Israel vs Palestine

[TrashMan]

 

Couple of instant knock backs:

 

1) Rockets are artillery.

2) It's "Command and control" not "in control"

 

And even if the above were true, what does that make the guys firing rockets at Israel? What does that make people who believe in using military force against Israel?

 

I can't say this enough... I don't track this issue and I don't have a side. But portraying the Gazans as innocent concentration camp victims is bs. It's not that simple, and I suggest anyone who tries to convince you of that notion is simply trying to manipulate you.

 

 

 

On one side you have poeple living in luxury (after taking every good pice of land with resources). They have to live with the horror of knowing that maybe, one day, one crappy, home-made rocket may fall somewhere near their house (if it ever gets that far). How many people have actually been killed by those rockets? You have a higher chance to be struck by lightning!

 

On other hands you have people that are oppressed, systematicly (periodically) bombed into stone age and fear of getting shot/killed/bulldozed and bombed every day.

 

If I was israeli and lived in Israel, I wouldn't worry much.

If I lived in Gaza, I'd want to burn Israel down too.

And I'm saying this as someone who experienced war and knows how it feels to be in a city under siege.

All this BS "justification" Israel provides is just that that - a metric ton of crap that doesn't hold water.

 

There is NO justification EVER for walzing into another country and blowing apart civilian structures (civilians included) and infrastructure.

 

[Rostere]

Israelis cheering as Gaza is bombed threaten CNN reporter - "If you say one word wrong, we will destroy your car".

[Walsingham]

 

 

Couple of instant knock backs:

 

1) Rockets are artillery.

2) It's "Command and control" not "in control"

 

And even if the above were true, what does that make the guys firing rockets at Israel? What does that make people who believe in using military force against Israel?

 

I can't say this enough... I don't track this issue and I don't have a side. But portraying the Gazans as innocent concentration camp victims is bs. It's not that simple, and I suggest anyone who tries to convince you of that notion is simply trying to manipulate you.

 

 

 

On one side you have poeple living in luxury (after taking every good pice of land with resources). They have to live with the horror of knowing that maybe, one day, one crappy, home-made rocket may fall somewhere near their house (if it ever gets that far). How many people have actually been killed by those rockets? You have a higher chance to be struck by lightning!

 

On other hands you have people that are oppressed, systematicly (periodically) bombed into stone age and fear of getting shot/killed/bulldozed and bombed every day.

 

If I was israeli and lived in Israel, I wouldn't worry much.

If I lived in Gaza, I'd want to burn Israel down too.

And I'm saying this as someone who experienced war and knows how it feels to be in a city under siege.

All this BS "justification" Israel provides is just that that - a metric ton of crap that doesn't hold water.

 

There is NO justification EVER for walzing into another country and blowing apart civilian structures (civilians included) and infrastructure.

 

 

 

No justification ever? Use wild exaggeration much?

 

Allowing for the fact that you're obviously generalising for some weird rhetorical impact, you're still talking rubbish. Israel should just allow rocket attacks on its territory because their population have TVs and fridge-freezers? If my government allowed my town to get rocketed at random I'd vote the ****ers out. I don't care if it was Palestinians, martians, or rotarians!

Edited July 18, 2014 by Walsingham

[Rostere]

Against the rules of war too, viz collective punishment "Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited." The whole GCIV wikipedia article is worth a read actually, since it makes it pretty obvious that Israel is not following its provisions much at all.

 

Also the bombing policy is pretty dumb because they claim too much accuracy, and those things always end up with massive holes after meeting reality. We already had a bunch of people with cerebral palsy getting blown up because someone from Islamic Jihad supposedly lived in the building 3+ years ago and groups of militant Hamas operatives who were actually 10 year olds getting blown up on the beach in front of international journalists, too many of those (and assuming they actually get reported) and the whole narrative falls apart rapidly.

 

Spot on.

 

And even if the above were true, what does that make the guys firing rockets at Israel? What does that make people who believe in using military force against Israel?

 

I can't say this enough... I don't track this issue and I don't have a side. But portraying the Gazans as innocent concentration camp victims is bs. It's not that simple, and I suggest anyone who tries to convince you of that notion is simply trying to manipulate you.

 

No side is perhaps ever 100% innocent in any conflict, by defining "innocence" not as a discrete variable but over a continuous spectrum.

 

But by portraying of the conflict between Gazan terrorists and Israel as a conflict between two equals, who are roughly equally culpable, you risk becoming a "useful idiot", like the teacher who puts both the bully and the victim in detention "because it's never one person's fault that two people are quarrelling". One party consists of 1,6 million people (a small angry subgroup of which fire home-made rockets), most of which has been ethnically cleansed from their homeland by the other party, recent immigrants who are sponsored each year with 3 billion dollars worth of weapons by the USA, which they use to protect themselves while they continually steal land from the other party.

