What is Israel's alternative to bombing Gaza?

Interesting to see all these arguments involving Iron Dome, proclaiming it as some extraordinary defence system when in actual fact it isn't. A physicist at MIT, who also happens to be an authority on missiles and national security policy said that Iron Dome has a success rate below 5% (http://www.ibtimes.com/iron-dome-criticized-mit-missile-expert-1635636). So, if Hamas did have dangerous long-range missiles they probably would've done a lot more damage during operation Protective Edge, but they didn't (relatively speaking). This begs the question, has Hamas's fire-power been exaggerated? I'd say it's more than likely. Especially considering after Sissi's coup he ordered the destruction of all smuggling tunnels and has been quite successful so far (http://www.timesofisrael.com/egyptian-army-destroys-13-more-gaza-tunnels/). So, if in fact the Iron Dome isn't that effective and Hamas aren't able to smuggle in as many rockets as they used too, I'd assume that most of their rockets/missiles are home-made and are not nearly as effective as they're made out to be. Considering all of that, do I think that last summer Israel were disproportionate in their attack (the attack that killed estimated 2100 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians)? Absolutely.

Just wanted to throw this out there.

Such a tricky situation, most of HAMAS are all influential people involved in politics and tbh there's no way that Palestine will be able to survive with their freedom and rights intact if it takes over the land. Israel is an extremely influential country, if they can take over Palestine and run it properly then why not? Hamas are using the people of Palestine as a human shield and sending missiles to Israel who defend their own their citizens by bombing back yet they are seen as the ones who are wrong. What's happening in Palestine is very wrong because thousands are being killed yet Israel taking over seems to be the best option. People supporting Gaza often do not realise that if Palestine claim the land then it will be very harmful, Hamas will be more powerful and the whole fight will be in vain. In my opinion the 'best' future for Palestine seems to be with Israel, what does it matter who wins if they can both live there in peace?

w0w

Why? They were democratically elected by the Palestinian people in Gaza.

The fact that they have not been very sucessful doesn't change the fact that the elimination of the State of Israel is their intention. And while it's easy to scoff at the relatively low Israeli casuality rate as a result of their rocket fire - let's not forget that during the 1990s and early 2000s Hamas terrorists constantly launched suicide bomb attacks agaisnt Israeli civilians, killing hundreds. They deliberately and indiscriminantly targeted civilians (a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions), deliberately spreead terror amongst the Israeli civilian population (a Crime against Humanity), and concealed their arms and fought without distinctive insignia (making them illegal combatants).

According to B'Tselem, hardly an organization of Zionist shills, 72% of all Israeli casualties during the Second Intifada were civilians - compared to 48-62% of Palestinians.



Israelis could make the same argument regarding their election of right-wing groups. Unless you're suggesting that only Palestinians are allowed to be brutalized by war. In my own native country - which has a population roughly the same as Gaza - over 10,000 civilians were killed in the space of a few months. Yet we never elected a group even remotely comparable to Hamas or even Fatah.

And then they proceeded to throw their political opposition off of rooftops and hold no further elections. Does that sound like a democratic system to you?

And as for the "slightly more moderate" Fatah headed by Abbas (an avid holocaust denier) who is currently in his 10th year of his 4 year term, that doesn't scream of democracy either.

Hate it when people believe the myth that either Fatah or Hamas have democratic legitimacy. Or when people see Fatah as moderate for that matter.

Well I am referring to international authorities, not just someone's opinion. For example the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials". The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complimented by 900 credentialed international monitors.

The punishment of Palestinians for the crime of voting the wrong way was severe. With US backing, Israel stepped up its violence in Gaza, withheld funds it was legally obligated to transmit to the Palestinian Authority, tightened its siege and even cut off the flow of water to the arid Gaza Strip.The United States and Israel made sure that Hamas would not have a chance to govern. They rejected Hamas’s call for a long-term cease-fire to allow for negotiations on a two-state settlement, along the lines of an international consensus that Israel and United States have opposed, in virtual isolation, for more than 30 years, with rare and temporary departures.

There's no doubt that Hamas is a corrupt organisation but when you a look at Israel's and the US record up to now, their position of undermining the Palestinians right to democratically elect is no different from the denunciations you put against Hamas.

The punishment of Palestinians for the crime of voting the wrong way was severe.

All this conflict in Middle East was engineered by Jews for the purpose of creating Greater Israel.

They did 9/11 which they framed on Muslims, then used that to justify invading the Middle East. America is a Jewish oligarchy with all parties bought by Jewish money.

They support rebel terrorists all the time to overthrow leaders like Gadaffi and now Assad.

All America does is lie and cause trouble and I know why.


This Arab spring revolution is nothing more than creating more conflicts where the victims always the Muslims themselves.

Not once did I claim they weren't democratically elected - what I said was they have no democratic legitimacy. Which (despite your irrelevant quotes) remains a definite truth. Trying to argue they have democratic legitimacy on the basis they won an election 9 years ago is beyond comprehension. They have thrown their political opposition off of rooftops and got rid of any elections. It's the definition of a military dictatorship.



I agree with that part. They've been punished as the terrorists they've "elected" are profiting from their deaths every day, using foreign aid money to live a luxury lifestyle in Qatar whilst the Palestinians they claim to be representing have no money to survive.

There was no unprovoked escalation of violence as a result of Hamas coming into power. That's simply untrue.

In terms of the economic sanctions, the PA (who formed the unity government with Hamas) are in millions of pounds in debt to Israel. The "withholding of funds" was nothing more than debt repayment - something Israel are more than entitled to do.

You really do sound ridiculous when you insinuate that Hamas were ever interested in a ceasefire or a two-state solution. Hamas have rejected countless ceasefires made not just by Israel but also by Egypt and the US. When ones are eventually put in place, it is invariably Hamas who breaks them. And let me give you a little quote from their charter: "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Does that sound pro-two state solution to you?

I'm fine with legitimate criticism of Israel, it's far from perfect and it should be criticized to the same extent other countries are. However, when you start trying to defend a racist, barbaric, terrorist organization such as Hamas, it reveals a lot about your true intentions.

It's offensive and abhorrent how you continue to defend them.

I am not defending Hamas at all, I am just stating the record. As a US citizen, I feel there is little moral argument to focus on the crimes of others and instead be criticizing our own governments actions, in particular supporting atrocities carried out by Israel .You can have an academic seminar in which we would talk about the crimes of Hamas but don't think it has any moral value because we can't do much about them.

Why? They were democratically elected by the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Not exist altogether. That's what pretty much every other country in the middle east wants.

Whilst it's incredibly important to self-criticize, you also need to be careful that it doesn't come across as one-sided rhetoric around a complex issue. Ignoring the actions of Hamas because "we can't do much about them" is a weak argument in itself and it leads to excessive criticism being put on Israel relative to Hamas and thus presents the conflict in a one-sided manner rather than furthering the push for a peaceful two state solution.