I think you'll find that is was Hamas who started firing first on the 8th of July, after the arrest of Hamas militants. Israel's own firing of rockets was in response to that opening salvo.
So the real question should be; how many civilian deaths per week on both sides before Hamas started firing, and how many since?
So if the Israelis hadn't arrested loads of people, there wouldn't have been this escalation at all?
What an ugly and dishonest distortion of what people have actually been saying.
Isn't it just. It's on par with the other line that surfaces on here occasionally - the one about Palestinians not loving their children enough....(although not aimed at posters but still a cutting remark ....and false)
So if the Israelis hadn't arrested loads of people, there wouldn't have been this escalation at all?
Let me get this straight; are you trying to imply that launching rockets into cities is a valid reaction to arresting militants who were under investigation for the killing for three teenagers?
That's exactly what I'm saying. There was a tragic murder of 3 Israeli youths. While looking for them the Israelis killed 5 people including more teenagers, then they arrested a hell of a lot of people who weren't involved in the murder. The Palestinians then reacted by firing a few rockets. The Israelis reacted by bombing civilians. The Palestinians reacted by firing more rockets. The Israelis reacted by bombing even more civilians. The Palestinians reacted by firing even more rockets. And so on and so on. Eventually Israel will send in ground troops, a few will get killed so they will attack even more. Finally someone will come along and knock heads together so there will be a ceasefire.
That's exactly what I'm saying. There was a tragic murder of 3 Israeli youths. While looking for them the Israelis killed 5 people including more teenagers, then they arrested a hell of a lot of people who weren't involved in the murder. The Palestinians then reacted by firing a few rockets. The Israelis reacted by bombing civilians. The Palestinians reacted by firing more rockets. The Israelis reacted by bombing even more civilians. The Palestinians reacted by firing even more rockets. And so on and so on. Eventually Israel will send in ground troops, a few will get killed so they will attack even more. Finally someone will come along and knock heads together so there will be a ceasefire.
Wait 2 years and repeat.
Again; you think that launching "a few" (the number being around 70 or so) rockets is a valid reaction? Because if you can justify launching roughly 70 rockets because people were detained and you don't like it, then there's no problem with 450 military strikes happening because 250 rockets were launched from Gaza. Right?
Or are you just blindly ignoring that, and trying to make out that it's all the fault of Israel. because I don't buy this "I balme both sides" argument from you that you keep on spouting. You say this, but your posts clearly indicate that you don't blame Hamas or other Islamist groups at all for having their own part to play in the escalation. As far as you're concerned, it's all the fault of Israel.
Now the IDF I feel have been playing too much hard ball here. I understand that Hamas use civilian bases of operation, hoping to hide behind international law. They use human shields, but you know what? That's just the way it is - using air strikes in those circumstances is not in any way, an attempt to minimize non-combatant casualties. It doesn't matter if they were warned before the attacks or not; a rocket or missile dropped from an aircraft with a deadly blast radius of 40 or so meters is not a precision weapon.
The IDF had struck 129 targets in Gaza on the second day, made up of 31 tunnels, 60 rocket launching sites, 27 terror sites, and 11 activity sites. But the cost in terms of civilian is just far too high; 51 deaths along with 450 injuries. Mostly women and children.
If the Israeli government is guilty of anything it's not of reacting to the militant attack or arresting people thought to be militants or involved in the murder of three teenagers; it's in not doing enough to protect the people of Gaza. They haven't done enough to minimize collateral damage, which IS a war crime.
Again; you think that launching "a few" (the number being around 70 or so) rockets is a valid reaction? Because if you can justify launching roughly 70 rockets because people were detained and you don't like it, then there's no problem with 450 military strikes happening because 250 rockets were launched from Gaza. Right?
Or are you just blindly ignoring that, and trying to make out that it's all the fault of Israel. because I don't buy this "I balme both sides" argument from you that you keep on spouting. You say this, but your posts clearly indicate that you don't blame Hamas or other Islamist groups at all for having their own part to play in the escalation. As far as you're concerned, it's all the fault of Israel.
Now the IDF I feel have been playing too much hard ball here. I understand that Hamas use civilian bases of operation, hoping to hide behind international law. They use human shields, but you know what? That's just the way it is - using air strikes in those circumstances is not in any way, an attempt to minimize non-combatant casualties. It doesn't matter if they were warned before the attacks or not; a rocket or missile dropped from an aircraft with a deadly blast radius of 40 or so meters is not a precision weapon.
