Are you "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine"? It isn't even noon yet as I write this, and I've already been accused of being both.

These terms intrigue me because they directly speak to the doggedly tribal nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You don't hear of too many other countries being universally spoken of this way. Why these two? Both Israelis and Palestinians are complex, with diverse histories and cultures, and two incredibly similar (if divisive) religions. To come down completely on the side of one or the other doesn't seem rational to me.

It is telling that most Muslims around the world support Palestinians, and most Jews support Israel. This, of course, is natural -- but it's also problematic. It means that this is not about who's right or wrong as much as which tribe or nation you are loyal to. It means that Palestinian supporters would be just as ardently pro-Israel if they were born in Israeli or Jewish families, and vice versa. It means that the principles that guide most people's view of this conflict are largely accidents of birth -- that however we intellectualize and analyze the components of the Middle East mess, it remains, at its core, a tribal conflict.

By definition, tribal conflicts thrive and survive when people take sides. Choosing sides in these kinds of conflicts fuels them further and deepens the polarization. And worst of all, you get blood on your hands.

So before picking a side in this latest Israeli-Palestine conflict, consider these 7 questions:

***

1. Why is everything so much worse when there are Jews involved?

Over 700 people have died in Gaza as of this writing. Muslims have woken up around the world. But is it really because of the numbers?

Bashar al-Assad has killed over 180,000 Syrians, mostly Muslim, in two years -- more than the number killed in Palestine in two decades. Thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Syria have been killed by ISIS in the last two months. Tens of thousands have been killed by the Taliban. Half a million black Muslims were killed by Arab Muslims in Sudan. The list goes on.

But Gaza makes Muslims around the world, both Sunni and Shia, speak up in a way they never do otherwise. Up-to-date death counts and horrific pictures of the mangled corpses of Gazan children flood their social media timelines every day. If it was just about the numbers, wouldn't the other conflicts take precedence? What is it about then?

If I were Assad or ISIS right now, I'd be thanking God I'm not Jewish.

Amazingly, many of the graphic images of dead children attributed to Israeli bombardment that are circulating online are from Syria, based on a BBC report. Many of the pictures you're seeing are of children killed by Assad, who is supported by Iran, which also funds Hezbollah and Hamas. What could be more exploitative of dead children than attributing the pictures of innocents killed by your own supporters to your enemy simply because you weren't paying enough attention when your own were killing your own?

This doesn't, by any means, excuse the recklessness, negligence, and sometimes outright cruelty of Israeli forces. But it clearly points to the likelihood that the Muslim world's opposition to Israel isn't just about the number of dead.

Here is a question for those who grew up in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries like I did: if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories tomorrow, all in one go -- and went back to the 1967 borders -- and gave the Palestinians East Jerusalem -- do you honestly think Hamas wouldn't find something else to pick a fight about? Do you honestly think that this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are Jews? Do you recall what you watched and heard on public TV growing up in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?

Yes, there's an unfair and illegal occupation there, and yes, it's a human rights disaster. But it is also true that much of the other side is deeply driven by anti-Semitism. Anyone who has lived in the Arab/Muslim world for more than a few years knows that. It isn't always a clean, one-or-the-other blame split in these situations like your Chomskys and Greenwalds would have you believe. It's both.

***

2. Why does everyone keep saying this is not a religious conflict?

There are three pervasive myths that are widely circulated about the "roots" of the Middle East conflict:

Myth 1: Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.
Myth 2: Islam has nothing to do with Jihadism or anti-Semitism.
Myth 3: This conflict has nothing to do with religion.

To the "I oppose Zionism, not Judaism!" crowd, is it mere coincidence that this passage from the Old Testament (emphasis added) describes so accurately what's happening today?

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods." - Exodus 23:31-32

Or this one?

"See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers -- to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and to their descendants after them." - Deuteronomy 1:8

There's more: Genesis 15:18-21, and Numbers 34 for more detail on the borders. Zionism is not the "politicization" or "distortion" of Judaism. It is the revival of it.

And to the "This is not about Islam, it's about politics!" crowd, is this verse from the Quran (emphasis added) meaningless?

"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you--then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." - Quran, 5:51

What about the numerous verses and hadith quoted in Hamas' charter? And the famous hadith of the Gharqad tree explicitly commanding Muslims to kill Jews?

Please tell me -- in light of these passages written centuries and millennia before the creation of Israel or the occupation -- how can anyone conclude that religion isn't at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor? You may roll your eyes at these verses, but they are taken very seriously by many of the players in this conflict, on both sides. Shouldn't they be acknowledged and addressed? When is the last time you heard a good rational, secular argument supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank?

Denying religion's role seems to be a way to be able to criticize the politics while remaining apologetically "respectful" of people's beliefs for fear of "offending" them. But is this apologism and "respect" for inhuman ideas worth the deaths of human beings?

People have all kinds of beliefs -- from insisting the Earth is flat to denying the Holocaust. You may respect their right to hold these beliefs, but you're not obligated to respect the beliefs themselves. It's 2014, and religions don't need to be "respected" any more than any other political ideology or philosophical thought system. Human beings have rights. Ideas don't. The oft-cited politics/religion dichotomy in Abrahamic religions is false and misleading. All of the Abrahamic religions are inherently political.

