Israel vs Palestine

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

*First two points snipped to emphasise third*

 

Thirdly, they aren't shooting down 99% of the rcokets. If you can't be bothered to do a very basic check then I really think you're just angry for the gidddy thrill of being angry. Which is fine, just don't expect anyone to take your joyous ranting into policy.

[BruceVC]

I haven't seen this posted ITT, which is surprising.

 

US Stands Alone in Vote Against UN Inquiry Into Gaza Assault

 

(and, of course, its cowardly Euro retainers abstain in the latest vomit-inducing display of servilism)

 

Its not as simple as that, the abstain vote came from countries that don't necessarily owe the USA anything. Like Germany, its not about obsequiousness

 

Also the situation is complicated, the solution isn't just about ""okay Israel you are bad guys and the Palestinians are victims " so I imagine these types of votes need consideration

[213374U]

Also the situation is complicated, the solution isn't just about ""okay Israel you are bad guys and the Palestinians are victims " so I imagine these types of votes need consideration

 

And I imagine you need to read and think before you post. The stated purpose of the inquiry is to investigate *ALL* int'l law and human rights violations in Gaza since the start of military operations, not just Israel's.

 

"Don't owe the USA anything", lol. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Bah, why do I bother.

Edited July 31, 2014 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

Also the situation is complicated, the solution isn't just about ""okay Israel you are bad guys and the Palestinians are victims " so I imagine these types of votes need consideration

 

And I imagine you need to read and think before you post. The stated purpose of the inquiry is to investigate *ALL* int'l law and human rights violations in Gaza since the start of military operations, not just Israel's.

 

"Don't owe the USA anything", lol. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Bah, why do I bother.

 

 

Please bother, it hurts me when you say you don't bother

 

Germany is not happy with the USA at the moment. There diplomatic relations are frosty at the moment due to the bugging by the NSA of Angela Merkel's phone

 

http://news.yahoo.com/u-s--spying-on-merkel-sparks-scorn--bugged-phone-jokes-in-germany-141830328.html;_ylt=A0LEVylAC9pT_U0AGB9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzODU0bG1mBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM4NF8x

 

So Germany is not going to vote a certain way just because of the USA. They are voting objectively based on what would be best approach for the situation

 

So who exactly is Germany being servile to by abstaining?

[TrashMan]

 

Bigotry is the view of other people based on prejudices (I'd say that some the comments here certainly fall in that category). As for high expectations, you still haven't answered the question I posed to you, concerning your standards for Israel actions i.e. Can you show me any actor in the history of warfare that done more than Israel in that regard? (or even close)

 

 

Yes. Yes I can.

What exactly HAS Israel does that wasn't done for the sole prpose of lessening the foreign outrage or as a smoke-screen from more land-grabbing?

 

 

 

IMO it important not to lose perspective, to avoid become emotional tool by media "hype" machine. Concerning high expectations, lets consider Israel's Arab neighbors, surely you are aware of their history and recent developments, but as horrific as they are(and not even remotely resemble anything in Israel), for some reason they do not get as much public outrage in the west as Israels actions. So riddle me this, do you hold Israel to a higher standard than its Arab neighbors or excuse the disproportionate reaction because its Israel. Isn't that kinda by definition racism or bigotry?

 

1) The hyp machine nad media manipulation isnt' one-sided. I often hear of accusation of media manipulation because hey show crying/injured children, etc.. But what they are showing IS what happens. And it's not like he pro-Israel side doesn't have it's own spin docors and media manipulators.

 

2) Holding Israel to a higher standard? Maybe. But if such a higer standard is there, then it is there because of what Israel is supposed to be - a DEMOCRATIC, MODERN state, that follows he convenions and resolutions on human rights AND that because of it's history of almost-genocide SHOULD friggin know better then to ac like natzis themselves.

The EXACT same standards applied to everyone? That is unrealistic.

 

So yes, I excpet more from a modern, economically stable and developed nation then I expect from from an unstable region defined by povery and opression.

[Zoraptor]

72 hour truce forthcoming, it appears. With neither electricity or water supplies Israel would soon run the risk of stuff happening that even the US would have difficulty protecting them from, though to be fair the US has actually managed to give some criticism to Israel for being mean to John Kerry shelling a UN school, even if it didn't stop them rearming the IDF. Oh, and it appears Mr Firebrand 15 year old American Citizen Terrorist in Making from Florida has not been charged with brutally and repeatedly headbutting Israeli fists and boots and is indeed back in the US making plans to visit his family in East Jerusalem. Who'd a thunk it, I was reliably informed they had an iron clad case against him...

