So here we go again, cos that's worked before (for both sides)
Here's an idea. Why don't one of the warring sides pull the rug from under the other side by doing something profoundly positive? Something that gives you the moral high ground in the eyes in the world. Something that even those normally opposed to you say "fair play, you've done the right thing there".
Or you could just keep killing each other, building up resentment and actually gaining FETH all when the smoke clears.
Here's an idea. Why don't one of the warring sides pull the rug from under the other side by doing something profoundly positive? Something that gives you the moral high ground in the eyes in the world. Something that even those normally opposed to you say "fair play, you've done the right thing there".
Because if Israelis did something like, build a soccer stadium for the Palestinians use, the Palestinians would view it as a trick/trap, and blow it up with rockets (probably with people inside) if the Palestinians did something similar, the Israelis would view it as a trap, and never use it.... and they'd promptly be unsurprised when Hamas or other Palestinian groups blew up this new "gift building"
Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.
I agree that it's a technically incredible system, but - and I'm not an economist here, so I could be wrong - I can't help but think there's a fundamental problem with using $50,000 missiles to shoot down $5 projectiles
I agree that it's a technically incredible system, but - and I'm not an economist here, so I could be wrong - I can't help but think there's a fundamental problem with using $50,000 missiles to shoot down $5 projectiles
Big Mac wrote: Israel is making a bad name for jews, they should get virus bombed 40k style!
WTF??? I can't see them making a bad name for other Jews in this situation... I'm sure they got all those arms at a VERY good price, and better than MSRP too
I agree that it's a technically incredible system, but - and I'm not an economist here, so I could be wrong - I can't help but think there's a fundamental problem with using $50,000 missiles to shoot down $5 projectiles
Eugh, I facepalm a little whenever a Palestinian representative does an interview with the BBC. The fellow they had on last night discussing the whole affair gave the typical line as ever of "the Israelis are horrible people. Why do they keep hitting us?". The situation's down to two sides both down stupid crap to one another, but I suppose that could be said of a lot of disputes. I don't agree how the Palestinians are being portrayed by the media though. "The Israelis are killing civilians", yeah, but that's because you've placed all your military installations and recruitment camps in populated areas so can whine every time there's collateral damage. "The Israelis keep firing missiles at us", uhuh, and are you doing the exact same thing and deliberately targeting civilians outside of military zones? "Well stop shooting if the Israelis quit it first", no, I don't think that's how one sorts out these situations, you're just saying that to pander to the media and make the other side come across as not being diplomatic by not agreeing to your dumb ass terms ("we'll stop shooting if the Israelis quit it first, oh and if they also give back all the land they took and maybe bake us some nice cake too").
So whilst I don't fully agree with how Israel handles these kinds of things, I'll say that the Palestinians don't do much to make me feel sorry for them. Why the media seems to jump on the Palestinian side with these things I haven't a clue, given that their government and state media and just such horrible, horrible people. The Palestinians just come across as being childish, I mean they sit there launching missiles and sending terrorists into Israel all day, but when the Israelis bite back they run off crying to the rest of the world. Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful. The Palestinian representatives seem to clam up pretty quick when they start being asked about what they're doing to Israel in return, or just why they decide to stick all their weapons on top of apartment blocks. The Israelis will have to negotiate at some point (whether that's after they've send in ground forces or not is up to them), but I can see why they don't trust the opposition, not just because of previous experience, but rather the guys they'll be talking to are internationally recognised as being terrorists. So anyway, there's a point in there somewhere, beyond me pondering why people consider the Israelis to be any worse than the Palestinians, but whatever. Jews killed Jesus and all the other crap. =P
The funny thing about the Israeli approach to the Palestinians over the years (Hamas, the PLO, etc), is that whilst horribly un-PC (and often very anti 'human rights') in many ways, it tends to generally work.
For example. You had many, many Israeli's getting killed by bombs going off in bins, cars, and sundry other things. The Israeli solution? Build a massive fecking wall, and keep all the palestinians on the other side of it. Result? Bombings are slashed to negligible numbers on completion. Israeli lives saved.
If your view is that the first duty of a state is to protect the lives of its citizens, Israel goes far, far out of its way to tick that box, regardless of what anyone else thinks of them or their methods. And I can't help but admire that slightly, in a disbelieving sort of way.
Ketara wrote: The funny thing about the Israeli approach to the Palestinians over the years (Hamas, the PLO, etc), is that whilst horribly un-PC (and often very anti 'human rights') in many ways, it tends to generally work.
For example. You had many, many Israeli's getting killed by bombs going off in bins, cars, and sundry other things. The Israeli solution? Build a massive fecking wall, and keep all the palestinians on the other side of it. Result? Bombings are slashed to negligible numbers on completion. Israeli lives saved.
If your view is that the first duty of a state is to protect the lives of its citizens, Israel goes far, far out of its way to tick that box, regardless of what anyone else thinks of them or their methods. And I can't help but admire that slightly, in a disbelieving sort of way.