The IDF had struck 129 targets in Gaza on the second day, made up of 31 tunnels, 60 rocket launching sites, 27 terror sites, and 11 activity sites. But the cost in terms of civilian is just far too high; 51 deaths along with 450 injuries. Mostly women and children.
If the Israeli government is guilty of anything it's not of reacting to the militant attack or arresting people thought to be militants or involved in the murder of three teenagers; it's in not doing enough to protect the people of Gaza. They haven't done enough to minimize collateral damage, which IS a war crime.
No I don't, but then I don't think mass arrests on the off chance they were involved in the murders was a valid reaction, nor do I think Israeli soldiers shooting teenagers in the search was a valid reaction.
How do you think the Palestinians should react to the Israelis taking their land, depriving them of equipment and materials and continuing land grabs? I don't agree with violence from either side, but maybe you can suggest a solution?
How do you think the Palestinians should react to the Israelis taking their land, depriving them of equipment and materials and continuing land grabs? I don't agree with violence from either side, but maybe you can suggest a solution?
The land grab is a difficult situation. You have two groups of people from common genetic ancestors who have inhabited the area for quite some time. Palestine itself wasn't even a state until 1988. We often make the mistake of segregating the two groups by saying "Palestinians" and "Jews" but that's not really correct - its much closer to the truth to say "Muslim Palestinians" (or maybe Arab, since they adopted many of the Sunni customs and language) and "Jewish Palestinians" because really, the only thing that differentiates the two groups is their religion.
Israel has largely stopped the movement of Jewish settlers in recent years though.
The restriction on food and supplies is all on Israel though. There is absolutely NO justification for it. Yes, some weapons will get through via the normal supply routes but that doesn't mean to you have to cut off everything. Because while the militants are sitting around not suffering, having fresh food from the tunnels and other things. the every day Joe in Gaza is suffering and cursing Israel and will gladly let Hamas use his home as a weapons cache.
If they would just take the initiative and relax their grip, they might find a more cooperative people on the other side of the border. They might even find a militant Hamas being a little less hostile, and more willing to come to the conference table and talk things out.
I know your sense of the world is usually pretty warped but to try and claim that the BBC and mainstream media/politicians are pro-Hamas is so staggeringly stupid that I'm surprised even you have resorted to it.
Well why do they major on israel activity, instead of majoring on the failure of hamas/palestine to observe a cease fire.
Thats not neutral. Its anti israel. Its subtle, not so subtle, and its everywhere. There is never any general coverage about israels right to coexist peacefully.
Today the bbc (a bbc correspondent) on five live was talking in other words about hamas need to save face (ie, by getting some reward for a cease fire). Wouldnt stopping their people being attacked save enough face?
Surely that act on its own would lead to a relaxation of sanctions.
Interesting that none of the pro-Israeli posters have commented on this. A case of it being indefensible?
It was 3 years ago, and sadly similar things happen with police around the world, including in the UK, when there are demonstrations or marches going on.
I think you'll find that is was Hamas who started firing first on the 8th of July, after the arrest of Hamas militants. Israel's own firing of rockets was in response to that opening salvo.
(Reuters) - Israeli aircraft bombed dozens of sites in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, the military said, and troops opened fire and killed a Palestinian during an arrest raid in the occupied West Bank, Palestinian medics said.
The raid came hours after Israel found the bodies of three Israeli teens in the occupied West Bank who went missing on June 12. Israel has blamed the Islamist Hamas group for their abduction near a Jewish settlement and has arrested dozens of the groups members in the past three weeks.
The first bombing raid was on the 1st July. However-
The military said that its aircraft bombed 34 Gaza sites, most of them belonging to Hamas, in response to 18 rockets fired into Israel since Sunday. Two people were lightly wounded, Gaza medical officials said.
Wiki provides a tracker of attacks on Israel here-
But you may need to do some cross-checks or guesses to figure out origin, ie Gaza, West Bank, Syria and occasionally Sinai. Scroll back to May/June and you can get a sense of 'normal' levels of background rocketry/mortar fire. Normally that's fairly sporadic.