 

I think we both agree that the bombing of Dresden was perhaps barbaric and unnecessary, but it would still be absolutely ridiculous to hold Britain equally culpable for WW2 as Germany. So it's entirely possible that one part commits an atrocity, but still has the moral high ground over another party. The fact that both parts do bad stuff does not translate to that they are equally culpable. The difference of what Hamas (which does not represent all Palestinians...) has been doing to Israel and what Israel has been doing to all Palestinians for over 50 years now is one of several orders of magnitude. It's the same tendency of someone commenting that "You shouldn't say that the Jews were completely defenceless during WW2... They did organize the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, you know". Yes, technically correct, but completely misleading.

 

Nobody has been saying that Palestinians are innocent angels who have never hurt a fly. I'm just saying that, say, if China designated your homeland to be the homeland of Muslim Uyghurs (or Pakistanis, or whatever...), and if these later arrived to evict you and everyone you know from England to declare their "Muslim nation" there in place of what was there before, all with the tacit approval of the current world powers, then you would think you'd have the right to resist that with violence, I'm 100% sure. And I know of several right-wing members of this forum who are saying they support Israel, who I'm sure would never stand being ethnically cleansed to make place for the "chosen people" to live on their "promised land" (whatever land or people that might be) without a fight.

 

In current events, as you probably all know by now, the conflict has taken another shocking and unexpected turn of events: the first Israeli has now been killed by a Hamas mortar, an IDF soldier close to the Gazan border. Meanwhile, 246 Palestinians have been killed, most of them civilians, in Israeli efforts to demolish houses and infrastructure. 246-1.

[BruceVC]

 

Against the rules of war too, viz collective punishment "Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited." The whole GCIV wikipedia article is worth a read actually, since it makes it pretty obvious that Israel is not following its provisions much at all.

 

Also the bombing policy is pretty dumb because they claim too much accuracy, and those things always end up with massive holes after meeting reality. We already had a bunch of people with cerebral palsy getting blown up because someone from Islamic Jihad supposedly lived in the building 3+ years ago and groups of militant Hamas operatives who were actually 10 year olds getting blown up on the beach in front of international journalists, too many of those (and assuming they actually get reported) and the whole narrative falls apart rapidly.

 

Spot on.

 

And even if the above were true, what does that make the guys firing rockets at Israel? What does that make people who believe in using military force against Israel?

 

I can't say this enough... I don't track this issue and I don't have a side. But portraying the Gazans as innocent concentration camp victims is bs. It's not that simple, and I suggest anyone who tries to convince you of that notion is simply trying to manipulate you.

 

No side is perhaps ever 100% innocent in any conflict, by defining "innocence" not as a discrete variable but over a continuous spectrum.

 

But by portraying of the conflict between Gazan terrorists and Israel as a conflict between two equals, who are roughly equally culpable, you risk becoming a "useful idiot", like the teacher who puts both the bully and the victim in detention "because it's never one person's fault that two people are quarrelling". One party consists of 1,6 million people (a small angry subgroup of which fire home-made rockets), most of which has been ethnically cleansed from their homeland by the other party, recent immigrants who are sponsored each year with 3 billion dollars worth of weapons by the USA, which they use to protect themselves while they continually steal land from the other party.

 

I think we both agree that the bombing of Dresden was perhaps barbaric and unnecessary, but it would still be absolutely ridiculous to hold Britain equally culpable for WW2 as Germany. So it's entirely possible that one part commits an atrocity, but still has the moral high ground over another party. The fact that both parts do bad stuff does not translate to that they are equally culpable. The difference of what Hamas (which does not represent all Palestinians...) has been doing to Israel and what Israel has been doing to all Palestinians for over 50 years now is one of several orders of magnitude. It's the same tendency of someone commenting that "You shouldn't say that the Jews were completely defenceless during WW2... They did organize the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, you know". Yes, technically correct, but completely misleading.

 

Nobody has been saying that Palestinians are innocent angels who have never hurt a fly. I'm just saying that, say, if China designated your homeland to be the homeland of Muslim Uyghurs (or Pakistanis, or whatever...), and if these later arrived to evict you and everyone you know from England to declare their "Muslim nation" there in place of what was there before, all with the tacit approval of the current world powers, then you would think you'd have the right to resist that with violence, I'm 100% sure. And I know of several right-wing members of this forum who are saying they support Israel, who I'm sure would never stand being ethnically cleansed to make place for the "chosen people" to live on their "promised land" (whatever land or people that might be) without a fight.

 

In current events, as you probably all know by now, the conflict has taken another shocking and unexpected turn of events: the first Israeli has now been killed by a Hamas mortar, an IDF soldier close to the Gazan border. Meanwhile, 246 Palestinians have been killed, most of them civilians, in Israeli efforts to demolish houses and infrastructure. 246-1.

