The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.III

I have no influence over anyone in any government. If I had, I would have urged Israel to do what it did in 2005 and leave Gaza. And it did that. Anyone who can remember that far back and was watching knows how difficult that was. It was a monumental first step. And we all saw the response.

I'm not pro-expansion but only someone who hates Israel could seriously suggest that the withdrawing of troops and settlers from Gaza wasn't actually a withdrawal. I don't think you can play the part of the disinterested and unbiased neutral when your posts are so ****ing stupid and anti-Israel.

Okay... fine.. Hamas is a terrorist group but so is Israel, terrorists should negotiate with terrorists to come to terms. Cease-fire is not a peace treaty, and since Hamas accepted cease-fire in the last month, Israel should therefore negotiate with them since they're sane.

I'll get back to you when you put an argument together that attempts to show that Hamas are to be trusted (even a little bit) when they say they want peace.

Tell me, if Israel did "leave Gaza" in 2005, then how come:


Doesn't look like much of a withdrawal to me. Sure, they may have evacuated the settlers, and moved troops out, but Gaza is still, according to international law and every human rights organization, Occupied Palestinian Territory.

P.S. I'm not anti-Israel. I've probably been to Israel more times than you have, and it's one of my favourite places to visit. Unlike you, however, I can distinguish between a sordid government policy and the country itself.

No, what about Nazi Germany?

UniofLife, look I am going to make this simple for you. I will explain to you why Hamas has not to be trusted when signing a peace treaty for example;

Countries sign peace treaty with other countries not because they're trustworthy, if they were trustworthy, there would not be a need for any peace treaty but since there is, it means both parties are not trusting each other...

Perhaps what Israel is going is the only thing that can be done. If you cannot destroy them and you cannot make peace with them then the best you can do is try to contain them. I don't think a generous offer would work as you say. Everyone has already forgotten that Israel not just offered but actually did completely and utterly withdraw from the entirety of Gaza. And yet Hamas's popularity increased and attacks continued.

To be frank, I couldn't care less how you define it.

Was Germany not a state while it was run by the Nazis then?

What do you mean by 'contain them'?

Of course Hamas' popularity increased, it has been doing since the 1990s because Palestinians think the PLO are utterly incompetent (which is true, but Hamas aren't going to resolve that problem). It's relatively straightforward - if the PLO are perceived as successful, they will gain support. If not, Hamas will gain support. It's a question of alternatives and at the moment unfortunately the PLO are the only realistic alternative.

I didn't say that Israel had ended its occupation or military control of Gaza. Only that it had withdrawn from it. And it did. Before 2005, Gaza was under direct Israeli military control. It is now entirely under autonomous Palestinian self-rule.

PS: I don't believe you.

Yes, but you're arguing as though the "withdrawal" had any material significance for the Palestinians living in Gaza (not Gazans, btw, that's a false label; many people living there are descendents of Palestinian refugees). In legal terms, there is absolutely no difference. It's still Occupied Palestinian Territory, no matter what degree of spin you put on it. How would it have benefited Israel to sustain a colonial project in Gaza, when it would be easier - as has been more recently demonstrated - to keep the people locked up from the outside? This isn't a controversial point. It may seem like I'm "anti-Israel" or not a "disinterested...neutral" to you, but, unlike you, my position is 100% conformative to international law.

P.S. I don't care.

*sigh* OK, I will gladly concede that the two parties do not need complete trust. I had thought that that was a given but apparently not. I'm talking about signing a peace treaty with someone who you absolutely should not trust.

When you sign a peace treaty with someone who should not be trusted you have:

By blockading Gaza to try and prevent them getting access to funds and weapons.

Are you suggesting that the removal of Israeli settlers, soldiers and checkpoints from Gaza would never have made any difference to the Palestinians living there, or just that it didn't in the end?