It was 3 years ago, and sadly similar things happen with police around the world, including in the UK, when there are demonstrations or marches going on.
Are Jewish pro Palestine supporters allowed to demonstrate freely now without getting arrested? Otherwise I can't see the difference when it was filmed.
Are Jewish pro Palestine supporters allowed to demonstrate freely now without getting arrested? Otherwise I can't see the difference when it was filmed.
In Northern Ireland I'm not sure whether Catholics are allowed to conduct protests in front of Orange marches, similarly in England protests are often banned on official state occasions or major sporting events.
Maybe a tad strong, however an understandable response to the number of dumbass posts we've seen over the last week, reporting that Hamas either only have fireworks, or if they do have rockets, they pose no danger whatsoever, or Israelis are cowards for heading to the shelters yadda, yadda, yadda.
Having not read the entire thread, it seemed like a very unfair comment because the majority of the discussion in the previous few pages had been constructive. But yeah, my comment was pretty harsh and having read back a bit, BrooklynBoy is perhaps more reasonable than I gave him credit for. Still didn't like the jab though.
On the topic of the Hamas demands for a ceasefire, I find them to be entirely reasonable and hopefully can provide a framework for actual discussion and resolution. Doubt it though.
(Reuters) - Israeli aircraft bombed dozens of sites in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, the military said, and troops opened fire and killed a Palestinian during an arrest raid in the occupied West Bank, Palestinian medics said.
I think you'e getting confused. The first attack that wasn't linked to any search, was on the 1st of July which were in response to around 18 to 20 rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza and other sources. So how am I wrong that the first strikes were in response to a previous attack?
Certainly there were clashes during the search for three teenagers, but let's not assume that the soldiers were just randomly killing people. They were engaged in skirmishes because they were being confronted by angry residents who objected to the sweeps, arrests and breaking into PA buildings.
Israel were using the search for the teenagers as an excuse for a wider suppression of Hamas. But let's not pretend that they went in guns blazing, killing innocents along the way.
In Northern Ireland I'm not sure whether Catholics are allowed to conduct protests in front of Orange marches, similarly in England protests are often banned on official state occasions or major sporting events.
Why can't you simply answer my question without bringing other countries into it? A simple answer would be 'yes' or 'no'.
If you're not sure whether Catholics are allowed to demonstrate in front of Orange marches - I'm sure you'll find the answer in a thread about it, somewhere.
Why can't you simply answer my question without bringing other countries into it? A simple answer would be 'yes' or 'no'.
Because people are regularly arrested at demonstrations & counter demonstrations in the UK, i.e. UAF/EDL, as far as I can see this American teenager was protesting while some kind of Israeli celebratory march was going on, so I'm not sure how it's much different. Perhaps it was judged he would be at risk of harm by wearing a palestinian flag so they put him in custody for his own safety?
Are Jewish pro Palestine supporters allowed to demonstrate freely now without getting arrested? Otherwise I can't see the difference when it was filmed.
Well why do they major on israel activity, instead of majoring on the failure of hamas/palestine to observe a cease fire.
Thats not neutral. Its anti israel. Its subtle, not so subtle, and its everywhere. There is never any general coverage about israels right to coexist peacefully.
Today the bbc (a bbc correspondent) on five live was talking in other words about hamas need to save face (ie, by getting some reward for a cease fire). Wouldnt stopping their people being attacked save enough face?
Surely that act on its own would lead to a relaxation of sanctions.
The mainstream media does not have an anti-Israel bias, it has a demonstrably pro-Israel bias. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Thats not neutral. Its anti israel. Its subtle, not so subtle, and its everywhere. There is never any general coverage about israels right to coexist peacefully.
I think this is where the anti- zionist/semitic/Israel labels get thrown around too much. Israel has a right to exist. It's there, it's not leaving, people have to deal with it. That doesn't mean there are not valid concerns about the nature of that existence.
Go back in time and Jews and Palestinians co-existed relatively peacefully within Palestine. Jews were the minority. Then came Zionism and Balfour and the idea to create a Jewish state, and for us a friendly buffer state between Europe and the Arab world. So wealthy Jews used the sneaky underhand tactic of buying land and starting the first settlement constructions. That meant some Palestinian tenants got evicted and started to cause problems. It's much like the problems we had with the Clearance. Palestinians started to realise what was happening, rebelled, we suppressed those rebellions and more immigrants kept arriving.