I also understand that said well will be highly effective in preventing the zombie apocalypse... So long as the zombie don't form an undead ladder or something but I think the chances of something so ridiculous are fairly remote
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.
Ketara wrote: The funny thing about the Israeli approach to the Palestinians over the years (Hamas, the PLO, etc), is that whilst horribly un-PC (and often very anti 'human rights') in many ways, it tends to generally work.
I don't think anyone is looking at Isreal and Palestine as an example of a working solution. On-going low level warfare for three generations with no end in sight? Please give me some of that!
For example. You had many, many Israeli's getting killed by bombs going off in bins, cars, and sundry other things. The Israeli solution? Build a massive fecking wall, and keep all the palestinians on the other side of it. Result? Bombings are slashed to negligible numbers on completion.
Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians work in Israel, and travel through checkpoints on the wall on a daily basis. And there are many hundreds of thousands of ethnic Palestinians who happen to live within Israel, many with loyalty to Palestine.
While defenders of the wall often point to the drop in bombings after 2004, the truth is that 2001 to 2004 was a spike in bombings (suicide bombing campaigns are rarely sustained, for one fairly obvious reason ). The rates are now pretty much back to what they were in 1990s.
My view of Israel's policy over these kinds of threats are that every country in the region hates them, so they need to provide a deterrent. They can't talk to their enemies because the same people don't believe Israel should be a country in the first place (not just because religious matters), and kind of set a base line for future diplomatic discussions after they invaded it half a dozen times. If Israel allows itself to lose land to one of its local enemies then it means throwing the people living in those areas to the wolves. I consider that they need to make their enemies know that they're stronger than them at every possible instance, otherwise they'll leave themselves open to abuse (such as youknow all the wars they've had to fight). It just so happens that in order to do this they tend to be heavy handed in such matters and piss off plenty of people, but as long as they keep their own population safe that's secondary it would seem. Personally I can respect how the Israelis handle themselves, if not wholly agree with them because of the long term repercussions. When the guys across the border are preaching genocide and launching missiles at you I don't think that taking a harsh stance against them's too out of bounds.
I suppose my feeling is that the Israelis take a realistic standpoint given how the rest of the region thinks of them. They know nobody likes them and that that's not going to change no matter how much work they put in, so they've just said screw it and do what it takes to keep their enemies in check. Of course they also aren't the best of allies either, nor do they care too much for international conventions (IRC I don't think you're allowed to mount a 105mm gun on your field Ambulances), but given that for the most part they provide a pro-western strong point in the region governments let their foreign policy slide. Anyway, I consider that the Israeli's tactics of aggressively defending themselves to be a legitimate method of keeping their country from being run over by every other country in the region. Of course one day it might not work out quite so well (Tel Aviv seems to be a sure target for nuclear attack in fiction for some reason), but for the moment its keeping their enemies in check. Given that they're a country the size of Wales and have so many enemies which have proven they'll invade them at the slightest show of weakness, and well based on previous failed diplomatic efforts too, I don't think with the current state of affairs the Israelis can do much else but keep stamping everyone into the dirt, even if it isn't so agreeable by our modern PC standards.
My point is to just look past moral judgement, about picking one side or the other, or both, and saying 'I hate them they are bad people'. Truth is most everyone on Earth, if placed in the positions of the Israeli's would act as they have, and most people if placed in the position of the Palestinians would act as they have.
So you just step back from the judgement, and look with impartial eyes, and ask who could solve this issue, and how. And the answer is that Israel has the power in this situation, economically, militarily and politically.
I would of thought that Israel could simply grab the moral high ground but sorting out the settlement issue. It is basically a land grab after all. I know that their belief is that "God" gave it to them, but lets be practical here. The whole area is too complex for there to be b&w answers to everything. At least if they resolve the settlement issue, then they will be able to gain the moral high ground on the international stage.
sebster wrote:
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.
That's one of the most simplistic views of the conflict I think I've ever heard. Do you honestly believe that if Israel did those things, the Palestinians would pull out the guitars and join them for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya?
I don't think anyone is looking at Isreal and Palestine as an example of a working solution. On-going low level warfare for three generations with no end in sight? Please give me some of that!
It works in that not many Israelis get killed these days. As long as that's the case, everything else is small potatoes to Israel.
Many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians work in Israel, and travel through checkpoints on the wall on a daily basis. And there are many hundreds of thousands of ethnic Palestinians who happen to live within Israel, many with loyalty to Palestine.
While defenders of the wall often point to the drop in bombings after 2004, the truth is that 2001 to 2004 was a spike in bombings (suicide bombing campaigns are rarely sustained, for one fairly obvious reason ). The rates are now pretty much back to what they were in 1990s.
Sure. If things are up for long enough, people always find ways to circumvent them. Tunnels, forged documents, etcetc. But I think the key point there, was that bombings DID drop for a period of time. No doubt Hamas will come up with some way of circumventing Iron Dome. They'll figure out where the counter-launchers are placed, and work out better targeting systems. But in the meantime? Less people get killed. Just because something doesn't work forever doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile to do it in the first place.
