Israel vs Palestine

[Mor]

The bizarre and don't forget retarded part that I spoke off, wasn't about "keeping score", but you using it to imply about "proportionality" or as "moral guideline" for Israel response. Which should be obvious to anyone, but it might be clearer to you, if you try and answer the simple questions that I put forward for you, instead of pulling accusation out of your ass.

 

"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.

[...]

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.

The only plain thing here is that you are an idiot, because only an idiot can think that Israel is looking forward to one state solution and this being anything but taken out of context. I won't even bother googling that speech, to confirm that this Netanyahu guy, has been reinforcing Israels long standing security concerns. Which I might add, are very valid, in light of recent events there and the region at large, with Israel trying to avoid a fool me twice scenario.

 

Also second class citizens?! definitely and idiot. One state solution would mean that Palestinians will get the same rights as all arab in Israel, which is equal rights, in fact just before that I read that Arab PM stated support for Hamas\Palestinians, you'd never see anything remotely of the sort among the Hamas bigots. Its like comparing Europe to Saudi Arabbi in terms of human rights.

 

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"?

But, did you failed to notice that Palestinians has been divided for the past seven years, with Hamas rule in Gaza, and Fatah in the West Bank. That Israel intervention only occur in GAZA, after Hamas --who unlike Fatah refuse to recognize Israel, recolonize international agreements and forsake violence-- or any other terrorist group under its rule escalate the situation with barrage of rockets on Israel civilian population. While people in WestBank has no such interventions ( iirc the have laid down the foundation for the first Palestinian city and there were some talk of railway ) Edited July 20, 2014 by Mor

[JadedWolf]

 

The only plain thing here is that you are an idiot [...]

 

Hey there, welcome to the world beyond kindergarten, where we actually use arguments rather than calling people names to try and make our points!

[Gorgon]

Yeah, it does kinda get to the point where you don't want to engage him because he doesn't know how to have a discussion without calling people ****. 

A certain bare minimum of civility is needed. I don't get insulted by what people write on the internet, but it is undeniably annoying. 

[Gromnir]

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?

good question

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/259597/sorry-there-is-no-solution-to-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict

 

is a goodish summation.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

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"?

 

is as much the case that hamas is keeping gaza a miserable place. 

 

and the fact that rockets is inaccurate doesn't change the fact that they is being fired into israeli settlements from palestinian civilian homes, business, schools, places o' worship, etc. the v-1 and v-2 rockets that dropped on england weren't accurate either. accuracy is not a serious issue, is it?  hell, it makes more difficult for israeli civilians to prepare as they has no idea whatsoever where next rocket will drop. and as an israeli politician it is political suicide to just sit back and allow your people to be chased into shelters and bunkers on a daily basis. 

 

but again, israelis ain't blameless here. we suspect that they ain't been genuine 'bout finding a peaceful solution that would benefit both sides for over a decade.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am suggesting caution: you don't seem to realize that your perspective is functional legitimizing any and all terrorist organizations.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Yeah, it does kinda get to the point where you don't want to engage him because he doesn't know how to have a discussion without calling people ****.

A certain bare minimum of civility is needed. I don't get insulted by what people write on the internet, but it is undeniably annoying.

Blue oby.

[Walsingham]

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"?

 

 

You really do have some fascinating notions about terrorism. Terrorism isn't apolitical position, it's a military tactic, like cavalry charges. Anyone can use it.

 

Terrorism, that is the application of weak military force against undefended targets, is nothing more or less than a tactic used by those _with weak military forces_.

 

For some reason I've never understood  this has become moulinexed in popular culture to denote plucky underdogs. But an _alternative_ way to have weak military forces is to possess limited political appeal, be incapable of offering any meaningful state apparatus, and lack any better ideas.

 

In short you can be a terrorist because you're a plucky hero, but you can also be one if you're just a c***.

[TrashMan]

 

ps am suggesting caution: you don't seem to realize that your perspective is functional legitimizing any and all terrorist organizations.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not legitimizing nothing.

I said I understand why people resort to such actions. That means just that an nothing more.

 

 

 

 

By Walshingham

You really do have some fascinating notions about terrorism. Terrorism isn't apolitical position, it's a military tactic, like cavalry charges. Anyone can use it.