Co-existence naturally became more fraught as social/cultural pressures and differences increased, along with more and more land being bought. We helped this along as Palestine was our protectorate and we were ok with the idea of the buffer. We could control where settlements were built and made some attempts to keep the peace.
Then along came Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism movement. This was a bit more radical proposing the entire Palestinian Mandate (and parts of Jordan) become a Jewish state as a client of the UK. That was somewhat more militant and spawned Betar, Lehi and Haganah militias to both defend and expand 'Israel', working under the umbrella title of Irgun. Much like with the various Palestinian factions now, they didn't always agree with each other, or more moderate groups like Labour Zionists. But the militants won, kicked out the British and Israel was born. It's borders changed a bit due to a variety of conflicts, but it exists.
(you may note some parallels between Zionist militant groups fighting against their masters, and Palestinians. But generally Revisionist Zionists don't do irony.)
So we have Israel. After much immigration, a nation with a Jewish majority. Due to much immigration, also a bit of an identity problem. That spawned the idea of the Sabra, someone who was born in 'Israel' before or after the creation of Israel. That lead to discrimination between Sabra and immigrants. Not Palestinians, who may have been living their much longer, because they weren't Jewish so had fewer rights anyway.
So the nation grows into the modern, multi-cultural country it is today. Bright lights, big cities, clubs. Some terrorism, but life goes on. More Sabra are born, including Sharon Cohen. Born male, became female, won the Eurovision song contest for Israel. Can't really get much more liberal and progressive than that. Certainly far more progressive than many of it's neighbors.
Naturally the hard-line Orthodox Jews objected. Much like with Christianity or Islam, there are different flavours and factions, some more liberal, some not. Sometimes that leads to riots-
The protesters, gathered at the Bar Ilan intersection in the capital, were throwing stones at police officers, who used crowd dispersal measures to clear the rioters. Three people were arrested.
Or just stoning police cars for working on the Sabbath. But it's not just Palestinians who get arrested for civil disorder. And much like in Europe, Israel struggles with ordinary crime, less ordinary due to importing (or growing) some rather nasty gangs, managing it's economy and dealing with immigration and the challenges that brings with it. Much like in Europe, there's a rising right-wing and nationalist sentiment.
So when you say 'co-exist', what does this mean? Jewish and non-Jewish peacefully co-existing within Israel, or co-existence with it's neighbours? Within Israel, that can be problematic due to discrimination, land seizure or around the West Bank, the odd way fences and walls spring up to divide populations. Gaza's much easier because it's a more defined area, the West Bank is.. weird. Co-existence with it's neighbours may be easier. Get both sides to recognise each other and allow each other the right of self-determination. Gaza's been asking for this for years.
But then you get unhelpful statements from Netanyahu asking for Israel to be recognised as a 'Jewish State'. What does he mean by that? It's already a majority Jewish state, but making it exclusively Jewish doesn't sound like co-existence. It would also go against UN fundamental rights for freedom of religion. It would also create practical & legal difficulties removing non-Jews. Israel should be a state that abides by all the normal laws and traditions of statehood. But the Jewish state is what many on the right (especially far-right) of Israeli politics want. Which is also where theories of a Jewish race get controversial and dangerous. What would having Jewish DNA mean? An easier way to test immigrants rather than questioning them on their faith? A way to prove you're more Jewish than someone else? It's one of those theories that can quickly lead to racism and all the usual problems that go with ideas about eugenics.
But all that aside, what is Israel's objective? Is it to annex Gaza and create more land for it's own people? If so, what does it propose to do with the population it displaces?
Surely that act on its own would lead to a relaxation of sanctions.
Historically, no, which has been one of the Palestinian's frustrations. Since previous peace deals, sanctions have been relaxed and tightened. Control over Palestine's borders and trade are one of the reasons why the UN considers Israel to still be the occupying power. Of course Israel has legitimate concerns regarding what's imported so there needs to be some way to inspect or safeguard their interests. But currently it's not really working. Gaza needs construction materials. Those are restricted because Israel says they may be used to build shelters or tunnels. Probably true. But Israel also criticises Hamas for not protecting it's civilians and using them as human shields. Israeli buildings have to have reinforced shelters. Buildings in Gaza can't because construction materials are blocked. And so it goes on..