 

Germany is not happy with the USA at the moment. There diplomatic relations are frosty at the moment due to the bugging by the NSA of Angela Merkel's phone

 

Germany is a terrible example, it doesn't vote against Israel for what might be termed 'historical reasons'- and wouldn't under pretty much any circumstances.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Valsuelm]

I haven't seen this posted ITT, which is surprising.

 

US Stands Alone in Vote Against UN Inquiry Into Gaza Assault

 

(and, of course, its cowardly Euro retainers abstain in the latest vomit-inducing display of servilism)

 

If you look at that list of nations, the abstains pretty much represent those thoroughly under the UK/EU/US banking cartel's thumb, the 'yes' votes pretty much represent those nations who would be free of that oppression if they could, and then you have the U.S..... what a disgusting disgrace that vote.

[licketysplit]

U.S media supports Israel.

 

Who'd have thunk it.

 

 

Nope. Not NPR. We don't hear enough about Gaza and South American immigrants on NPR. 

 

Blow up the tunnels and destroy Hamas. Don't leave the job unfinished, cause they'll never quit. Kill all the fundamentalists. Amen. 

[BruceVC]

 

I haven't seen this posted ITT, which is surprising.

 

US Stands Alone in Vote Against UN Inquiry Into Gaza Assault

 

(and, of course, its cowardly Euro retainers abstain in the latest vomit-inducing display of servilism)

 

If you look at that list of nations, the abstains pretty much represent those thoroughly under the UK/EU/US banking cartel's thumb, the 'yes' votes pretty much represent those nations who would be free of that oppression if they could, and then you have the U.S..... what a disgusting disgrace that vote.

 

 

You see this is exactly what I knew you guys  were going to say and what 2133 was actually alluding to. But he can't really be bothered to explain further

 

You guys think its a conspiracy, that  certain countries only abstained due to some sort of surreptitious influence from the USA or Western banking circles. But sometimes there is no conspiracy, just what a particular country thinks is best for its own national interest. And in this case they are obviously more concerned with the Islamic extremist element within Hamas than the loss of Palestinian lives. Because a Yes vote is really a vote to support Hamas, even if it seems unfair

 

And I'm not unconcerned with the loss of Palestinian civilians, I am just trying to be realistic

[Mor]

 

Bigotry is the view of other people based on prejudices (I'd say that some the comments here certainly fall in that category). As for high expectations, you still haven't answered the question I posed to you, concerning your standards for Israel actions i.e. Can you show me any actor in the history of warfare that done more than Israel in that regard? (or even close)

 

Yes. Yes I can.

 

Who ? 

Depends what you consider a "side".

I don't cheer for Hamas, I cheer for Palestinaians. Their victory does not require bloodshed, altough it does require some concessions from Israel.

Funny, with all that talk of power and peace victory, it sounds exactly like you cheer for Hamas, with "the end justify the means" twist. Edited August 1, 2014 by Mor

[Mor]

The talk of human shields is a bit iffy, I'd imagine there's a calculation to be made in terms of the military value of the target vs any risk of civilians being killed (certainly not worth 30 lives to take out 10 rockets, for example). This is assuming the civilians are known to be there, though, though not much of a shield in that case.

It is nice to have an imagination. As for Hamas use of civilian population for military purposes, it isn't limited to actual human shields, even though on several occasions Hamas said to preventing people from being vacated from the warned areas to force Israel to abort attacks.

 

Hamas tactic is deliberately calculated to exploit civilian population, to shield their command centers, weapons storage, rocket launchers, etc. Knowing all to well that if they use mosques, schools, hospitals (ambulances as taxis etc) placing their citizens in danger, TrashMan will not call them Nazis. Meanwhile they gain protection to their assets or capitalize on the dead as ammunition for their PR campaign, so they can spin it, cynically accuse Israel at placing civilians at Harms way.

 

EDIT: Btw, 10 Percent of Hamas Rockets Misfired, Landed in Gaza (link), wanna bet that that any of those were sold as Israeli attacks? Also Hamas is commonly using plain clothed fighters, take away his gun(assuming that he has one) and instead of combatant we get an innocent by stander.

 

How is Israel abandoning their own civilians by not using heavy ordnance in Gaza, exactly ? They still have their vaunted IDF ground forces, after all. Given Iron Dome's apparent efficiency and Israeli civilians not piling up from other measures, am not seeing why airstrikes are required for this comparison to work - it certainly is done so they don't have more IDF coffins.