 

Terrorism, that is the application of weak military force against undefended targets, is nothing more or less than a tactic used by those _with weak military forces_.

 

And yet it's only use by those with not enough might to fight a real war.

Not even a gerilla one - which would be what you're thinking about and a smart choice. But problem is when you can't make any meaningful dent on the enemy military.

I do not speak of morality, but on the conditions that cause people to take up terrorism.

[Gromnir]

 

 

ps am suggesting caution: you don't seem to realize that your perspective is functional legitimizing any and all terrorist organizations.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not legitimizing nothing.

I said I understand why people resort to such actions. That means just that an nothing more.

 

 

...

 

am confused. perhaps you should quit hiding behind double-talk and self-deception. clearly you sympathize with palestinians in gaza. no worries there as Gromnir also sympathizes. is tragic what hamas and israel has brought about. hamas wanted another intafada. israel wanted an excuse to crush hamas. bad on both sides, but let us please review lest you talk yourself in circles yet again.

 

you mention body count numbers as significant.

 

Gromnir observes that while body count is an objective measure, it ignores the tactics o' hamas and the current situation. hamas tactics include, but is not limited to the following: fire over 1,700 rockets random into israeli lands, used tunnels to attack israeli civilians and soldiers, fired weapons from densely populated areas, tell own citizens Not to evacuate, destroy donated infrastructure resources (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9331863/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/looters-strip-gaza-greenhouses/) while instead stockpiling weapons in anticipation o' a 3rd intafada, etc. 

 

you observe that israel created the situation wherein hamas were having no real alternatives to using terror tactics that put its own citizens at risk. 

 

Gromnir observes that you is edging very close to legitimizing the tactics o' any and all terrorist organizations. heck, if you wanna define israeli actions as terroist then you is giving them a pass too.

 

"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."

 

change

 

"The ways in which israel can fight, given hamas tactics and the fact that they are inextricably embedded in the civilian population, is very limited. 

Terrorism is generally NOT the fist choice of action for a people."

 

see?

 

nevertheless, the israelis, continue to drop leaflets and warn civilians by phone and observed cease-fires in spite o' the fact that doing so hinders their efficacy.

 

*shrug*

 

honestly, what terrorist organization doesn't claim that their actions is being forced by the intractability and misdeeds o' (add faceless evil organization here) ?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

You really do have some fascinating notions about terrorism. Terrorism isn't apolitical position, it's a military tactic, like cavalry charges. Anyone can use it.

 

Terrorism, that is the application of weak military force against undefended targets, is nothing more or less than a tactic used by those _with weak military forces_.

 

 

Meh, I just wish we could come up with a better term than terrorism, it really is terrible- it's something only enemies do, it's ludicrously loaded emotionally and to all practical purposes is often not actually different in anything except for (lesser) scale to tactics that are (or were) regarded as largely legitimate when done by others. Flying jet planes into buildings, sure, that's terrorism. But the people of Guernica, Coventry, Dresden, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Grozny, Fallujah and Aleppo would probably swap Hamas's unreliable low yield 5 rocket per hour over twelve days terrorist barrage for what they got from legitimate actors, in a heart beat.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

every nation seems to have their own definition o' terrorism... which they then further refine into categories o' domestic v. international terrorism. is mostly semantics.  

 

*shrug*

 

as to the rockets... am not certain o' your math. am assuming you mean each rocket launcher can do 5 per hour? am not convinced that is accurate either, but the rockets turned out to be quite efficacious regardless. hamas has made it clear that they believe they can bring about a palestinian state through military conflict... which has always baffled us, but we gotta applaud their unswerving dedication to their ideal. they has lost their arab support as they managed to recently cheese-off syria and the lebanese hezbollah, and once the muslim brotherhood were ousted in egypt, their greatest supporter in the mid-east were gone.  am not certain how hamas looks at recent conflicts with israel, but it seemed clear to us that their actions were not particular impressive from a military standpoint. nevertheless, the rockets were effective.