 

 

That's a good post and raises some irrefutable considerations

 

But let me ask you two different questions, firstly anyone who is trying to be reasonable in this debate needs to recognise that there is massive difference in loss of Palestinian and Israeli causalities. 4 ( counting the 3 Israeli teenagers ) vs 250 so your immediate response may be "wow that just highlights the heavy handiness of the Israelis and there complete disregard for human life "

 

But Hamas fires there rockets knowingly from densely populated areas where there citizens live. I am of the opinion that Hamas knows that there will heavy casualties and part of there strategy is to use the loss of lives as propaganda and to generate support and sympathy. But who is really to blame for the loss of lives? Israel which we know will retaliate or Hamas for creating a situation where the only outcome will be loss of civilian lives as that is where the rockers get fired from?

 

Also Hamas still has not recognised that Israel has a right to exist, so how do you negotiate with such intransigence ?

[Rostere]

But let me ask you two different questions, firstly anyone who is trying to be reasonable in this debate needs to recognise that there is massive difference in loss of Palestinian and Israeli causalities. 4 ( counting the 3 Israeli teenagers ) vs 250 so your immediate response may be "wow that just highlights the heavy handiness of the Israelis and there complete disregard for human life "

 

The three kidnapped teenagers have nothing to do with Hamas.

 

 

But Hamas fires there rockets knowingly from densely populated areas where there citizens live. I am of the opinion that Hamas knows that there will heavy casualties and part of there strategy is to use the loss of lives as propaganda and to generate support and sympathy. But who is really to blame for the loss of lives? Israel which we know will retaliate or Hamas for creating a situation where the only outcome will be loss of civilian lives as that is where the rockers get fired from?

Also Hamas still has not recognised that Israel has a right to exist, so how do you negotiate with such intransigence ?

 

Israel is primarily not targeting any rockets. You know, these ("Qassam" homebrew rockets) are small things which are as easy to set up as a mortar. If Israel say they their attacks on civilians have anything to do with rocket attacks, that means they are firing on houses near sources of rocket fire, when the Hamas members who fired the rockets have already ran away. Alternatively, which seems to be their current way of doing this, Israel will bomb houses they think someone who has fired rockets has entered. Hamas is typically not firing their rockets from inside houses if that is what you think

 

If I say I will kill all your relatives if another, unrelated, South African fires a rocket from somewhere in your neighbourhood which lands outside my house, who is the murderer when I kill all your relatives? I would leave you to answer that question.

 

Hamas is an extremist organization. I don't particularly care about their specific beliefs as I don't support them. They are a symptom of the terrible conditions in Gaza and the tragic Palestinian recent history.

 

Nelson Mandela was a "despicable terrorist" before his release and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa (and yes, I'm sure there were lots of rotten eggs in the ANC). Israel was founded by terrorists who drove out the British by killing both soldiers and civilians. Ireland gained independence while terrorists were fighting for it. Hitler was a vegetarian. The Black Panthers fought against racism against blacks in the US. Whenever there is a fight, there is also going to be both nice guys and idiots who are fighting. Before this whole debacle, Hamas had an approval rating of about 20%. Their last spike of popularity was in connection to Israel's last violent streak in Gaza. Focussing on idiotic things Hamas have said is that saying blacks can't have equal rights because the Black Panthers are a violent group. You must ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS focus on the injustices, not who is fighting for what.

 

Focusing on a statement about a country's "right to exist" is a red herring. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship - I don't support it's right to exist. Israel is an ethnocracy built on the expulsion of "unwanted" natives - I don't support it's right to exist. BUT, this is only with regards to the states as concepts. I sympathize with the poor people who live in these nations and who are forced to endure the complete bull**** of these countries every day. Saying that you don't support a country's "right to exist" makes it sound like if you are going to procure a wizard's hat and just make the country and all it's inhabitants disappear. Obviously there are people in Hamas who would like to kick out of Palestine as many Jews as they can, but supporting or not supporting a country's right to exist is not fundamentally a problem.

 

I am completely cool with anyone saying that they don't support the "right of Israel to exist as a colonial settler-state in it's current form". I am not at all cool with anyone who says they don't support the "right of Israel's citizens to exist". But those are fundamentally different things, and Hamas should be pressed only on the latter point. Forcing them to agree to Israel's right to exist, without specifying what they mean by that, is like forcing Gandhi to recognize the British Empire (note the latter word) to exist. Obviously he wouldn't, because he didn't support colonialism and imperialism. But that does not mean he would not recognize the right of any Englishman to exist. This is all really just mostly a silly fight over the exact meaning of a sentence.

 

Personally, I would support a party who is prepared to 1) recognize equal rights of all people, regardless of ethnicity and religion 2) recognize that no people has an inherent right to any piece of land 3) recognize that in recent history, Israel has been brutally occupying and uprooting Palestinians and stealing their land, and this wound has to be healed.