***

3. Why would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?

This is the single most important issue that gets everyone riled up, and rightfully so.

Again, there is no justification for innocent Gazans dying. And there's no excuse for Israel's negligence in incidents like the killing of four children on a Gazan beach. But let's back up and think about this for a minute.

Why on Earth would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?

When civilians die, Israel looks like a monster. It draws the ire of even its closest allies. Horrific images of injured and dead innocents flood the media. Ever-growing anti-Israel protests are held everywhere from Norway to New York. And the relatively low number of Israeli casualties (we'll get to that in a bit) repeatedly draws allegations of a "disproportionate" response. Most importantly, civilian deaths help Hamas immensely.

How can any of this possibly ever be in Israel's interest?

If Israel wanted to kill civilians, it is terrible at it. ISIS killed more civilians in two days (700 plus) than Israel has in two weeks. Imagine if ISIS or Hamas had Israel's weapons, army, air force, US support, and nuclear arsenal. Their enemies would've been annihilated long ago. If Israel truly wanted to destroy Gaza, it could do so within a day, right from the air. Why carry out a more painful, expensive ground incursion that risks the lives of its soldiers?

***

4. Does Hamas really use its own civilians as human shields?

Ask Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas how he feels about Hamas' tactics.

"What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?" he asks. "I don't like trading in Palestinian blood."

It isn't just speculation anymore that Hamas puts its civilians in the line of fire.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri plainly admitted on Gazan national TV that the human shield strategy has proven "very effective."

The UN relief organization UNRWA issued a furious condemnation of Hamas after discovering hidden rockets in not one, but two children's schools in Gaza last week.

Hamas fires thousands of rockets into Israel, rarely killing any civilians or causing any serious damage. It launches them from densely populated areas, including hospitals and schools.

Why launch rockets without causing any real damage to the other side, inviting great damage to your own people, then putting your own civilians in the line of fire when the response comes? Even when the IDF warns civilians to evacuate their homes before a strike, why does Hamas tell them to stay put?

Because Hamas knows its cause is helped when Gazans die. If there is one thing that helps Hamas most -- one thing that gives it any legitimacy -- it is dead civilians. Rockets in schools. Hamas exploits the deaths of its children to gain the world's sympathy. It uses them as a weapon.

You don't have to like what Israel is doing to abhor Hamas. Arguably, Israel and Fatah are morally equivalent. Both have a lot of right on their side. Hamas, on the other hand, doesn't have a shred of it.

***

5. Why are people asking for Israel to end the "occupation" in Gaza?

Because they have short memories.

In 2005, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza. It pulled out every last Israeli soldier. It dismantled every last settlement. Many Israeli settlers who refused to leave were forcefully evicted from their homes, kicking and screaming.

This was a unilateral move by Israel, part of a disengagement plan intended to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It wasn't perfect -- Israel was still to control Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace -- but considering the history of the region, it was a pretty significant first step.

After the evacuation, Israel opened up border crossings to facilitate commerce. The Palestinians were also given 3,000 greenhouses which had already been producing fruit and flowers for export for many years.

But Hamas chose not to invest in schools, trade, or infrastructure. Instead, it built an extensive network of tunnels to house thousands upon thousands of rockets and weapons, including newer, sophisticated ones from Iran and Syria. All the greenhouses were destroyed.

Hamas did not build any bomb shelters for its people. It did, however, build a few for its leaders to hide out in during airstrikes. Civilians are not given access to these shelters for precisely the same reason Hamas tells them to stay home when the bombs come.

Gaza was given a great opportunity in 2005 that Hamas squandered by transforming it into an anti-Israel weapons store instead of a thriving Palestinian state that, with time, may have served as a model for the future of the West Bank as well. If Fatah needed yet another reason to abhor Hamas, here it was.

***

6. Why are there so many more casualties in Gaza than in Israel?

The reason fewer Israeli civilians die is not because there are fewer rockets raining down on them. It's because they are better protected by their government.

When Hamas' missiles head towards Israel, sirens go off, the Iron Dome goes into effect, and civilians are rushed into bomb shelters. When Israeli missiles head towards Gaza, Hamas tells civilians to stay in their homes and face them.

While Israel's government urges its civilians to get away from rockets targeted at them, Gaza's government urges its civilians to get in front of missiles not targeted at them.

The popular explanation for this is that Hamas is poor and lacks the resources to protect its people like Israel does. The real reason, however, seems to have more to do with disordered priorities than deficient resources (see #5). This is about will, not ability. All those rockets, missiles, and tunnels aren't cheap to build or acquire. But they are priorities. And it's not like Palestinians don't have a handful of oil-rich neighbors to help them the way Israel has the US.

The problem is, if civilian casualties in Gaza drop, Hamas loses the only weapon it has in its incredibly effective PR war. It is in Israel's national interest to protect its civilians and minimize the deaths of those in Gaza. It is in Hamas' interest to do exactly the opposite on both fronts.

***

7. If Hamas is so bad, why isn't everyone pro-Israel in this conflict?

Because Israel's flaws, while smaller in number, are massive in impact.