The situation in Gaza is truly a mess, if a ground offensive was given the go ahead then no doubt it would only add to the escalating death toll (although more Israeli's would die). Yesterday's solution by the Israeli's to have 100,000 Palestinian civilians to evacuate their homes was truly ridiculous, where do they expect them to go? At the moment both sides aren't doing themselves any favours and both seem to be at fault but the concern at the moment shouldn't be about who fired how many times and when but to do with the safety of the civilians of both Israel and Palestine. If Israel believe and propagate that Hamas are using their women and children as human shields, then surely they should do better to avoid firing rockets. Their self defence argument although difficult to deal with seems a bit extreme judging from the fact that most Hamas rockets are barely making it into Israel and those that do get through are mainly stopped by the Iron Dome, Israeli's also are fortunate that they have access to bomb shelters should they need to use them.
Comments
So if the Israelis hadn't arrested loads of people, there wouldn't have been this escalation at all?
Isn't it just. It's on par with the other line that surfaces on here occasionally - the one about Palestinians not loving their children enough....(although not aimed at posters but still a cutting remark ....and false)
Let me get this straight; are you trying to imply that launching rockets into cities is a valid reaction to arresting militants who were under investigation for the killing for three teenagers?
It takes two sides to escalate a conflict.
Wait 2 years and repeat.
Again; you think that launching "a few" (the number being around 70 or so) rockets is a valid reaction? Because if you can justify launching roughly 70 rockets because people were detained and you don't like it, then there's no problem with 450 military strikes happening because 250 rockets were launched from Gaza. Right?
Or are you just blindly ignoring that, and trying to make out that it's all the fault of Israel. because I don't buy this "I balme both sides" argument from you that you keep on spouting. You say this, but your posts clearly indicate that you don't blame Hamas or other Islamist groups at all for having their own part to play in the escalation. As far as you're concerned, it's all the fault of Israel.
Now the IDF I feel have been playing too much hard ball here. I understand that Hamas use civilian bases of operation, hoping to hide behind international law. They use human shields, but you know what? That's just the way it is - using air strikes in those circumstances is not in any way, an attempt to minimize non-combatant casualties. It doesn't matter if they were warned before the attacks or not; a rocket or missile dropped from an aircraft with a deadly blast radius of 40 or so meters is not a precision weapon.
The IDF had struck 129 targets in Gaza on the second day, made up of 31 tunnels, 60 rocket launching sites, 27 terror sites, and 11 activity sites. But the cost in terms of civilian is just far too high; 51 deaths along with 450 injuries. Mostly women and children.
If the Israeli government is guilty of anything it's not of reacting to the militant attack or arresting people thought to be militants or involved in the murder of three teenagers; it's in not doing enough to protect the people of Gaza. They haven't done enough to minimize collateral damage, which IS a war crime.
No I don't, but then I don't think mass arrests on the off chance they were involved in the murders was a valid reaction, nor do I think Israeli soldiers shooting teenagers in the search was a valid reaction.
How do you think the Palestinians should react to the Israelis taking their land, depriving them of equipment and materials and continuing land grabs? I don't agree with violence from either side, but maybe you can suggest a solution?
The land grab is a difficult situation. You have two groups of people from common genetic ancestors who have inhabited the area for quite some time. Palestine itself wasn't even a state until 1988. We often make the mistake of segregating the two groups by saying "Palestinians" and "Jews" but that's not really correct - its much closer to the truth to say "Muslim Palestinians" (or maybe Arab, since they adopted many of the Sunni customs and language) and "Jewish Palestinians" because really, the only thing that differentiates the two groups is their religion.
Israel has largely stopped the movement of Jewish settlers in recent years though.
The restriction on food and supplies is all on Israel though. There is absolutely NO justification for it. Yes, some weapons will get through via the normal supply routes but that doesn't mean to you have to cut off everything. Because while the militants are sitting around not suffering, having fresh food from the tunnels and other things. the every day Joe in Gaza is suffering and cursing Israel and will gladly let Hamas use his home as a weapons cache.
If they would just take the initiative and relax their grip, they might find a more cooperative people on the other side of the border. They might even find a militant Hamas being a little less hostile, and more willing to come to the conference table and talk things out.