[BruceVC]

 

But let me ask you two different questions, firstly anyone who is trying to be reasonable in this debate needs to recognise that there is massive difference in loss of Palestinian and Israeli causalities. 4 ( counting the 3 Israeli teenagers ) vs 250 so your immediate response may be "wow that just highlights the heavy handiness of the Israelis and there complete disregard for human life "

 

The three kidnapped teenagers have nothing to do with Hamas.

 

 

But Hamas fires there rockets knowingly from densely populated areas where there citizens live. I am of the opinion that Hamas knows that there will heavy casualties and part of there strategy is to use the loss of lives as propaganda and to generate support and sympathy. But who is really to blame for the loss of lives? Israel which we know will retaliate or Hamas for creating a situation where the only outcome will be loss of civilian lives as that is where the rockers get fired from?

Also Hamas still has not recognised that Israel has a right to exist, so how do you negotiate with such intransigence ?

 

Israel is primarily not targeting any rockets. You know, these ("Qassam" homebrew rockets) are small things which are as easy to set up as a mortar. If Israel say they their attacks on civilians have anything to do with rocket attacks, that means they are firing on houses near sources of rocket fire, when the Hamas members who fired the rockets have already ran away. Alternatively, which seems to be their current way of doing this, Israel will bomb houses they think someone who has fired rockets has entered. Hamas is typically not firing their rockets from inside houses if that is what you think

 

If I say I will kill all your relatives if another, unrelated, South African fires a rocket from somewhere in your neighbourhood which lands outside my house, who is the murderer when I kill all your relatives? I would leave you to answer that question.

 

Hamas is an extremist organization. I don't particularly care about their specific beliefs as I don't support them. They are a symptom of the terrible conditions in Gaza and the tragic Palestinian recent history.

 

Nelson Mandela was a "despicable terrorist" before his release and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa (and yes, I'm sure there were lots of rotten eggs in the ANC). Israel was founded by terrorists who drove out the British by killing both soldiers and civilians. Ireland gained independence while terrorists were fighting for it. Hitler was a vegetarian. The Black Panthers fought against racism against blacks in the US. Whenever there is a fight, there is also going to be both nice guys and idiots who are fighting. Before this whole debacle, Hamas had an approval rating of about 20%. Their last spike of popularity was in connection to Israel's last violent streak in Gaza. Focussing on idiotic things Hamas have said is that saying blacks can't have equal rights because the Black Panthers are a violent group. You must ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS focus on the injustices, not who is fighting for what.

 

Focusing on a statement about a country's "right to exist" is a red herring. North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship - I don't support it's right to exist. Israel is an ethnocracy built on the expulsion of "unwanted" natives - I don't support it's right to exist. BUT, this is only with regards to the states as concepts. I sympathize with the poor people who live in these nations and who are forced to endure the complete bull**** of these countries every day. Saying that you don't support a country's "right to exist" makes it sound like if you are going to procure a wizard's hat and just make the country and all it's inhabitants disappear. Obviously there are people in Hamas who would like to kick out of Palestine as many Jews as they can, but supporting or not supporting a country's right to exist is not fundamentally a problem.

 

I am completely cool with anyone saying that they don't support the "right of Israel to exist as a colonial settler-state in it's current form". I am not at all cool with anyone who says they don't support the "right of Israel's citizens to exist". But those are fundamentally different things, and Hamas should be pressed only on the latter point. Forcing them to agree to Israel's right to exist, without specifying what they mean by that, is like forcing Gandhi to recognize the British Empire (note the latter word) to exist. Obviously he wouldn't, because he didn't support colonialism and imperialism. But that does not mean he would not recognize the right of any Englishman to exist. This is all really just mostly a silly fight over the exact meaning of a sentence.

 

Personally, I would support a party who is prepared to 1) recognize equal rights of all people, regardless of ethnicity and religion 2) recognize that no people has an inherent right to any piece of land 3) recognize that in recent history, Israel has been brutally occupying and uprooting Palestinians and stealing their land, and this wound has to be healed.

 

 

You have made some thought provoking points

 

I guess the issue around the Israeli reaction to what Hamas is doing is collective punishment which doesn't help the situation, how does Israel select the buildings that they bomb? I was under the impression these were places where rockets were being fired from?

[TrashMan]

 

 

No justification ever? Use wild exaggeration much?

 

Allowing for the fact that you're obviously generalising for some weird rhetorical impact, you're still talking rubbish. Israel should just allow rocket attacks on its territory because their population have TVs and fridge-freezers? If my government allowed my town to get rocketed at random I'd vote the ****ers out. I don't care if it was Palestinians, martians, or rotarians!

 

 

1. Nope. I'm not. No justification. Period.

 

2. Are you implying the only way for Isreal to do anything is to bomb the living s*** out of innocent civilians? There is a such a thing as an "appropriate response".