 

israel couldn't allow +1,700 rocket attacks to continue. as woefully inaccurate as the rockets is, they result in israelis being sent to shelters and bunkers and settlements nearest gaza is functional evacuated. hamas has zero chance o' winning any kinda conventional conflict with israel, but they has best chance o' hurting israel if the fighting takes place in gaza, where they has spent the last few years preparing for a fight. am thinking that most folks reading this board has heard that urban warfare is always hard on an attacker, yes? small groups o' people armed with nothing but small arms and homemade explosives can put a serious hurt on even the most well-equipped military powers. hamas has machine guns, anti-tank weapons and they has had years to prepare for this fight.  rockets didn't actual need to do harm. rockets were forcing israel to fight where hamas had the best chance o' causing israeli losses.

 

...

 

am honestly not getting the point though. the best hamas can do is to hurt israel. they ain't gonna win "freedom." they ain't gonna improve standard of living for palestinians in gaza (which admittedly were never their goal.) they ain't gonna force syria and egypt and other arab nations to start supporting them again. as far as we can see, hamas believed they had no choice but to provoke israel. they is functionally alone in gaza and they were only gonna get weaker as days and weeks and months passed. they wanted to provoke an ultimately no-win fight before they got too weak to do any damage?  none o' this fight is rational to us. sure, israel had to attack once rockets were sending folks into shelters on a daily basis, but the idf clear wanted this fight, which doesn't make sense to us anymore than hamas provoking it. both sides have reasons, but their reasons... suck.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

edit: quote function went bad on us again... removed the quoted portion. 

Edited July 21, 2014 by Gromnir

[Agiel]

John Schindler, aka 20committee on Twitter:

 

 

 

Sometimes being someone who wants a strong Israel and freedom for the Palestinians, and peace for them both, can be a lonely place to be.

 

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/490876305488224258

Edited July 21, 2014 by Agiel

[Oerwinde]

I think one of the major issues here is that "Hamas" and "Palestinians" are used interchangeably.

[BruceVC]

 

 

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"?

 

is as much the case that hamas is keeping gaza a miserable place. 

 

and the fact that rockets is inaccurate doesn't change the fact that they is being fired into israeli settlements from palestinian civilian homes, business, schools, places o' worship, etc. the v-1 and v-2 rockets that dropped on england weren't accurate either. accuracy is not a serious issue, is it?  hell, it makes more difficult for israeli civilians to prepare as they has no idea whatsoever where next rocket will drop. and as an israeli politician it is political suicide to just sit back and allow your people to be chased into shelters and bunkers on a daily basis. 

 

but again, israelis ain't blameless here. we suspect that they ain't been genuine 'bout finding a peaceful solution that would benefit both sides for over a decade.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am suggesting caution: you don't seem to realize that your perspective is functional legitimizing any and all terrorist organizations.

 

 

Gromnir I use to think that the Israeli strategy of using bombs was understandable considering the fact that Hamas was firing rockets from Gaza. But I have changed my mind as this approach is collective punishment but more importantly it doesn't necessarily target Hamas

 

There has to be a response from Israel but the way to do it is the way they are now following, a ground invasion. This obviously isn't the ideal approach for Israel as there will be casualties. But that's the reality of the situation

 

Can you imagine what would be the fallout in the various conflicts, in the last 30 years, that Western countries have been involved in if the strategy to pacify an area was just to rely on bombs? Sometimes ground troops are more surgical and can reduce civilian casualties which are an important consideration when you think of the outcome from any military exercise

[Walsingham]

 

You really do have some fascinating notions about terrorism. Terrorism isn't apolitical position, it's a military tactic, like cavalry charges. Anyone can use it.

 

Terrorism, that is the application of weak military force against undefended targets, is nothing more or less than a tactic used by those _with weak military forces_.

 

 

Meh, I just wish we could come up with a better term than terrorism, it really is terrible- it's something only enemies do, it's ludicrously loaded emotionally and to all practical purposes is often not actually different in anything except for (lesser) scale to tactics that are (or were) regarded as largely legitimate when done by others. Flying jet planes into buildings, sure, that's terrorism. But the people of Guernica, Coventry, Dresden, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Grozny, Fallujah and Aleppo would probably swap Hamas's unreliable low yield 5 rocket per hour over twelve days terrorist barrage for what they got from legitimate actors, in a heart beat.

