Quote from: DodoB on August 26, 2014, 10:02:18 AM

Quote from: u9y42 on August 25, 2014, 05:56:47 PM

I get the feeling you really have no idea of the situation in Gaza, and the level of devastation there. Why do you think there are currently, literally, hundreds of thousands of refugees there at the moment? Do you have any idea of what that is? And again, rockets or no rockets, civilians aren't automatically valid targets - that's a violation of the rules of war, if anyone cares.

Hundreds of thousands refugees? thats a lie. They returned to their homes after the ground invasion was stopped.
That so called level of devastation is exaggerated.

Unfortunately no; if anything, I'm putting it mildly: according to Unicef's Pernille Ironside (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/gaza-cost-far-exceeds-estimate-official-says.html?_r=0), they are currently dealing with some 350.000 refugees there. And it's a little hard for them to return home when Israel destroyed them: at least some 17.000 were totally destroyed, and 37.000 damaged. However, these figures are likely to increase, especially as the conflict continues. And this to say nothing of what Israeli attacks on vital infrastructure have done to access to healthcare, food and water. In fact, in the article I linked, Pernille Ironside goes on to say that, if the blockade isn't at least eased, some estimates put the time to reconstruct Gaza after the latest attack at 18 years!

Quote from: DodoB on August 26, 2014, 10:02:18 AM

Quote from: u9y42 on August 25, 2014, 05:56:47 PM

I honestly don't give it 10 years before Israel is completely isolated at this rate.

Baseless and incorrect assumption.

I offered it as my own personal opinion, so take it as you will; but from all I've seen so far, that seems to me the most likely outcome, unless things start changing very soon.

Quote from: DodoB on August 26, 2014, 10:02:18 AM

Quote from: u9y42 on August 25, 2014, 05:56:47 PM

I'm referring to the one or two states solutions; that is, Israel either taking over the whole territory and population, or Israel and Palestine coexisting side by side, with negotiations having as a starting point the 1967 borders - both of which Israel refuses, either in word or in action.

one state sultion-you are naive if you think the Palestininans would be so happy to have the "evil zionist jews" to rule over them. The Jews would not want the Palestinian to rule over them either-rightly so.
Not with hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank,a 1967 lines agreement is practically impossible. a future Palestinian state can only be based on new lines and borders.

Quote from: kuroman on August 26, 2014, 05:44:29 PM

And this is way Israel is pushing settlers and illegal settlement in west bank to make the same excuse you are making here. If
they really wanted peace they could move the settlers out and build them new houses elsewhere, as for the building they could be sold for money so there would be no financial lose

whether Israel pushes more settlers doesn't matter,there are already hundreds of thousands of settlers.
If Israel would kick them out wouldnt that be illegal? the settlers will become refugees in their own country,is it ok for you just because they're not Palestinian?
In the same manner we can ask Hamas to kick out all the Palestinian "settlers" in Gaza and move them to Egypt,a fellow Arab-Muslim country! isn't that wonderful?

I'm not Palestinian, so again, take it as you will; but I'd say the average Palestinian cares less about what the land is called, and far more about their human rights being respected, than what you think - see this interview with Shir Hever for more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYeWeoQ-uQ (at about the 7 minute mark, though I definitely recommend the full interview).

And you know, there is one way to deal with the illegal settlements without kicking anyone out again: give them the chance to stay and integrate them into a future Palestinian state, or monetary incentives to return to Israel and resettle, for example (they are currently being given governmental monetary incentives to illegally occupy Palestinian land, so it wouldn't be much of a shift there).

Quote from: DodoB on August 26, 2014, 10:02:18 AM

Quote from: kuroman on August 26, 2014, 05:44:29 PM

Nope but at least it will ease the tension and it would especially relief the Gaza population, they could at least get medical treatment, first necessity equipment and goods, right now they don't even have access to sewage system or clean water and I'm not going to talk about electricity which seems to be a luxury in the area nowadays.

Do you have any accurate unbiased information about the internet,sewage and clean water in Gaza as of today? i doubt it.
You keep nagging about what the Palestinians get from the removal of the blockade-but what will Israel get? long term peace? nobody can assure that. Logically the Palestinians being the losing side(according to your post) are in no place to make big demands.

Human rights must be respected, whether or not you're the losing side. And yes, there is no assurance that the removal of the blockade will end the conflict, especially if the occupation and human rights abuses continue; but you can be sure that continuing the blockade will make the situation far worse over time - as I said before, it is only further radicalizing the population there, in the West Bank, and in Israel.

As to the lack of clean water, they were already dealing with water shortages before the recent conflict; after Israel hit water wells and sewage treatment plants (which contaminated several regions), it has been one of the main jobs of Unicef to ensure that the population has access to water as much as possible, job which continues to this day - the article I linked above mentions this, though you can easily find it elsewhere if you bother looking.