Isreal is already shooting down about 99% of rockets coming their way. THAT is the definition of doing something.

 

Their "strategy" (if you can call it that) is insane and not working.

 

[TrashMan]

 

 

But Hamas fires there rockets knowingly from densely populated areas where there citizens live. I am of the opinion that Hamas knows that there will heavy casualties and part of there strategy is to use the loss of lives as propaganda and to generate support and sympathy. But who is really to blame for the loss of lives? Israel which we know will retaliate or Hamas for creating a situation where the only outcome will be loss of civilian lives as that is where the rockers get fired from?

 

Also Hamas still has not recognised that Israel has a right to exist, so how do you negotiate with such intransigence ?

 

 

False. What you claim is a fallacy.

No on is forcing Israel to bomb houses. To claim tis' the ONLY outcome and that someone else is responsible for you pulling the trigger is nothing more than guilt projection.

"You made me do it" is the worst argument when it's clear that you didn't really have to do it.

Are you honestly claiming that bombing the area the rocket came from the the ONLY reasonable response one can take? Really?

By using THAT logic Isreal FORCED those people to shoot the rockets. Wanna go further down the guilt chain?

 

 

Also, palestinans are not Hamas.

 

[Malcador]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/cnn-diana-magnay-israel-gaza_n_5598866.html

 

Silly to remove her for that.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But Hamas fires there rockets knowingly from densely populated areas where there citizens live. I am of the opinion that Hamas knows that there will heavy casualties and part of there strategy is to use the loss of lives as propaganda and to generate support and sympathy. But who is really to blame for the loss of lives? Israel which we know will retaliate or Hamas for creating a situation where the only outcome will be loss of civilian lives as that is where the rockers get fired from?

 

Also Hamas still has not recognised that Israel has a right to exist, so how do you negotiate with such intransigence ?

 

 

False. What you claim is a fallacy.

No on is forcing Israel to bomb houses. To claim tis' the ONLY outcome and that someone else is responsible for you pulling the trigger is nothing more than guilt projection.

"You made me do it" is the worst argument when it's clear that you didn't really have to do it.

Are you honestly claiming that bombing the area the rocket came from the the ONLY reasonable response one can take? Really?

By using THAT logic Isreal FORCED those people to shoot the rockets. Wanna go further down the guilt chain?

 

 

Also, palestinans are not Hamas.

 

 

 

I agree with you in the sense the bombings are not the right strategy. They should have sent in ground troops,  more difficult for them but ultimately the right way to minimize casualties

[HoonDing]

I agree Israel's retaliation is usually excessive. For each Palestinian rocket ending up in Israeli territory, Israel should merely fire a rocket back. A Patriot rocket.

[Gromnir]

 

so? all o' your wikilinks is very nice and yet still extreme misleading. what is with you people and statistics and maps?

 

By misleading you mean "they don't show what you want". The statistics themselves simply are what they are and you were happy enough to use them when you thought they showed what you wanted, that they don't actually show what you want is unfortunate, for you, but that's all.

 

There are very good reasons for using stats and maps with properly defined regions; it's far more rigorous and objective than appeal to emotion and what any person wishes was true. If you run around arbitrarily defining demographic areas based on particular agenda you can 'prove' just about anything you want, right down to the Armenian family down the road having an ethnic majority in their area, so 32 Jones Street shall now be known as the Republic of Armenia Really Minor heretofore.

 

how on earth is you gonna come up with a jewish partition that isn't based on ethnicity? did that make sense in your head? 

 

Easy, I wouldn't have a partition.

 

by “misleading” we mean that your green (arabs… not palestinians as there has never been a palestiain state… ever. ) v. white (jew) maps is obfuscating or ignoring many obvious facts. the pre 1947 maps show jewish property ownership accurately, but anything not owned by jews shows up as green. now, considering that by all accounts near 50% o’ all land in the british mandate were uninhabitable, the suggestion that all the green area were owned by arabs is ludicrous. who the hell pays for uninhabitable lands? the previous owner o’ such undeveloped and largely useless lands is the State: british, ottomans, romans, assyrians, babylonians, etc. also, a considerable amount o’ land in the british mandate were owned by non-arabs. there were brits, french and even turks who still owned land and business in the mandate.  so, your map is misleading ‘cause it is missing at least one additional color to represent State owned land and/or land owned by non-arabs and non-jews.  grey? grey is a nice neutral color, yes? more than ½ of the pre 1947 green v. white maps would be grey if we is looking for accurate property ownership at the time.