In another time a certain General said that the "object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his"

 

As for your post it is hard for me to see it as anything but armchair general-ing. It seem that you agree that every Hamas rocket fired at Israel cities is blunt war crime, and that Israel is obligated to defend its citizens (not abandoning). However I am not sure how you addressed the main question I the post you quoted i.e. "what in your opinion an appropriate Israel reaction should have been.."

 

Are you implying that instead of airstrikes Israel should use its ground force every time Hamas or any other terror group under its rule fires a rocket at Israel (which would mean to re-occupy Gaza, going back to the situation before Gaza elected Hamas) or that you want to see Israel loose more soldiers so that you can call it proportional?!

 

Surely you are aware that the goal of wars is winning (within the rules of law), not prolonged suffering, the asymetrical nature of this war and Hamas disregard to losses (its or civilian), so it would be interesting to hear how your characterize the required\appropriate military action that would lead to successful military conflict termination in this case.

 

I specifically posed that question, because its always easy to get on high horse and rant about what you don't like, its much harder to provide a solution. (which is what every cheesy politician does). Also while wars are despicable 'I don't like it' =/= 'war crimes', and going by some of the posters here its more often than not it seem that 'war crimes' defined by political agenda.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Mor

[213374U]

 

 

I haven't seen this posted ITT, which is surprising.

 

US Stands Alone in Vote Against UN Inquiry Into Gaza Assault

 

(and, of course, its cowardly Euro retainers abstain in the latest vomit-inducing display of servilism)

 

If you look at that list of nations, the abstains pretty much represent those thoroughly under the UK/EU/US banking cartel's thumb, the 'yes' votes pretty much represent those nations who would be free of that oppression if they could, and then you have the U.S..... what a disgusting disgrace that vote.

 

 

You see this is exactly what I knew you guys  were going to say and what 2133 was actually alluding to. But he can't really be bothered to explain further

 

You guys think its a conspiracy, that  certain countries only abstained due to some sort of surreptitious influence from the USA or Western banking circles. But sometimes there is no conspiracy, just what a particular country thinks is best for its own national interest. And in this case they are obviously more concerned with the Islamic extremist element within Hamas than the loss of Palestinian lives. Because a Yes vote is really a vote to support Hamas, even if it seems unfair

 

And I'm not unconcerned with the loss of Palestinian civilians, I am just trying to be realistic

 

 

Ah, yes, the conspiracy handwave. I'm sure that programmed reaction helps you sleep, but it does nothing for people in Gaza, really. It must be nice to live in that world in which free markets are actually free, the media don't lie through their teeth, and "free and democratic" countries don't commit war crimes. Wish I could go back, but alas.

 

Of course, it's pointless trying to reason with you, as you have, in this thread and others, implicitly agreed that the ends justify the means. This is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of international law and human rights. Until you stop recognizing my right to blast you to pieces for whatever random reason I can think up (whether you agree with the reason is irrelevant), we have nothing to talk about.

 

Good day sir.

Edited August 1, 2014 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

I am still surprised how civil this thread has been so far though. No "Death to Israel!" or "Nuke the Middle East!" yet.

[Lexx]

Nuke middle earth, death to sauron!

[Malcador]

In another time a certain General said that the "object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his"

 

As for your post it is hard for me to see it as anything but armchair general-ing. It seem that you agree that every Hamas rocket fired at Israel cities is blunt war crime, and that Israel is obligated to defend its citizens (not abandoning). However I am not sure how you addressed the main question I the post you quoted i.e. "what in your opinion an appropriate Israel reaction should have been.."

Well you said

 

Also You still haven't answered what in your opinion an appropriate Israel reaction should have been to Hamas raining rockets on their civilians. Surely you don't think that Hamas hold the moral high ground here, that Israel must protect Palestinian civilians at the cost of abandoning her own, or that anyone but Hamas is to blame for its tactics, that use civilian population/infrastructure for military purpose, as shields.

Certainly implies that not bombing is equivalent to the abandonment of their own people, as it's not binary case but one of degrees that was being discussed. And the question wasn't to me - although I've pretty much hinted at the desired reaction already here. But oh well.

 

Are you implying that instead of airstrikes Israel should use its ground force every time Hamas or any other terror group under its rule fires a rocket at Israel (which would mean to re-occupy Gaza, going back to the situation before Gaza elected Hamas) or that you want to see Israel loose more soldiers so that you can call it proportional?!

 

Surely you are aware that the goal of wars is winning (within the rules of law), not prolonged suffering, the asymetrical nature of this war and Hamas disregard to losses (its or civilian), so it would be interesting to hear how your characterize the required\appropriate military action that would lead to successful military conflict termination in this case.

Well to your question : yes, but mainly as it avoids civilians getting killed which is just fuel for this cycle, rather than my suspected lust to see IDF troops in body bags or something.

