that turn out to be negotiable in the end.
When the Palestinians use it, it's the oldest trick. When Israel uses it people say "Because at least [Palestinian] leadership entertains direct talks, which is better than the Israelis manage." Sounds like a double standard.
...
...But the Golan Heights is much bigger than that.

What you'd agree would be that the UN security council would be required to defend it, and then if the Arabs attacked (which they wouldn't) you'd have dead Americans, dead Russian and dead Chinese which would undoubtably be taken rather seriously by those countries.
I don't want to get distracted by the Golan Heights. It's not that big a roadblock to peace because Israel and Syria have had talks about the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, similar to the deals with Egypt and Jordan. Israel has been more willing to talk - initially it was Assad who insisted that he wouldn't even talk to Israel until Israeli totally withdraw from the Golan. Not a good way to start negotiations. Unless it's an old trick? Where I come from the dealership doesn't usually let me take the car home before we start negotiating the price. Anyway, the last talks were nearly completed in 2010 when they got derailed by the Arab Spring, and Assad got distracted by his civil war. Link
I've just gone and read the Wikipedia article about the war, and Israel won decisively against the Arabs in that conflict. The idea that they were "nearly destroyed" is a complete fairytale.

In the end Israel may have won that war, but it certainly didn't win decisively. Israel certainly saw it as a loss, and a lot of military and intelligence services big-wigs were fired in disgrace. May I suggest a couple more articles? Valley of Tears is a good place to start. The short version is that on the 3rd day only a handful of Israeli tanks, some with only a shell or two left to fire, were all that stood between a mauled but still very large Syrian force and Israel's northern cities about 50 kilometres away. The fact that there were still any Israeli tanks there at all is due solely to "Force Zvika". His story is worth reading regardless of the context of this conversation. Zvika was on leave when the war broke out. He hitch-hiked to the Golan front, helped with injured soldiers until a battle damaged Israeli tank was repaired and became available whereupon he roared into battle. He had 6 tanks shot out from under him, at one point badly burning Zvika. He would just go and find another tank that was waiting for a crew from the reserves to arrive ... or one that was simply less damaged than the one he had to abandon. He fought for 20 straight hours despite his burns. If it wasn't for Force Zvika the Syrian tanks would have been in Israel's northern heartland is in about 45 minutes.
He engaged the enemy, taking advantage of the darkness and moving constantly to fool the Syrians into thinking the opposition was stronger than it was. [Zvika] Greengold destroyed or damaged ten enemy armoured vehicles before the confused Syrians withdrew, believing they were facing a sizable force. Even Greengold's superiors were deceived; as the fighting wore on, he did not dare report how weak he actually was over the radio for fear it would be intercepted; at best he could only hint "the situation isn't good". At a time when Force Zvika consisted of only one tank, Colonel Yitzhak Ben-Shoham, the brigade commander, assumed it to be "of at least company strength". Though he claimed 'only' 20 Syrian tanks destroyed, he is usually credited with 40 tanks.
Link

"By the afternoon of October 9, only six of the brigade's tanks remained in action, defending a clear path into northern Israel." Link

The Arabs don't have normalised relations with Israel and I doubt they trade much with Israel. So Israel still has a lot to gain from normalised relations.
Yes, you are right. Both sides - and the world - have a lot to gain. Israel has repeatedly declared that it will sign a peace treaty with any of the Arab Nations still at war with it in exchange for peace. If Israel has occupied some territory, it will negotiate a return of that territory. It had shown it will do so with Jordan and Egypt (in the case of Jordan they swapped some land simply because it was better for each them around Eilat, Taba, Aqaba. Syria and Israel were well on the way to the return of the Golan before Assad got distracted in 2010.

Which of course leaves only the Palestinian territories. The problem with Gaza it appears that the world really doesn't care about the Palestinians, except when the Israeli's can be made to look like the villains. The world could simply announce that they were going to sealift massive amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza despite Israeli objections. For example, if the EU announced that they would monitor all goods being loaded onto EU flagged ships and guarantee that no weapons were included, there is nothing Israel could do except bluster and complain. The UN could install the security force you envision on the Golan into Gaza instead to guarantee Israeli's security from rocket attacks and to ensure unhindered shipments of goods into and out of Gaza. Nothing Israel could do about that either, except bluster and complain.

In reality - the world can't even live up to its monetary obligations to Gaza. After last summer's war the world pledged $5.4 Billion to rebuild Gaza. So far only about 5% of the promised aid has actually been received. The biggest non-payers are, not surprisingly, the Arab nations. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gaza-donations-fall-short-pledges-150218060136423.html

That is what frustrates me the most. The world only seems to care when there's flashy headlines to be had vilifying Israel. But when the real hard work of actually helping the Palestinians comes around, the world disappears and leaves the mess to Israel to clean up.

Here are some other ways that Israel mistreats Palestinians.
The official PA daily reported on a visit by the PA Minister of Health, Hani Abdeen, to Israel's Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. The daily noted that 30% of the child patients in Hadassah are Palestinians and that the Israeli hospital is training "60 Palestinian medical interns and specialist physicians who will be returning to the [Palestinian] Authority areas to carry out their work." The hospital has a special program to train Palestinian doctors to treat cancer among children, reported the PA daily.
Link

While Hamas terrorists continued to hurl rockets and missiles at Israel, including the city of Haifa, Rambam Medical Center is now treating 20 Palestinians, including eight children from Gaza.

The largest hospital in Haifa said on Thursday that it provides medical care to Palestinians year round. The latest group to come were 11 from the Palestinian Authority area and nine more from Gaza who needed outpatient care. Most of them are children suffering from cancer or kidney disease who cannot get adequate care near their homes. They were accompanied by family members. Some children are also hospitalized at Rambam over the long term.
Link
The IDF has opened a temporary hospital for Palestinians on the Israeli side of the Erez Crossing. Even as terrorists fire rockets at Israel, the hospital is treating wounded civilians in cooperation with the Red Crescent. Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules Gaza, has prevented Palestinians from entering Israel in order to reach the hospital.
Link
1 Mar 2012
According to the Civil Administration, over 100,000 Palestinians received medical care in Israel - a 13% increase; over 100 Palestinian doctors interning at Israeli hospitals.
Link
 
This would be the UN

Do you really doubt the UN security council's ability to defend some territory they are tasked with defending? Its not peacekeeping, its defence.

When the Palestinians use it, it's the oldest trick. When Israel uses it people say "Because at least [Palestinian] leadership entertains direct talks, which is better than the Israelis manage." Sounds like a double standard.

The Arabs might have said some details were non-negotiable, but they were clearly prepared to sit around the table. They'd have needed to agree what exactly to do with the right of return for starters.

I don't want to get distracted by the Golan Heights. It's not that big a roadblock to peace because Israel and Syria have had talks about the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace, similar to the deals with Egypt and Jordan.

So what exactly is the issue for the Israelis with the Arab Peace Initiative? Because that's the most controversial thing in there. Other than that the Palestinians have to get the 1967 borders, and that something needs doing for the refugees, both of which will need doing for any settlement.

Besides if the Arabs literally refused to negotiate at all the Israelis could have presented the Arabs with an alternative that allows right of return only if they have a job and somewhere to live and that makes land swaps around the 1967 borders. If they'd refused to accept that they'd look pretty unreasonable.

In the end Israel may have won that war, but it certainly didn't win decisively.

Lets agree to disagree on that.

That is what frustrates me the most. The world only seems to care when there's flashy headlines to be had vilifying Israel. But when the real hard work of actually helping the Palestinians comes around, the world disappears and leaves the mess to Israel to clean up.

Welcome to the world of the international media.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.