 

as for not having partitions, that were considered by the UN.   both jews and arabs had been promised the opportunity for self-determination within the area o’ the british mandate. 1/3 of the population in the british mandate were jewish by 1946. the UN did not have complete faith in either the arabs or the jews insofar as protecting the other group’s civil liberties. so, how does you protect jews in the mandate from arabs? how does you protect arabs from jews in the mandate? yeah, the UN and british coulda’ both pulled out and let the chips fall as they may… which is actually what functionally happened anyway. the brits left and every arab nation bordering the mandate invaded with the intention of reducing the jewish population o’ palestine to 0.  no partition results in what we got today, ‘cause the partition were never actual implemented. so… congrats and well-played?

 

the un folks back in 1946 had an impossible task to accomplish in 3 months: come up with a plan that would result in long-term peace and prosperity in the lands o’ the british mandate. economically, the jewish presence appeared to be a boon to the local economy—arabs and jews alike benefited from jewish improvements to infrastructure and manufacturing. unfortunately, there were great hostility between the jews and arabs and the fact that the brits had failed to live up to promises made to both ethnic groups resulted in increased tensions.  there were more than 200,000 jewish refugees confined to camps in Europe and nobody in Europe wanted them. at the same time, between late 1800s and mid 1940s, over seven million jews had been murdered—allowing a similar bloodbath to occur in the middle east were not considered a particularly moral option.  partition were considered the best option, but even the UN folks and the brits (who played the role o’ pontius pilate in this little drama) were dubious that any plan would succeed.

 

palestine did not belong to the arabs in 1946. it hadn’t belonged to the arabs for a Long time. similarly, the jewish claims o’ right to the lands near jerusalem were equal remote and tenuous. lots o’ promises were made to two groups o’ people living in the same geographic area and those two ethnic groups hated each other… and still do. 

 

the current problems is kinda predictable. hamas has not had any kinda majority support o' the arabs in gaza or the west bank and their influence with young arabs has decreased steadily. hamas needed something to galvanize support. at the same time, israel is trigger-happy. is some historical justification for their anxiety and suspicion, but that not change the fact that the israeli attempts to make peace seem more like pro-forma actions meant to appease supporters in the west. yeah, hamas were rather stupid to be looking for a fight, but they were doing so for political survival. at the same time, israel were looking for an excuse to bloody hamas and other organizations in gaza. no surprises.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/world/africa/sudan-woman-freed/

 

jews and christians alike doesn't fare particularly well in muslim arab states. leaving jews to the tender mercies o' the arab majority doesn't strike you as perhaps a bit myopic?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gorgon]

 

 

 

 

Couple of instant knock backs:

 

1) Rockets are artillery.

2) It's "Command and control" not "in control"

 

And even if the above were true, what does that make the guys firing rockets at Israel? What does that make people who believe in using military force against Israel?

 

I can't say this enough... I don't track this issue and I don't have a side. But portraying the Gazans as innocent concentration camp victims is bs. It's not that simple, and I suggest anyone who tries to convince you of that notion is simply trying to manipulate you.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right and he isn't portraying one side as 'innocent'. When it comes to inflicting civilian casualties the Isralies have the lead though. Of course that matters when considering the whole picture.

 

It's 312 palestinean casualties to 2 Israli this time around apparently. Hard to say how many were non combatants but given the method it's likely to be a majority.  When you see this repeated time and time again the distinction between terror attack and reprisal starts to become irrelevant. 

[Gromnir]

body count is a silly measure. the israelis had more casualties than did the palestinians in 1947 even after the arab invasion. so, does that mean that the israelis had moral high ground back then, but now they don't? is same issues now as then, yes? before the six days war, multiple arab nations put a total o' over 300k troops on the israeli boarder, shelled multiple israeli settlements with artillery and the leaders o' jordan, syria and egypt all called for the extermination o' jews in palestine. heck, egypt cut off shipping access to the red sea, which were as much an act o' war as anything else. nevertheless, the idf beat the snot outta the arabs in 1967. so, the israelis were the moral victors in 1947 'cause they had more jewish corpses to bury, but after 1967 they finally became the bad guys 'cause they finally surged ahead in body count. does that make sense?

 

1,663 rockets have been launched from gaza in recent weeks. iron dome is a missile defense system that is, according to experts, 70% effective at destroying incoming rockets. yeah, the gaza rocket attacks is random and not targeting specific buildings or any such as they don't have that capability, but it is only by the most extreme good fortune that no rocket attack has hit israelis thus far. should israel wait til they is hit before they respond? how many successful rocket attacks is needed before the idf were allowed to use airstrikes as a response? those airstrikes didn't work to stop the rocket attacks btw, so does that mean isaelis shoulda' waited longer before using ineffectual airstrikes, or should they have immediately gone with sending troops into gaza? am confused. 

 

3 israeli kids is murdered. 1 palestinian kid is burned alive in response. the israelis actual did investigate the murder o' the palestinian kid, but riots ensue and israeli police is injured. predictably, palestinians is also injured in the riots. who were the bad guys at this point? 