Many Israelis seem to have the same tribal mentality that their Palestinian counterparts do. They celebrate the bombing of Gaza the same way many Arabs celebrated 9/11. A UN report recently found that Israeli forces tortured Palestinian children and used them as human shields. They beat up teenagers. They are often reckless with their airstrikes. They have academics who explain how rape may be the only truly effective weapon against their enemy. And many of them callously and publicly revel in the deaths of innocent Palestinian children.

To be fair, these kinds of things do happen on both sides. They are an inevitable consequence of multiple generations raised to hate the other over the course of 65 plus years. To hold Israel up to a higher standard would mean approaching the Palestinians with the racism of lowered expectations.

However, if Israel holds itself to a higher standard like it claims -- it needs to do much more to show it isn't the same as the worst of its neighbors.

Israel is leading itself towards increasing international isolation and national suicide because of two things: 1. The occupation; and 2. Settlement expansion.

Settlement expansion is simply incomprehensible. No one really understands the point of it. Virtually every US administration -- from Nixon to Bush to Obama -- has unequivocally opposed it. There is no justification for it except a Biblical one (see #2), which makes it slightly more difficult to see Israel's motives as purely secular.

The occupation is more complicated. The late Christopher Hitchens was right when he said this about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories:

"In order for Israel to become part of the alliance against whatever we want to call it, religious barbarism, theocratic, possibly thermonuclear theocratic or nuclear theocratic aggression, it can't, it'll have to dispense with the occupation. It's as simple as that.

It can be, you can think of it as a kind of European style, Western style country if you want, but it can't govern other people against their will. It can't continue to steal their land in the way that it does every day.And it's unbelievably irresponsible of Israelis, knowing the position of the United States and its allies are in around the world, to continue to behave in this unconscionable way. And I'm afraid I know too much about the history of the conflict to think of Israel as just a tiny, little island surrounded by a sea of ravening wolves and so on. I mean, I know quite a lot about how that state was founded, and the amount of violence and dispossession that involved. And I'm a prisoner of that knowledge. I can't un-know it."

As seen with Gaza in 2005, unilateral disengagement is probably easier to talk about than actually carry out. But if it Israel doesn't work harder towards a two-state (maybe three-state, thanks to Hamas) solution, it will eventually have to make that ugly choice between being a Jewish-majority state or a democracy.

It's still too early to call Israel an apartheid state, but when John Kerry said Israel could end up as one in the future, he wasn't completely off the mark. It's simple math. There are only a limited number of ways a bi-national Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority population can retain its Jewish identity. And none of them are pretty.

***

Let's face it, the land belongs to both of them now. Israel was carved out of Palestine for Jews with help from the British in the late 1940s just like my own birthplace of Pakistan was carved out of India for Muslims around the same time. The process was painful, and displaced millions in both instances. But it's been almost 70 years. There are now at least two or three generations of Israelis who were born and raised in this land, to whom it really is a home, and who are often held accountable and made to pay for for historical atrocities that are no fault of their own. They are programmed to oppose "the other" just as Palestinian children are. At its very core, this is a tribal religious conflict that will never be resolved unless people stop choosing sides.

So you really don't have to choose between being "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine." If you support secularism, democracy, and a two-state solution -- and you oppose Hamas, settlement expansion, and the occupation -- you can be both.

If they keep asking you to pick a side after all of that, tell them you're going with hummus.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html

what a pile of GARBAGE, as usual culled from these one sided BS website...... only a very foolish person would say that what Israel is doing is RIGHT. it not even a war, it is a plain massacre, ethnic cleansing in the area.

there is NO SIDES to consider, but to open your eyes and see what is happening.

the following video explains and show you why what Hitler did is no different than what Israel is doing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4KBz8R2hN4

Pure bull with lots of Junk in it.

Don't waste your time to read this

Insightful @Op,
Thanks for the education.

As the say: "The man who live in glass house, should not throw stones."

Thank you for this brilliant analysis....I totally agree that Hamas is the most irresponsible and wicked leaders of our time. It is confusing why Hamas is hell bent on using the innocent Gazans as human shields and instruments of false propaganda. Secondly, I will partly blame the Gazans who have been allowed the terrorists(Hamas) to cause further mayhem in their country.Why have they not revolted like the Arab brothers?

junk shyte from deranged mofos, go tell your lies to the dumbbells.

Human, food for thought. I still believe that Muslim extremists will Everly fight their neighbours as long as they aren't Muslims. I do not think Islam will ever offer peace to non Muslims dwelling in same land with them judging by the rate we are having jihad around the world.

luckyDon1: Thank you for this brilliant analysis....I totally agree that Hamas is the most irresponsible and wicked leaders of our time. It is confusing why Hamas is hell bent on using the innocent Gazans as human shields and instruments of false propaganda. Secondly, I will partly blame the Gazans who have been allowed the terrorists(Hamas) to cause further mayhem in their country.Why have they not revolted like the Arab brothers?

what you have to comprehend is that Hamas is the only group that stands in the way from wiping Palestine out of the map. do you think that Israel would give back this stolen land back to palestinians if Hamas was NOT there? do you think it will solve this ethnic cleansing piurpotrated by Israel? you need to educate yourself on the issue bro........

the problem is not Hamas, the problem is these evil policies that are crippling a nation, evil policies that are against a government that was rightfully elected in power by its people. funny how democracy is good only when people elect the government that the US/Israel and all other foreign nation deem "fit".

here is a clue for you: if some very powerful foreign country (supported by the US) force themselves into Nigeria and decide to get rid of all the Nigerians (or treat them as second class citizens) AND take over your lands etc, would you stand for that? this is a David vs Goliath fight, where one has military strikes that would rival any top notch foreign nation against people that are throwing stones and rocket launchers that barely even kill anybody.

a genocide is happening right in front of our eyes, and some people out there are saying that it is RIGHT?!