 

 

Well, what the Israelis I know point out is that before the barriers went up they were suffering much higher casualties. From people exploding on buses.

 

So the question from their perspective is whether they'd rather get a public frowning, or blown up. I'm not saying it's that simple, but our collective goldfish ****ing approach to foreign policy makes it look that way.

 

I need to reiterate this point: there are lots of tinpot bastard governments who claim their enemies are terrorists when they are just asking for simple things. But equally there are lots of people who claim they are freedom fighters when all they want is blood.

 

Being the little guy doesn't mean you aren't a ****.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

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"?

 

is as much the case that hamas is keeping gaza a miserable place. 

 

and the fact that rockets is inaccurate doesn't change the fact that they is being fired into israeli settlements from palestinian civilian homes, business, schools, places o' worship, etc. the v-1 and v-2 rockets that dropped on england weren't accurate either. accuracy is not a serious issue, is it?  hell, it makes more difficult for israeli civilians to prepare as they has no idea whatsoever where next rocket will drop. and as an israeli politician it is political suicide to just sit back and allow your people to be chased into shelters and bunkers on a daily basis. 

 

but again, israelis ain't blameless here. we suspect that they ain't been genuine 'bout finding a peaceful solution that would benefit both sides for over a decade.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am suggesting caution: you don't seem to realize that your perspective is functional legitimizing any and all terrorist organizations.

 

 

Gromnir I use to think that the Israeli strategy of using bombs was understandable considering the fact that Hamas was firing rockets from Gaza. But I have changed my mind as this approach is collective punishment but more importantly it doesn't necessarily target Hamas

 

There has to be a response from Israel but the way to do it is the way they are now following, a ground invasion. This obviously isn't the ideal approach for Israel as there will be casualties. But that's the reality of the situation

 

Can you imagine what would be the fallout in the various conflicts, in the last 30 years, that Western countries have been involved in if the strategy to pacify an area was just to rely on bombs? Sometimes ground troops are more surgical and can reduce civilian casualties which are an important consideration when you think of the outcome from any military exercise

 

am suspecting you do not realize how many rockets have been fired from gaza into israel in recent years. if the israelis responded to even a small percentage of such attacks with armed invasions, gaza city would be nothing more than a formless pile o' rubble and unmarked graves. 

 

one day of fighting in gaza:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/20/333162646/humanitarian-truce-quickly-collapses-in-gaza-fighting-resumes

 

am understanding that literal thousands o' people in gaza were displaced 'cause of fighting on sunday alone. it will take years for the folks in gaza to recover from recent activities. and keep in mind that airstrikes haven't halted just 'cause israeli boots is on the ground. other than hamas and some serious arseclowns in the idf, nobody wants to see israeli troops in gaza longer than absolute necessary.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

But isn't that Hamas' objective?

 

This just struck me with tremendous clarity.

 

Hamas are not a democratic institution. They get their legitimacy from the suffering of their own people. ...And all they have to do in order to enjoy that permanently is keep firing rockets.

 

...Unless I guess Israel called their bluff, by just accepting permanent rocket barrage. But then what nation state is going to live with The Blitz constantly?

[BruceVC]

 

am suspecting you do not realize how many rockets have been fired from gaza into israel in recent years. if the israelis responded to even a small percentage of such attacks with armed invasions, gaza city would be nothing more than a formless pile o' rubble and unmarked graves. 

 

 

is as much the case that hamas is keeping gaza a miserable place. 

 

and the fact that rockets is inaccurate doesn't change the fact that they is being fired into israeli settlements from palestinian civilian homes, business, schools, places o' worship, etc. the v-1 and v-2 rockets that dropped on england weren't accurate either. accuracy is not a serious issue, is it?  hell, it makes more difficult for israeli civilians to prepare as they has no idea whatsoever where next rocket will drop. and as an israeli politician it is political suicide to just sit back and allow your people to be chased into shelters and bunkers on a daily basis. 

 

but again, israelis ain't blameless here. we suspect that they ain't been genuine 'bout finding a peaceful solution that would benefit both sides for over a decade.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am suggesting caution: you don't seem to realize that your perspective is functional legitimizing any and all terrorist organizations.