 

the palestinians start firing rockets from gaza and the israelis respond with airstrikes.  at what point is it ok for israel to respond? how long would US have waited to respond if a group were shooting rockets at American cities? egypt brokered a cease-fire which israel honored. the palestinians did not. this isn't shocking as the command/control o' hamas and other organizations is laughable, but regardless, the palestians kept firing rockets while the isarealis waited out the night. who were bad guys at this point?

 

the israelis are better trained, have better equipment and apparently have better intelligence than does the palestinians. is not surprising that the palestinians, who is attacking from mobs or densely populated civilian areas and have none o' the aforementioned advantages we mentioned, is gonna be suffering more casualties. 

 

we noted above that we thinks the israelis is trigger-happy. ever since the last time the idf put boots down in gaza, they have been looking for an excuse to go at it again-- lord only knows why. occupying gaza were a tactical and strategic blunder and the israelis no doubt learned from their mistakes. hamas claimed that they also learned, but so far that don't appear to be true. 

 

regardless, body count is a stupid measuring stick. am not even certain when you start the count or how. did 9/11 give the US freedom to kill 3,000 terrorists? less than 100 o' those killed in 9/11 were military personnel. does that mean that the US had justification to kill 30 arab civilians for every terrorist to adequate balance the body count?  

 

sorry, but bodies is a ridiculous measure. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps chomsky might wanna rethink his comments. prisoners o' war is afforded far more rights than is terrorists. 

Edited July 19, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gorgon]

I'm talking about civilian casualties here, which are entirely predictable. I don't subscribe to the notion that Palestinean civilians deserve what's comming to them because of the terror attacks. IF we were talking about two armies squaring up against eachother then it would measure who was the most effective, but that's not the case now is it. Israel claims to have reduced Hamas' rocket capacity by 33%. In other words, next to nothing has been achieved. How many months of building rockets in basements is that ?.

 

In the final analysis Israli response ends up being pointless punitive strikes, a price Hamas will gladly pay if they think it will improve their bargaining position.

[TrashMan]

 

body count is a silly measure.

 

 

Out of context, everything is.

 

[Gromnir]

I'm talking about civilian casualties here, which are entirely predictable. I don't subscribe to the notion that Palestinean civilians deserve what's comming to them because of the terror attacks. IF we were talking about two armies squaring up against eachother then it would measure who was the most effective, but that's not the case now is it. Israel claims to have reduced Hamas' rocket capacity by 33%. In other words, next to nothing has been achieved. How many months of building rockets in basements is that ?.

 

In the final analysis Israli response ends up being pointless punitive strikes, a price Hamas will gladly pay if they think it will improve their bargaining position.

am not certain how you is coming to conclusions.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/gaza-civilians-actually-reject-hamas-policies-2014-7

 

hamas is not politically strong at the moment. yes, a core group will be galvanized by the recent tragedies, but just as many palestinians will be even more angered by the actions o' hamas. israeli airstrikes in gaza and civilian casualties is being blamed on hamas almost as much as they is being blamed on israel. furthermore, you ignore pressures from the israeli populace. as an israeli, how many consecutive nights do you spend in air-raid shelters and bunkers before you demand military action? a couple days? a week? israelis were forced to do something even if it were largely impotent. 'course what israeli's no doubt really wanted is what the got: a legitimate reason to put down boots in gaza.  that 33% diminished rocket capacity is nothing compared to the value israel is getting from the current operation. they is now able to destroy tunnels and the limited infrastructure o' terror hamas has. they is also able to hunt down individual hamas leaders and exterminate them.

 

more significant to Gromnir at the moment is how bloodless this operation is for the israelis. a large number o' israeli casualties would not sit well with the israeli people. one reason the idf needed to endure so much o' the rocket nonsense is that the last few gaza operations did not sit well with israeli voters. nevertheless, hamas were planning for this and provoking it-- claimed that they were prepared this time. well guess what, the idf is going into gaza with no intention of holding territory, but surgically cutting out hamas assets, and they is doing so with a ridiculous small loss o' life on their part. yeah, it doesn't look like the folks in gaza have full iraninan support this time, but there is no doubt more than a few American generals who will be studying this operation so as to get some pointers on how to execute urban warfare operations-- just so long as things continue as they currently is. 

 

am disagreeing that this is pointless from israeli pov. every time israeli citizens went running for shelters, the likelihood increased that a greater idf response would become a political necessity for israel. furthermore, the israelis have been hoping for this since 2008-2009. they gots a very good idea where tunnels and hamas leaders is and they has been looking for an opportunity to get into gaza and eliminate resources. that being said, we kinda agree that this were pointless for hamas, but we s'pose it were political necessary from their pov too.

 

"Out of context, everything is."