Missy89: Pure bull with lots of Junk in it.

Don't waste your time to read this

Some people get time sha

Missy89: Pure bull with lots of Junk in it.

Don't waste your time to read this

1 million likes, it is more of spectacular nonsense! Some people would sell their conscience and brain!

Missy89: Pure bull with lots of Junk in it.

Don't waste your time to read this

I think u are an evil and wicked person! Your kind of pple hv made the world as bad as it is.

For one, if u think the write up has alot of junk in it (which, if u think u intelligent enough shld point out), that was because u read it. WHY THEN ADVICE OTHERS NOT TO READ IT? I dnt just understand ur type.

The article, as far as I an consigned is one of the most unbiased once I hv read in a long time. It says it exactly as it is. That both sides are right in their own rights at the same time wrong in other lights. In as much as he did not profer any solution to the problem, he atleast did analyse the issues well.

I challenge you to point out all the "pure bull with lots of crap" you just talked about.

PS: if u going to come here based on sentiments drawn frm the images of wounded and killed women and children in gaza, then just dnt bother, because I already knw ur type.

bootstrap:

I think u are an evil and wicked person! Your kind of pple hv made the world as bad as it is.

For one, if u think the write up has alot of junk in it (which, if u think u intelligent enough shld point out), that was because u read it. WHY THEN ADVICE OTHERS NOT TO READ IT? I dnt just understand ur type.

The article, as far as I an consigned is one of the most unbiased once I hv read in a long time. It says it exactly as it is. That both sides are right in their own rights at the same time wrong in other lights. In as much as he did not profer any solution to the problem, he atleast did analyse the issues well.

I challenge you to point out all the "pure bull with lots of crap" you just talked about.

PS: if u going to come here based on sentiments drawn frm the images of wounded and killed women and children in gaza, then just dnt bother, because I already knw ur type.

Lol. Getting emotional and using ad homien attacks doesn't make you right and wont intimidate anyone.

If you don't know that numbers 2, 5 & 6 are wrong then i don't know what tell you.

@Bootsrap
here is something the OP forgot to post from the same article:

[b]I respectfully disagree with the author's views. He has successfully minced what is largely a human rights and social justice issue. Firstly, he presents to us a false dichotomy: either you're pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. When people around the world rallied against the apartheid South African state, it wasn't a "pro-ANC/pro-Black" vs "white South Africa" debate. It was about rights: anti-racism, the right to self-determination. On this note, the author claims that Israel may not yet be an apartheid state, but experts on the issue such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu would beg to disagree.

Even if we were to accept the author's false dichotomy, he then manages to batter the pro-Palestinian stance with the misdeeds of Hamas - a logical pitfall because he equates pro-Palestine with pro-Hamas.
Even in his vilification of Hamas, he fails to be balanced by ignoring that there are various reporters in Gaza who have reiterated that they have not seen evidence of Hamas forcing civilians to stay in bombed areas: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/.../gaza-israel_b_5624401.html. And let's presume that it was true, but the civilians decide to flee in any case, where are they to go?! 44% of Gaza, already a highly densely populated area, has been declared a military no-go zone by the IDF, and furthermore, there are accounts of Gazans who have fled and have still been caught in the indiscriminate bombing. He mentions two UN schools (which were abandoned at the time) where rockets where stored, but he fails to mention the UN schools (which were sheltering hundreds of civilians) which were bombed by the IDF.

The author presents three religious quotes which would appear to justify the violence from both sides. Another logical pitfall by setting a false premise for the Palestinian struggle. The struggle of a people against oppression and for the freedom to live in their homes peacefully and to have the right of self-determination does not need a religious edict - it is a human right which any group of people would struggle for. And let us assume his premise was true, how can one ignore the large number of religious teachings in both Judaism and Islam which actually denounce violence and the killing of innocent people?