 

You are also aware war isn't fought in a vacuum - reason the US didn't carpet bomb Iraq in Gulf War 2.0, it won't fly well with the political reasons for the act. Likewise, Palestinian kids being shown on TV pulled from rubble crushed to death after a bomb or artillery strike doesn't go over well. Ground troops kill less civilians unintentionally than a 500 lb bomb or a 155mm shell, it's risky but well the IDF always boasts of their courage.

 

I specifically posed that question, because its always easy to get on high horse and rant about what you don't like, its much harder to provide a solution. (which is what every cheesy politician does). Also while wars are despicable 'I don't like it' =/= 'war crimes', and going by some of the posters here its more often than not it seem that 'war crimes' defined by political agenda.

[Malcador]

That truce lasted long. I do find it funny that the IDF soldier has been "kidnapped" rather then just captured.

[Rostere]

The impact of the aggression on Israel's part during this massacre is sure to have consequences on the political allegiances on the Palestinian side. Israel have shown that even if Hamas hasn't fired any rockets, or really made any attack of any sort since the last truce they will still be attacked anyway, just to garner support for the sitting Israeli prime minister.

 

Keep in mind this quote from here:

 

“In the streets, people are pro-resistance. There is no one complaining. They are saying, ‘they are killing us, they are targeting us all the time, just go with it if it’s going to give us our rights.’” But she added, “of course people are sad about their homes, about their loved ones who already left us, about the kids who are dying….It’s not because of the resistance that this happening. people know they target us whether there is resistance or not.”

 

Israel have shown Hamas, and more importantly the Palestinian population, that it doesn't matter if they rock they boat or not, they are going to be attacked anyway. It's not about Hamas, it's about gaining support from Israeli voters. It's about a right-wing prime minister trying to gain far-right credentials in an increasingly extremist country (who just like Putin is being hit in the ass by his own propaganda pushing him further from peace, accidentally creating a self-fulfilling feedback loop of hate and racism).

 

At least the people in Gaza are not subject to land grabs and continuous ethnic cleansing, like the Palestinians on the West Bank are. Gaza is figuratively speaking the crazy patient who bites everyone within reach, the West Bank is the anaesthetized patient who is sleeping on the operation table while the doctor is removing his organs one by one.

 

Anyway, here's a step-by step walk-through of the most common misconceptions and lies you get to hear about the I/P conflict. I wish I had the time to elaborate on all of the points directly in response to forum members in this thread, instead I leave this link for those of you who are interested in the knowing more about the background of the current chain of events.

[Walsingham]

This thread is indeed quite civilised for the subject, and we've got precisely nowhere.

 

Public opinion simply isn't capable of addressing this issue, any more than one could expect a bag of cats to do differential calculus.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Walsingham

[Zoraptor]

Public opinion isn't capable of addressing much at all unless it's Missy the Cat stuck in a tree won't someone rescue her? type triviality where a politician can get cheap and easy PR. Israel v Palestine is one of the longest running and most intractable conflicts and there is a lot of inertia behind Israel, in much the same way as there was a lot of inertia behind various South American Strongmen; they may be bastards but at least they're our bastards and hence better than [ideological enemy], and we don't want to give our enemies succour by looking divided or weak. That's the kind of thinking where public opinion is irrelevant unless it's incredibly strong and there's an election coming up where it will be an issue. British government policy is holding firm even when the Dail Fail is criticising Israel and complaining about too many muslims dying.

 

The irony is that the same people who ignore public opinion will then turn around next day and publicly wonder why young muslim men from their country get radicalised and are going off to wage jihad when everyone knows that [countryname] loves muslims and has nothing at all against them, as if the pictures from Palestine and support for Israel have no bearing on that at all. You don't need to be muslim to see the inherent contradictions in "we love international law!" and "we'll intervene to save civilians!" etc.

[Rostere]

Dail Fail

 

Okay. Anyone else thinking this sounds like some obscure Irish political party...?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Israel have shown Hamas, and more importantly the Palestinian population, that it doesn't matter if they rock they boat or not, they are going to be attacked anyway. It's not about Hamas, it's about gaining support from Israeli voters. It's about a right-wing prime minister trying to gain far-right credentials in an increasingly extremist country (who just like Putin is being hit in the ass by his own propaganda pushing him further from peace, accidentally creating a self-fulfilling feedback loop of hate and racism).

Has your incredible bias completely blinded you to the facts? Do you not realize there were something like 30 tunnels dug under the Israeli border, preparing for a huge attack, potentially with thousands of victims, for the fall? Not to mention incessant rocket attacks from Gaza. This is what you call not rocking the boat?