 

Gromnir I use to think that the Israeli strategy of using bombs was understandable considering the fact that Hamas was firing rockets from Gaza. But I have changed my mind as this approach is collective punishment but more importantly it doesn't necessarily target Hamas

 

There has to be a response from Israel but the way to do it is the way they are now following, a ground invasion. This obviously isn't the ideal approach for Israel as there will be casualties. But that's the reality of the situation

 

Can you imagine what would be the fallout in the various conflicts, in the last 30 years, that Western countries have been involved in if the strategy to pacify an area was just to rely on bombs? Sometimes ground troops are more surgical and can reduce civilian casualties which are an important consideration when you think of the outcome from any military exercise

 

 

one day of fighting in gaza:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/20/333162646/humanitarian-truce-quickly-collapses-in-gaza-fighting-resumes

 

am understanding that literal thousands o' people in gaza were displaced 'cause of fighting on sunday alone. it will take years for the folks in gaza to recover from recent activities. and keep in mind that airstrikes haven't halted just 'cause israeli boots is on the ground. other than hamas and some serious arseclowns in the idf, nobody wants to see israeli troops in gaza longer than absolute necessary.

 

 

I completely understand that boots on the ground may not seem to be the right strategy for a number of reasons. But the reality is its much better than targeted bombing of buildings in Gaza in the hope that somehow this will cause Hamas to change there approach around using rockets to gain sympathy and effect political change.

 

And yes now the Israeli casualty toll will increase, but this will hopefully raise awareness and emphasize  that a permanent solution needs to be found where both sides have to realize that various compromises have to made. Because that what seems to be lacking from some of the negotiations, a real sense of compromise

 

The opinion of the world in this conflict does matter and collateral damage does matter. And the fact is most citizens in most countries in the world are not prepared to accept that bombing Gaza, without ground troops to minimize casualties, is the right way to deal with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict

Edited July 21, 2014 by BruceVC

[TrashMan]

 

 

Gromnir observes that you is edging very close to legitimizing the tactics o' any and all terrorist organizations. heck, if you wanna define israeli actions as terroist then you is giving them a pass too.

 

 

 

TrashMan observes that he doesn't care if you think I'm "legitimizing" something.

Apparently, for you understanding something equals endorsement,

 

 

 

 

 

"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."

 

change

 

"The ways in which israel can fight, given hamas tactics and the fact that they are inextricably embedded in the civilian population, is very limited. 

Terrorism is generally NOT the fist choice of action for a people."

 

see?

 

No, because it's not the same. You tell me that I'm ignoring the tactical situation and other details, and then you proceed to do the same.

Israel has a lot more options available. Their intel, technical capablities and movement options aren't as limited.

 

 

 

 

 

honestly, what terrorist organization doesn't claim that their actions is being forced by the intractability and misdeeds o' (add faceless evil organization here) ?

 

 

Everyone does. Terrorists or not. It's is never completely true, but in some cases it is more true than others.

Edited July 21, 2014 by TrashMan

[Gromnir]

you feel bad for palestinians when you see scale o' body count tip. you sympathize.  sadly, you has made quite clear that you don't understand. 

 

"The opinion of the world in this conflict does matter and collateral damage does matter"

 

not based on history. is same problems since 1917-- same cycle o' violence. why should israel act as if this time is different? world condemnation is par for the course. israeli leaders is understandably more interested in how they poll with israeli citizens than with un ambassadors. 

 

is also perhaps ironic that given the fact that the degree o' violence is higher now than at any point in a decade, the support hamas is getting from arab leaders is at an all-time low. the folks that israel potentially needs to be concerned 'bout in the region don't seem to care 'bout what is happening in gaza... not that arab opinion woulda' swayed israel neither.

 

US opinion? well, after the syria debacle, this administration's leverage in the region has also dwindled. recent troubles in libya is undercutting administration cachet even further.

 

am s'posing the world could get together and impose serious economic sanctions to chastise israel-- sanctions can be very effective. by the time sanctions were put in place, we suspect that the gaza campaign will be complete. israel would no doubt request sanctions be lifted as part o' cease-fire agreements. 