Lastly, just because other atrocities around the world do not receive as much criticism, it still doesn't justify this one.
Oh, and I was pondering on point number three by the author, why would Israel deliberately kill innocent people. Why indeed? I shuddered when I re-read the author's prime argument as to why Israel wouldn't deliberately kill innocent people: because it would make Israel look bad. Not because it's a horrible thing to do? And he goes on to say that if indeed they would want to do it they could do it much better, by citing the example of ISIS, and that if Israel wanted to destroy Gaza they could do it one day. What type of argument is this?! Are we to assume then that because it hasn't destroyed Gaza in one day it is actually doing a fine humanitarian service by the mass bombing carried out on a civilian population resulting in over 1,100 deaths, most of them women and children, with massive destruction of civilian infrastructure? And if you can get past that, his comparison of numbers is logically flawed because the population of Iraq and Syria is multifold of that of Gaza (~Syria 22mil, Iraq 32mil, Gaza 1.8m) and that the duration of the conflicts varies greatly. In short, I see this article as an attempt to delegitimize the outcry on Gaza.[/b]

Missy89:
Lol. Getting emotional and using ad homien attacks doesn't make you right and wont intimidate anyone.
If you don't know that numbers 2, 5 & 6 are wrong then i don't know what tell you.

twosquare:


2. Why does everyone keep saying this is not a religious conflict?

There are three pervasive myths that are widely circulated about the "roots" of the Middle East conflict:

Myth 1: Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.
Myth 2: Islam has nothing to do with Jihadism or anti-Semitism.
Myth 3: This conflict has nothing to do with religion.

To the "I oppose Zionism, not Judaism!" crowd, is it mere coincidence that this passage from the Old Testament (emphasis added) describes so accurately what's happening today?

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods." - Exodus 23:31-32

Or this one?

"See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers -- to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and to their descendants after them." - Deuteronomy 1:8

There's more: Genesis 15:18-21, and Numbers 34 for more detail on the borders. Zionism is not the "politicization" or "distortion" of Judaism. It is the revival of it.

And to the "This is not about Islam, it's about politics!" crowd, is this verse from the Quran (emphasis added) meaningless?

"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you--then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." - Quran, 5:51

What about the numerous verses and hadith quoted in Hamas' charter? And the famous hadith of the Gharqad tree explicitly commanding Muslims to kill Jews?

Please tell me -- in light of these passages written centuries and millennia before the creation of Israel or the occupation -- how can anyone conclude that religion isn't at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor? You may roll your eyes at these verses, but they are taken very seriously by many of the players in this conflict, on both sides. Shouldn't they be acknowledged and addressed? When is the last time you heard a good rational, secular argument supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank?

Denying religion's role seems to be a way to be able to criticize the politics while remaining apologetically "respectful" of people's beliefs for fear of "offending" them. But is this apologism and "respect" for inhuman ideas worth the deaths of human beings?

People have all kinds of beliefs -- from insisting the Earth is flat to denying the Holocaust. You may respect their right to hold these beliefs, but you're not obligated to respect the beliefs themselves. It's 2014, and religions don't need to be "respected" any more than any other political ideology or philosophical thought system. Human beings have rights. Ideas don't. The oft-cited politics/religion dichotomy in Abrahamic religions is false and misleading. All of the Abrahamic religions are inherently political.

***

***

5. Why are people asking for Israel to end the "occupation" in Gaza?

Because they have short memories.

In 2005, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza. It pulled out every last Israeli soldier. It dismantled every last settlement. Many Israeli settlers who refused to leave were forcefully evicted from their homes, kicking and screaming.

This was a unilateral move by Israel, part of a disengagement plan intended to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It wasn't perfect -- Israel was still to control Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace -- but considering the history of the region, it was a pretty significant first step.

After the evacuation, Israel opened up border crossings to facilitate commerce. The Palestinians were also given 3,000 greenhouses which had already been producing fruit and flowers for export for many years.

But Hamas chose not to invest in schools, trade, or infrastructure. Instead, it built an extensive network of tunnels to house thousands upon thousands of rockets and weapons, including newer, sophisticated ones from Iran and Syria. All the greenhouses were destroyed.

Hamas did not build any bomb shelters for its people. It did, however, build a few for its leaders to hide out in during airstrikes. Civilians are not given access to these shelters for precisely the same reason Hamas tells them to stay home when the bombs come.

Gaza was given a great opportunity in 2005 that Hamas squandered by transforming it into an anti-Israel weapons store instead of a thriving Palestinian state that, with time, may have served as a model for the future of the West Bank as well. If Fatah needed yet another reason to abhor Hamas, here it was.

***

6. Why are there so many more casualties in Gaza than in Israel?

The reason fewer Israeli civilians die is not because there are fewer rockets raining down on them. It's because they are better protected by their government.

When Hamas' missiles head towards Israel, sirens go off, the Iron Dome goes into effect, and civilians are rushed into bomb shelters. When Israeli missiles head towards Gaza, Hamas tells civilians to stay in their homes and face them.

While Israel's government urges its civilians to get away from rockets targeted at them, Gaza's government urges its civilians to get in front of missiles not targeted at them.

The popular explanation for this is that Hamas is poor and lacks the resources to protect its people like Israel does. The real reason, however, seems to have more to do with disordered priorities than deficient resources (see #5). This is about will, not ability. All those rockets, missiles, and tunnels aren't cheap to build or acquire. But they are priorities. And it's not like Palestinians don't have a handful of oil-rich neighbors to help them the way Israel has the US.

The problem is, if civilian casualties in Gaza drop, Hamas loses the only weapon it has in its incredibly effective PR war. It is in Israel's national interest to protect its civilians and minimize the deaths of those in Gaza. It is in Hamas' interest to do exactly the opposite on both fronts.