Interesting that none of the pro-Israeli posters have commented on this. A case of it being indefensible?
Well why do they major on israel activity, instead of majoring on the failure of hamas/palestine to observe a cease fire.
Thats not neutral. Its anti israel. Its subtle, not so subtle, and its everywhere. There is never any general coverage about israels right to coexist peacefully.
Today the bbc (a bbc correspondent) on five live was talking in other words about hamas need to save face (ie, by getting some reward for a cease fire). Wouldnt stopping their people being attacked save enough face?
Surely that act on its own would lead to a relaxation of sanctions.
I think you'll find you're wrong-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-palestinians-israel-strike-idUSKBN0F638Q20140701
(Reuters) - Israeli aircraft bombed dozens of sites in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, the military said, and troops opened fire and killed a Palestinian during an arrest raid in the occupied West Bank, Palestinian medics said.
The raid came hours after Israel found the bodies of three Israeli teens in the occupied West Bank who went missing on June 12. Israel has blamed the Islamist Hamas group for their abduction near a Jewish settlement and has arrested dozens of the groups members in the past three weeks.
The first bombing raid was on the 1st July. However-
The military said that its aircraft bombed 34 Gaza sites, most of them belonging to Hamas, in response to 18 rockets fired into Israel since Sunday. Two people were lightly wounded, Gaza medical officials said.
Wiki provides a tracker of attacks on Israel here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014#July
But you may need to do some cross-checks or guesses to figure out origin, ie Gaza, West Bank, Syria and occasionally Sinai. Scroll back to May/June and you can get a sense of 'normal' levels of background rocketry/mortar fire. Normally that's fairly sporadic.
Are Jewish pro Palestine supporters allowed to demonstrate freely now without getting arrested? Otherwise I can't see the difference when it was filmed.
The Pakistanis in this country have been here for decades .. let's give them their own state in let's say Yorkshire ?
Having not read the entire thread, it seemed like a very unfair comment because the majority of the discussion in the previous few pages had been constructive. But yeah, my comment was pretty harsh and having read back a bit, BrooklynBoy is perhaps more reasonable than I gave him credit for. Still didn't like the jab though.
On the topic of the Hamas demands for a ceasefire, I find them to be entirely reasonable and hopefully can provide a framework for actual discussion and resolution. Doubt it though.
I think you'e getting confused. The first attack that wasn't linked to any search, was on the 1st of July which were in response to around 18 to 20 rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza and other sources. So how am I wrong that the first strikes were in response to a previous attack?
Certainly there were clashes during the search for three teenagers, but let's not assume that the soldiers were just randomly killing people. They were engaged in skirmishes because they were being confronted by angry residents who objected to the sweeps, arrests and breaking into PA buildings.
Israel were using the search for the teenagers as an excuse for a wider suppression of Hamas. But let's not pretend that they went in guns blazing, killing innocents along the way.
What about the people in these demonstrations against Zionists/Zionism?
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=855&q=jews+against+israel&oq=jews+against+israel&gs_l=img.12..0j0i24l3.3200.3200.0.10420.1.1.0.0.0.0.97.97.1.1.0....0...1ac..48.img..0.1.96.OREqR1CEDeM&gws_rd=ssl
Why can't you simply answer my question without bringing other countries into it? A simple answer would be 'yes' or 'no'.
If you're not sure whether Catholics are allowed to demonstrate in front of Orange marches - I'm sure you'll find the answer in a thread about it, somewhere.
See Windwalkers link
The mainstream media does not have an anti-Israel bias, it has a demonstrably pro-Israel bias. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
I think this is where the anti- zionist/semitic/Israel labels get thrown around too much. Israel has a right to exist. It's there, it's not leaving, people have to deal with it. That doesn't mean there are not valid concerns about the nature of that existence.
Go back in time and Jews and Palestinians co-existed relatively peacefully within Palestine. Jews were the minority. Then came Zionism and Balfour and the idea to create a Jewish state, and for us a friendly buffer state between Europe and the Arab world. So wealthy Jews used the sneaky underhand tactic of buying land and starting the first settlement constructions. That meant some Palestinian tenants got evicted and started to cause problems. It's much like the problems we had with the Clearance. Palestinians started to realise what was happening, rebelled, we suppressed those rebellions and more immigrants kept arriving.