 

is that meant as irony? you were the first guy in this thread promoting the body count test. but we agree, without context the body counts is meaningless... which is why we provided some.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

btw, as israel has already committed ground troops, we suspect the operation ends only when israel feels they has achieved objectives o' tunnel destruction and crippling o' other hamas resources, or when israeli casualties get too high. idf pressure in gaza will force hamas to utilize tunnels they were trying to keep secret, which only plays into israeli hands. attacking and injuring israelis from secret tunnels not only reveals their location, but also reveals the magnitude o' the tunnel threat. that being said, if idf casualties do mount, it will be difficult to maintain this operation in the face o' pressure from israeli citizens. palestinian casualties, many of whom will be civilian, is largely a non-factor unless those numbers threaten to eclipse 2008 totals. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 20, 2014 by Gromnir

[JadedWolf]

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, he told reporters last week in remarks that largely have been overlooked.

 

“There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan," he said July 11 at a press conference. But if Israel doesn't relinquish security control, Palestinians cannot establish a state. The alternative, then, would be a single state in which Palestinians are residents but not full citizens.

 

[...]

 

None of this should be terribly surprising, as Netanyahu had long opposed a two-state solution before his recent engagement with the Obama administration on the issue. Of course, while he was supposedly negotiating a two-state solution in good faith, his administration doubled settlements in the West Bank and created a far-right-wing governing coalition largely opposed to a Palestinian state."

 

So, in short, it is confirmed what was earlier plain to see for anyone. Israeli politicians never believed in a two state solution and have only been playing along to get the international community off their backs. What they envision is one Jewish state in which Arabs are second class citizens.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html?utm_hp_ref=world

Edited July 20, 2014 by JadedWolf

[Meshugger]

So, i have you guys figured out a peaceful solution yet? Or are we back to the neverending torrent "He said; no she said"-arguments?

[JadedWolf]

So, i have you guys figured out a peaceful solution yet? Or are we back to the neverending torrent "He said; no she said"-arguments?

 

The sad fact is that peace in the middle east cannot be enforced by a third party. Both sides need to want peace, and given their political choices it is clear neither side really desires peace.

 

So no, we here on the Obsidian board can't come up with a peaceful solution.

[TrashMan]

is that meant as irony? you were the first guy in this thread promoting the body count test. but we agree, without context the body counts is meaningless... which is why we provided some.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Except Gromnir, your context is crap.

 

You cannot compare a bunch of disgruntled, desperate, stupid people with limited support and technical cababilities with a formal, well-equipped, modern military of a "democratic" government (that ignores every UN resolution never)

You said it yourself that hamas doesn't have the ability to fire those rockets accurately. The ways in which hamas can fight, given Israels security and military might, is very limited indeed.

Terrorism is generally NOT the first choice of action for people.

Israels behavior and policies are a breeding ground for desperate people with a desire to strike back. But no reals means to do so.

 

Israel is keeping the Gaza strip a miserable place, by bombing it to stone age periodically. Or did you fail to notice how civilian infrastructure (power, water, factories, roads) seem to take the biggest hit in each "intervention"?

[Mor]

@Gorgon, What was entirely predictable, is that Hamas --the Islamic radicals, that has set off this mini-war-- strategy would involve using Israeli civilians as target practice for its rocket\mortar barrages, while deliberately using their own civilians as human shields to protect its military targets against Israeli pinpoint attacks, and use the subsequent civilian casualties to wage a public relations war.

 

 

I am surprised that a more cynical person hasn't yet created a game out of this, where you get points for telegenical kills i.e. hiding arms in house 10 points, schools(20), hospitals(30), mosques(50). Bonus points for extra bloody TV coverage and extravagant funeral.. maybe double bonus for using kids.. - I hope its because everyone find this Hamas "game" to be sick.

 

 

Also I find your idea of "proportionality" as a moral guideline, being measured by body count bizarre\retarded. However, for the sake of the argument: I don't suppose that you subscribe to the notion that Palestinean any civilians deserve what's coming to them and you yourself stated that Hamas will gladly sacrifice Palestinian lives to achieve its goals. So what exactly do think an appropriate Israel response should be in defense of its civilian population, while Hamas (and other terrorist groups under their control) raining rockets down on them whenever they wish, with the only time that relative peace has been achieved, was when Hamas wanted it, which coincided with devastating blows to its power base by Israel? surelly you don't subscribe to the idea that Israel must protect Palestinian civilians at the cost of abandoning her own? For that matter how do you even compare the deliberate action use and targeting of civilians, and reactions which use the best measures that money can buy to avoid civilians casualties?

Edited July 20, 2014 by Mor

[Gorgon]

What the hells is bizarre about trying to calculate civilian casualties. Military planners do that all the time. Why is that 'irrelevant' all of a sudden.

 

IDF went up in their helicopters and marked everything that vaugely looked like a tripod for launching the homemade rockets and hit them with missiles and artillery. This resulted in what would be deemed uncacceptable civilian casualties anywhere else, but because it's Gaza everyone just thinks 'business as usual'.