***

7.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701.html

Sorry, what is wrong about 2, 5 and 6?

6. Isreal takes better care of its pple and hamas takes care that her pple are killed? What do u think is hammases war tactics? Especially when they knw that barely any rocket drops in isreal? In all honesty, if I were hamas, I wld mostlikely do same thing to attract sympathy. Just like provoking ur bully and allowing the bully beat u up esp when pple are watching

5. What is wrong with that, what is one of hamases main requirement if not to end the occupation, or was the reference to 2005 incident wrong? Isreal started moving, and hamas started building tunnels and stocking rockets

4. If u dnt knw that (one of - edited) the main underlying sentiments is religious, them my dear, I hv nothing to tell u.

bootstrap:



Sorry, what is wrong about 2, 5 and 6?

6. Isreal takes better care of its pple and hamas takes care that her pple are killed? What do u think is hammases war tactics? Especially when they knw that barely any rocket drops in isreal? In all honesty, if I were hamas, I wld mostlikely do same thing to attract sympathy. Just like provoking ur bully and allowing the bully beat u up esp when pple are watching

5. What is wrong with that, what is one of hamases main requirement if not to end the occupation, or was the reference to 2005 incident wrong? Isreal started moving, and hamas started building tunnels and stocking rockets

4. If u dnt knw that the main underlying sentiments is religious, them my dear, I hv nothing to tell u.

Thou i dont have the time to lecture you on the Israel Palestine conflict at the moment at least not today, (enjoying my Saturday) If you think The conflict as anything to do with religion then you obviously don't know what you are talking about. You should educate yourself on the origins of the conflict and maybe then you would realize that the issue is far more complicated than 2 right wing groups fighting each other.

Bull article meant for docile minds only

Ehmmm MrBrown, I am composing a roboust reply plz ( ) one that can not be typed on my mobile nor in motion, getting to my pc soon.

But my reply to missy89 was due to the fact that she outrightly discourages pple frm reading because the points raised are "bull". that I do not agree, even tho I dnt necessarily agree with every sentence of the article.

Brb

bootstrap: Ehmmm MrBrown, I am composing a roboust reply plz ( ) one that can not be typed on my mobile nor in motion, getting to my pc soon.

But my reply to missy89 was due to the fact that she outrightly discourages pple frm reading because the points raised are "bull". that I do not agree, even tho I dnt necessarily agree with every sentence of the article.

Brb

If it was religious why didn't the Jordanians grant Palestine its independence between 1946-67?

If it was religious why did the Jordanians Fight the Palestinians in 1970 (Black September)

If it was religious, why did Syria invade Lebanon in other to destroy the PLO that left Jordan and the west bank after black September (Lebanese civil war)

why did the Egyptian army drove into Gaza in 1948 to occupy the place if this was about religion?

why did Nasser propose a federation (UAR) with Syria in 1952 after coming to power if this was about religion?

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about. The article belongs in the trash

Missy89:

If it was religious why didn't the Jordanians grant Palestine its independence between 1946-67?

If it was religious why did the Jordanians Fight the Palestinians in 1970 (Black September)

If it was religious, why did Syria invade Lebanon in other to destroy the PLO that left Jordan and the west bank after black September (Lebanese civil war)

why did the Egyptian army drove into Gaza in 1948 to occupy the place if this was about religion?

why did Nasser propose a federation (UAR) with Syria in 1952 after coming to power if this was about religion?

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about

YOU POST SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING AND INTELLIGENT COMMENTS HERE ON NAIRALAND.KEEP IT UP BUT YOU ARE SOMETIMES TOO HONEST AND IT MAKES PEOPLE WANNA GET AT YOU. TRY APPLYING SOME TACT AND SUBTLETY.

Missy89:

If it was religious why didn't the Jordanians grant Palestine its independence between 1946-67?

If it was religious why did the Jordanians Fight the Palestinians in 1970 (Black September)

If it was religious, why did Syria invade Lebanon in other to destroy the PLO that left Jordan and the west bank after black September (Lebanese civil war)

why did the Egyptian army drove into Gaza in 1948 to occupy the place if this was about religion?

why did Nasser propose a federation (UAR) with Syria in 1952 after coming to power if this was about religion?

You obviously have no clue about what you are talking about. The article belongs in the trash

We may go down history lane on the middle east as much as u like, but that doesn't negate the fact that ONE of the underlying issues in the isreali - Palestinian conflict is religion. Note that I didnt say (and I believe the autor of the article) it is the only underlying issue, but if u honestly can say religion plays no role whatsoever in the conflict... I pray u say so

Granted, the cause, nature, direction and even resolution of the conflict is way more complicated than just pinning it down on a single point.
I still strongly believe that non of these reasons can be treated in isolation.

bootstrap:

We may go down history lane on the middle east as much as u like, but that doesn't negate the fact that ONE of the underlying issues in the isreali - Palestinian conflict is religion. Note that I didnt say (and I believe the autor of the article) it is the only underlying issue, but if u honestly can say religion plays no role whatsoever in the conflict... I pray u say so

so in short you are back peddling , trying to deflect and attempting to change the context after saying this :

If u dnt knw that the main underlying sentiments is religious, them my dear, I hv nothing to tell u

Nice try.