Co-existence naturally became more fraught as social/cultural pressures and differences increased, along with more and more land being bought. We helped this along as Palestine was our protectorate and we were ok with the idea of the buffer. We could control where settlements were built and made some attempts to keep the peace.
Then along came Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism movement. This was a bit more radical proposing the entire Palestinian Mandate (and parts of Jordan) become a Jewish state as a client of the UK. That was somewhat more militant and spawned Betar, Lehi and Haganah militias to both defend and expand 'Israel', working under the umbrella title of Irgun. Much like with the various Palestinian factions now, they didn't always agree with each other, or more moderate groups like Labour Zionists. But the militants won, kicked out the British and Israel was born. It's borders changed a bit due to a variety of conflicts, but it exists.
(you may note some parallels between Zionist militant groups fighting against their masters, and Palestinians. But generally Revisionist Zionists don't do irony.)
So we have Israel. After much immigration, a nation with a Jewish majority. Due to much immigration, also a bit of an identity problem. That spawned the idea of the Sabra, someone who was born in 'Israel' before or after the creation of Israel. That lead to discrimination between Sabra and immigrants. Not Palestinians, who may have been living their much longer, because they weren't Jewish so had fewer rights anyway.
So the nation grows into the modern, multi-cultural country it is today. Bright lights, big cities, clubs. Some terrorism, but life goes on. More Sabra are born, including Sharon Cohen. Born male, became female, won the Eurovision song contest for Israel. Can't really get much more liberal and progressive than that. Certainly far more progressive than many of it's neighbors.
Naturally the hard-line Orthodox Jews objected. Much like with Christianity or Islam, there are different flavours and factions, some more liberal, some not. Sometimes that leads to riots-
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4474802,00.html
The protesters, gathered at the Bar Ilan intersection in the capital, were throwing stones at police officers, who used crowd dispersal measures to clear the rioters. Three people were arrested.
Or just stoning police cars for working on the Sabbath. But it's not just Palestinians who get arrested for civil disorder. And much like in Europe, Israel struggles with ordinary crime, less ordinary due to importing (or growing) some rather nasty gangs, managing it's economy and dealing with immigration and the challenges that brings with it. Much like in Europe, there's a rising right-wing and nationalist sentiment.
So when you say 'co-exist', what does this mean? Jewish and non-Jewish peacefully co-existing within Israel, or co-existence with it's neighbours? Within Israel, that can be problematic due to discrimination, land seizure or around the West Bank, the odd way fences and walls spring up to divide populations. Gaza's much easier because it's a more defined area, the West Bank is.. weird. Co-existence with it's neighbours may be easier. Get both sides to recognise each other and allow each other the right of self-determination. Gaza's been asking for this for years.
But then you get unhelpful statements from Netanyahu asking for Israel to be recognised as a 'Jewish State'. What does he mean by that? It's already a majority Jewish state, but making it exclusively Jewish doesn't sound like co-existence. It would also go against UN fundamental rights for freedom of religion. It would also create practical & legal difficulties removing non-Jews. Israel should be a state that abides by all the normal laws and traditions of statehood. But the Jewish state is what many on the right (especially far-right) of Israeli politics want. Which is also where theories of a Jewish race get controversial and dangerous. What would having Jewish DNA mean? An easier way to test immigrants rather than questioning them on their faith? A way to prove you're more Jewish than someone else? It's one of those theories that can quickly lead to racism and all the usual problems that go with ideas about eugenics.
But all that aside, what is Israel's objective? Is it to annex Gaza and create more land for it's own people? If so, what does it propose to do with the population it displaces?
Historically, no, which has been one of the Palestinian's frustrations. Since previous peace deals, sanctions have been relaxed and tightened. Control over Palestine's borders and trade are one of the reasons why the UN considers Israel to still be the occupying power. Of course Israel has legitimate concerns regarding what's imported so there needs to be some way to inspect or safeguard their interests. But currently it's not really working. Gaza needs construction materials. Those are restricted because Israel says they may be used to build shelters or tunnels. Probably true. But Israel also criticises Hamas for not protecting it's civilians and using them as human shields. Israeli buildings have to have reinforced shelters. Buildings in Gaza can't because construction materials are blocked. And so it goes on..