[Rostere]

 

Israel have shown Hamas, and more importantly the Palestinian population, that it doesn't matter if they rock they boat or not, they are going to be attacked anyway. It's not about Hamas, it's about gaining support from Israeli voters. It's about a right-wing prime minister trying to gain far-right credentials in an increasingly extremist country (who just like Putin is being hit in the ass by his own propaganda pushing him further from peace, accidentally creating a self-fulfilling feedback loop of hate and racism).

Has your incredible bias completely blinded you to the facts? Do you not realize there were something like 30 tunnels dug under the Israeli border, preparing for a huge attack, potentially with thousands of victims, for the fall? Not to mention incessant rocket attacks from Gaza. This is what you call not rocking the boat?

 

Yes, and Israel has ****ING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Hypocrisy much?

 

Every side has their ways of trying to even the odds. I think it is worth noting that even though Israeli intelligence have known about these tunnels for quite some time (so we can assume they have also existed) Hamas have not tried to attack through them. In the end, it's not about what you have, but how you use it. I condemn Israel for getting nuclear weapons more than Hamas for digging tunnels in any case. Both are hardly constructive, but the real condemnation would of course come when these weapons are used.

 

In any case, large-scale attack like you speak of would not be feasible. We have seen videos of Hamas soldiers attacking through a tunnel, with an attack team consisting of five people. Worth noting, they didn't attack any civilians in Israel, but they shot a few IDF soldiers who were (or seemed to be) sleeping on their watch on a garrison before they were driven back into the tunnel. It should say a lot that even though the conflict has taken such a dire turn, we've barely seen any tunnel attacks at all, and those we have seen have been by very small attack teams. Here is an article on the military aspect of tunnels if you are seriously interested.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

Israel have shown Hamas, and more importantly the Palestinian population, that it doesn't matter if they rock they boat or not, they are going to be attacked anyway. It's not about Hamas, it's about gaining support from Israeli voters. It's about a right-wing prime minister trying to gain far-right credentials in an increasingly extremist country (who just like Putin is being hit in the ass by his own propaganda pushing him further from peace, accidentally creating a self-fulfilling feedback loop of hate and racism).

Has your incredible bias completely blinded you to the facts? Do you not realize there were something like 30 tunnels dug under the Israeli border, preparing for a huge attack, potentially with thousands of victims, for the fall? Not to mention incessant rocket attacks from Gaza. This is what you call not rocking the boat?

 

 

Yes, and Israel has ****ING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Hypocrisy much?

 

Way to change the subject. You claim Hamas wasn't rocking the boat, I point out they were massively investing into terrorist tunnels, then you bring up nuclear weapons, which have nothing to do with anything. Are you saying Israel doesn't need to defend themselves because they have nuclear weapons, or that they should go ahead and use them?

 

 

Every side has their ways of trying to even the odds. I think it is worth noting that even though Israeli intelligence have known about these tunnels for quite some time (so we can assume they have also existed) Hamas have not tried to attack through them. In the end, it's not about what you have, but how you use it. I condemn Israel for getting nuclear weapons more than Hamas for digging tunnels in any case. Both are hardly constructive, but the real condemnation would of course come when these weapons are used.

 

In any case, large-scale attack like you speak of would not be feasible. We have seen videos of Hamas soldiers attacking through a tunnel, with an attack team consisting of five people. Worth noting, they didn't attack any civilians in Israel, but they shot a few IDF soldiers who were (or seemed to be) sleeping on their watch on a garrison before they were driven back into the tunnel. It should say a lot that even though the conflict has taken such a dire turn, we've barely seen any tunnel attacks at all, and those we have seen have been by very small attack teams. Here is an article on the military aspect of tunnels if you are seriously interested.

Israelis only discovered a few of the tunnels accidentally because of heavy rains. The reason Hamas tunnel attacks weren't more successful (although successful enough from Israeli point of view) is because they happened in the middle of a military operation, and also they were expected. Had they all happened simultaneously and by surprise, it could've been far worse. The fact that they haven't been used as soon as they were built tells me they were being saved up for a single spectacular attack

Edited August 2, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

 

Dail Fail

 

Okay. Anyone else thinking this sounds like some obscure Irish political party...?

 

 

My keyboard revolts at the mere thought of that paper, so much so that it won't even accept a parody naming.

[averagedog]

You know, Ethnic tensions over the origins of Palestininans and Jews in the region, there is always one thing that is consistant. HAMAS Makes life worse for both Palestinians and the Jews. Why do the Palestinians living in the area tolerate HAMAS and their actions?