The ruling party on both sides are right wing and the religious argument from Israel is to get public support from Europe and America and Hamas is doing the same thing to get support from the Arab World (it is vice versa)

Well informed people are not buying that. I just gave you different reasons to debunk that theory and let me add a few more.

In 1948, the Jordanians agreed secretly not to attack Israel. King Abdullah saw Palestinian nationalism as a thereat. so if it has anything to do with religion, why should the Arabs in Jordan meet with the Jews and Palestine to reach and agreement to suppress Arabs in Palestine?

here is an excerpt :

[b]In 1947, as the conflict over Palestine entered the crucial stage, the contacts between the Jewish side and King ‘Abdullah intensified. Golda Meir of the Jewish Agency had a secret meeting with ‘Abdullah in Naharayim on 17 November 1947. At this meeting they reached a preliminary agreement to coordinate their diplomatic and military strategies, to forestall the mufti, and to endeavor to prevent the other Arab states from intervening directly in Palestine. Twelve days later, on 29 November, the United Nations pronounced its verdict in favor of dividing the area of the British mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. This made it possible to firm up the tentative understanding reached at Naharayim. In return for ‘Abdullah's promise not to enter the area assigned by the UN to the Jewish state, the Jewish Agency agreed to the annexation by Transjordan of most of the area earmarked for the Arab state. Precise borders were not drawn and Jerusalem was not even discussed as under the UN plan it was to remain a corpus separatum under international control. Nor was the agreement ever put down in writing. The Jewish Agency tried to tie ‘Abdullah down to a written agreement but he was evasive.[/b]

Now,

should i debunk 5 & 6 as well?

Missy89:

so in short you are back peddling , trying to deflect and attempting to change the context after saying this :

If u dnt knw that the main underlying sentiments is religious, them my dear, I hv nothing to tell u

Nice try.

The ruling party on both sides are right wing and the religious argument from Israel is to get public support from Europe and America and Hamas is doing the same thing to get support from the Arab World (it is vice versa)

Well informed people are not buying that. I just gave you different reasons to debunk that theory and let me add a few more.

In 1948, the Jordanians agreed secretly not to attack Israel. King Abdullah saw Palestinian nationalism as a thereat. so if it has anything to do with religion, why should the Arabs in Jordan meet with the Jews and Palestine to reach and agreement to suppress Arabs in Palestine?

here is an excerpt :

[b]In 1947, as the conflict over Palestine entered the crucial stage, the contacts between the Jewish side and King ‘Abdullah intensified. Golda Meir of the Jewish Agency had a secret meeting with ‘Abdullah in Naharayim on 17 November 1947. At this meeting they reached a preliminary agreement to coordinate their diplomatic and military strategies, to forestall the mufti, and to endeavor to prevent the other Arab states from intervening directly in Palestine. Twelve days later, on 29 November, the United Nations pronounced its verdict in favor of dividing the area of the British mandate into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. This made it possible to firm up the tentative understanding reached at Naharayim. In return for ‘Abdullah's promise not to enter the area assigned by the UN to the Jewish state, the Jewish Agency agreed to the annexation by Transjordan of most of the area earmarked for the Arab state. Precise borders were not drawn and Jerusalem was not even discussed as under the UN plan it was to remain a corpus separatum under international control. Nor was the agreement ever put down in writing. The Jewish Agency tried to tie ‘Abdullah down to a written agreement but he was evasive.[/b]

Now,

should i debunk 5 & 6 as well?

Call it back peddling or re-edit (I axtually did that to my initial post) and i am pretty sure u didnt understand what i said as religion being the only sentiment. I still hold that religion plays A role in that conflict. As much as I wld hv loved to give historic and other causes or contributing reasons or roles the reasons play (played or playing) in the conflict, I do not intend to (or hv the capacity to, for that matter)

But one thing I am certain of, the article isnt "bull" (as u called it) in its entirety, just like alot of other articles or news on the conflict

bootstrap:

Call it back peddling or re-edit (I axtually did that to my initial post) and i am pretty sure u didnt understand what i said as religion being the only sentiment. I still hold that religion plays A role in that conflict. As much as I wld hv loved to give historic and other causes or contributing reasons or roles the reasons play (played or playing) in the conflict, I do not intend to (or hv the capacity to, for that matter)

But one thing I am certain of, the article isnt "bull" (as u called it) in its entirety, just like alot of other articles or news on the conflict

so we should just take your word for it without adequate evidence or proof?

Missy89:

so we should just take your word for it without adequate evidence or proof?

yeah... does sound like a good idea from where i am seated , but then again, the premise for my argument (article not being bull in its entirety) already did shed some light on the religious angle, of which i do agree with. Inertly, the muslim sees the Jew as infidels that need not be let to exist and the jews see the muslim in same light, and occupation, domination or attacks are not taken any less lightly. Alliances at different points in history between the muslim Arab world and the jew Isreal has been bore mainly out of necessity and filled with distrust, hence a breakdown in most of such alliances.