 

even so, the reason why israel did so much o' the airstrikes is precisely 'cause o' appeasing westerners. if the idf had entered gaza in force immediate after first rockets flew from gaza into israel, world outrage woulda' been far greater. 

 

there really ain't winners or good guys with all o' this... portraying hamas as victims is a curious spin.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TrashMan]

you feel bad for palestinians when you see scale o' body count tip. you sympathize.  sadly, you has made quite clear that you don't understand. 

 

"The opinion of the world in this conflict does matter and collateral damage does matter"

 

not based on history. is same problems since 1917-- same cycle o' violence. why should israel act as if this time is different? world condemnation is par for the course. israeli leaders is understandably more interested in how they poll with israeli citizens than with un ambassadors. 

 

 

 

Sadly, it looks like you are the one who doesn't understand.

 

Israeli leaders do not care? Well color my jimmies and call me King Reginald, who could have thought that? Atrocities tend to happen because people don't care.

Morality and political actions have little in common.

[Gromnir]

 

you feel bad for palestinians when you see scale o' body count tip. you sympathize.  sadly, you has made quite clear that you don't understand. 

 

"The opinion of the world in this conflict does matter and collateral damage does matter"

 

not based on history. is same problems since 1917-- same cycle o' violence. why should israel act as if this time is different? world condemnation is par for the course. israeli leaders is understandably more interested in how they poll with israeli citizens than with un ambassadors. 

 

 

 

Sadly, it looks like you are the one who doesn't understand.

 

Israeli leaders do not care? Well color my jimmies and call me King Reginald, who could have thought that? Atrocities tend to happen because people don't care.

Morality and political actions have little in common.

 

*chuckle*

 

the israelis have a moral obligation to protect their own citizens, no? regardless, am curious just how obtuse you is willing to be. hamas is the folks who started firing rockets at civilian populations and protecting those rocket emplacements with human shields. and again, hamas wanted this conflict. they got it. morality? ha!

 

btw,  don't care what UN ambassadors think is far different than not caring, period. the UN has done very little to help israel. why should israel care 'bout UN concerns?

 

as for individual israelis and israeli politicians and their concern for folks in gaza... spend a couple weeks running to air-raid shelters and bunkers 'cause o' constant hamas rocket attacks and commando raids from tunnels and we suspect that "care" for hamas is gonna be eroded substantially, but  the assumption that the average israeli citizen or politician doesn't care is dubious. we doubt you got the perspicacity to recognize the significance, but we would suggest that morality is often the first casualty of fear. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-for-unimaginable-restraint/

 

 

"Dermer’s comments followed a statement issued by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who on Sunday said that the IDF is the “most humane and bravest army in the world.”

During World War II, the British army responded to German attacks with the “carpet bombing of German cities,” Dermer said. While he was unwilling to criticize the United Kingdom for doing so, he continued, “at the same time, I will not accept, and no one should accept, criticism of Israel for acting with restraint that has not been shown and would not be shown by any nation on earth. I especially will not tolerate criticism of my country at a time when Israeli soldiers are dying so that innocent Palestinians can live.

[Orogun01]

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/dermer-idf-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-for-unimaginable-restraint/

 

 

"Dermer’s comments followed a statement issued by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who on Sunday said that the IDF is the “most humane and bravest army in the world.”

During World War II, the British army responded to German attacks with the “carpet bombing of German cities,” Dermer said. While he was unwilling to criticize the United Kingdom for doing so, he continued, “at the same time, I will not accept, and no one should accept, criticism of Israel for acting with restraint that has not been shown and would not be shown by any nation on earth. I especially will not tolerate criticism of my country at a time when Israeli soldiers are dying so that innocent Palestinians can live.

 

Is that sarcastically?

[Zoraptor]

Ask John Kerry, he's the expert on Israel's precision bombing and sarcasm.

 

Still, dude does actually have a point, though a narrow one that's dressed up in rhetoric and reliant on the 'someone else did something worse sometime in the past argument' (and one which works for Hamas's bombardment as well as his). They'd still be far better off minus the rhetoric and not trying to pretend that they're super accurate ultra humanitarians when it's patently obvious they're neither though.