Finally, i got quite a number of Arab friends and their dislike and distrust for anything Jewish (and/or christian for that matter) isn't just humanitarian, i can tell you for sure.

bootstrap:

yeah... does sound like a good idea from where i am seated , but then again, the premise for my argument (article not being bull in its entirety) already did shed some light on the religious angle, of which i do agree with. Inertly, the muslim sees the Jew as infidels that need not be let to exist and the jews see the muslim in same light, and occupation, domination or attacks are not taken any less lightly. Alliances at different points in history between the muslim Arab world and the jew Isreal has been bore mainly out of necessity and filled with distrust, hence a breakdown in most of such alliances.

Finally, i got quite a number of Arab friends and their dislike and distrust for anything Jewish (and/or christian for that matter) isn't just humanitarian, i can tell you for sure.

Nah that's way off.

I told you already that the religious card played by both sides have been yielding results, that is why you have Arab friends with that sentiment and the Muslims seeing Jews as infidels is only based on your own assertion(Movies perhaps?). i have showed you proof where both of them were collaborating and the alliance is still there and there is no breakdown.

Ideology(to some extent) and Interests are the most important Ingredients for in any alliance. Religion sentiments are only reserved for the gullible public and plays a little role among the elites in the corridor of power. There are 2 (might be more) types of Ideology in the middle east. The nationalists(Egypt, Syria, Iraq etc) and the conservative monarchs (UAE, Saudi , Jordan, etc).

during the Cold war, The united States supported the Monarchs while the Soviet Union was with the Nationalist lead my Nasser. (Arab Cold war)

The article is "Bull" because it simplifies the conflict without understanding the cause in the first place and the solution (if one exists anymore) cannot be framed in the narrow context of even picking sides like the article was trying to do to begin with.

What's the common denominator here... for the people that can't see the sense in this article? It will always be and still remain ISLAM! That's the only thing that unites the supporters of Hamas.

I don't support the bombardment of civilian sites and facilities but Hamas left Israel no choice by constantly sending rockets into Israel.

5 good times, Israel agreed to a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid but guess how Hamas replied— more rockets into Israel!

What is so hard for the anti-semitic Moslems to understand? They want Israel to sit back and do nothing while hundreds of rockets are launched against them?

FYI, the iron dome costs billions of dollars to manage and Israel will be dragged into recession if they let it sort out the conflict.

Frankenstein: What's the common denominator here... for the people that can't see the sense in this article? It will always be and still remain ISLAM! That's the only thing that unites the supporters of Hamas.

I don't support the bombardment of civilian sites and facilities but Hamas left Israel no choice by constantly sending rockets into Israel.

5 good times, Israel agreed to a ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid but guess how Hamas replied— more rockets into Israel!

What is so hard for the anti-semitic Moslems to understand? They want Israel to sit back and do nothing while hundreds of rockets are launched against them?

FYI, the iron dome costs billions of dollars to manage and Israel will be dragged into recession if they let it sort out the conflict.

Nope!

First, Iron dome is mostly financed by the US so why would Israel fall into recession because they are using a defense weapon that is mainly financed by another country? They just got more for free few days ago. In fact why would any country fall into recession because they are using munitions? isn't that ridiculous and funny at the same time? were you trying to crack a joke?

Second, why does every sheepish christian or neutrals using the well crafted "what will Israel do" line? is it because they are ill informed or just too gullible?

The recent conflict didn't start when Hamas fired rockets, it started when 3 teens were killed and Israel blamed Hamas without providing proof the the world (Hamas denied it of course). now some new information coming to light said that the Israeli government knew that the kids were dead earlier but kept it from the public in other to draw public support. Hamas was actually retaliating for the collective punishment handed out in the west bank.

The common denominator here is ignorance . if Islam is what unites the supporters of Hamas, what unites the supporters of Israel ? isn't it the same religion?(pro Israel's core argument is that God gave them the land so whats your point?) or what would make someone say "thou i don't support the killing of civilians BUT"

I can debunk the 5 cease fire myth too if you want me to as well.

some Zombies didn't even read the terms in those cease fires.

Hamas and Netanyahu needs to be stopped! but blaming one side is just short sighted

anago9010: junk shyte from deranged mofos, go tell your lies to the dumbbells.

My friend how far? Long time.

I was on the fence before but am gradually falling towards palestinian side. What Israel is doing is unjustifiable.

Hamas wanted a war, they got one, so why they complaint? this is the best unbiased article I've read so far! Death to all muslims!

AlfaSeltzer: I was on the fence before but am gradually falling towards palestinian side. What Israel is doing is unjustifiable.

why complain? This is your masters ultimate vision for the world!

only a fool will belive on your write up your excuse wasn't even geniuses also they was no rational explanation in your action you just want to blame west for your problems west are not the one that sponsoring bokoaram.bokoaram was originated from nothern political who think Nigeria was belong to them alone stop defending nothern Muslim these is a statement of sir ahmadu bello made
In 1960, the late Sir Ahmadu Bello said “The new nation called
Nigeria should be an estate of our great-grandfather, Uthman Dan
Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the
minorities of the North as willing tools and the South as a conquered
territory and never allow them to rule over us, and never allow them
to have control over their future.” (Parrot Newspaper, 12th Oct.
1960; republished on November 13, 2002, by the Tribune
Newspaper, Ibadan.)