Wyrmalla wrote: My view of Israel's policy over these kinds of threats are that every country in the region hates them, so they need to provide a deterrent.
Nah. Israel has a military that can gak on anyone else in the region. At the same time their former enemies are now tied to the hip of the US just as Israel are. Hell, Egypt actually enforces the border quarantine for Israel. Times have changed. The existential threat to Israel simply isn't there anymore.
And besides, if Israel really was worried and needed to keep it's military in a constant state of readiness, then the last thing they'd want is to grind that military down in local security operations. Ask any American servicemen on here who served in Iraq if that improved the US' military strength?
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
Because that wouldn't end the issue. Unless you're suggesting the Palestinians weren't fighting Israel before the settlements started cropping up.
Ketara wrote: That's one of the most simplistic views of the conflict I think I've ever heard.
Then you clearly haven't spent much time on dakka in an Israel thread. Get prepared to hear about two dozen opinions that are much, much more simplistic.
Do you honestly believe that if Israel did those things, the Palestinians would pull out the guitars and join them for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya?
I think it's just plain rude to try and interpret another person's comment in the least flattering way, and so please don't do that again.
And no, obviously I don't think it would automatically lead to an immediate end to hostilities and bad blood. But it would be the first step, and without that step no other move can be made.
It works in that not many Israelis get killed these days. As long as that's the case, everything else is small potatoes to Israel.
That is, interestingly enough, quite simplistic. While Israeli casualties are quite low, I think if you asked any Israeli citizen in, say, 1980, if they would accept a policy that meant conflict was still on-going in 2014 with no progress made on borders (and only grudging acceptance of a two state solution), but only a handful of Israelis are abducted/killed each year, you wouldn't find many takers.
Sure. If things are up for long enough, people always find ways to circumvent them. Tunnels, forged documents, etcetc. But I think the key point there, was that bombings DID drop for a period of time. No doubt Hamas will come up with some way of circumventing Iron Dome. They'll figure out where the counter-launchers are placed, and work out better targeting systems. But in the meantime? Less people get killed. Just because something doesn't work forever doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile to do it in the first place.
No, you missed the point. The bombing did drop, and never rose again. There's three or four a year now, whereas at the peak of the bombing there was about 40 a year.
The point is that in the 90s, before the wall, there was also about three or four a year. It was really just a period of about three or four years where bombings really spiked before subsiding again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Because that wouldn't end the issue. Unless you're suggesting the Palestinians weren't fighting Israel before the settlements started cropping up.
I think it's a bit silly to claim there's been no evolution in the stance of either side in the last hundred odd years.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
Because that wouldn't end the issue. Unless you're suggesting the Palestinians weren't fighting Israel before the settlements started cropping up.
But it would give them the moral high ground. The same with Hamas, if they redacted their wish to see Israel wiped off the map. Otherwise this is the same old cycle that happens again and again. I could understand it if this type of action gives Israel peace for 5 - 10 years, but it doesn't even do that.
Then you clearly haven't spent much time on dakka in an Israel thread. Get prepared to hear about two dozen opinions that are much, much more simplistic.
..........touche.
I think it's just plain rude to try and interpret another person's comment in the least flattering way, and so please don't do that again.
Least flattering? You've commented that Israel has the power to make it 'end'. Your word there. As in, if Israel took the actions you've laid out, everything would be fine and hunky dory, and peace would prevail across the land. Because by doing those things, Israel can make 'an end to the issue'.
And no, obviously I don't think it would automatically lead to an immediate end to hostilities and bad blood. But it would be the first step, and without that step no other move can be made.
Then you phrased your initial comment badly. You didn't say that Israel could make the first step, and hopefully Hamas would reciprocate in kind. You laid the entire responsibility at Israel's door. If you're retracting that now in favour of the above, I have no major quarrel with it. I'm not convinced that it's true, but it could be. I think that the results of that one lie in the lap of the Gods, so to speak.
That is, interestingly enough, quite simplistic.
Not everything need be complex.
While Israeli casualties are quite low, I think if you asked any Israeli citizen in, say, 1980, if they would accept a policy that meant conflict was still on-going in 2014 with no progress made on borders (and only grudging acceptance of a two state solution), but only a handful of Israelis are abducted/killed each year, you wouldn't find many takers.
I daresay if I offered an alternative scenario with ongoing conflict in 2014 with no progress made on borders, but five times as many casualties, they'd grab it with both hands.
You're playing what-if history here, where you assume that if certain actions hadn't been taken, then you think something else more positive would have happened. But that's complete guesswork.
No, you missed the point. The bombing did drop, and never rose again. There's three or four a year now, whereas at the peak of the bombing there was about 40 a year.
The point is that in the 90s, before the wall, there was also about three or four a year. It was really just a period of about three or four years where bombings really spiked before subsiding again.
I think you just contradicted your initial point then...?
Wolfstan wrote: But it would give them the moral high ground. The same with Hamas, if they redacted their wish to see Israel wiped off the map. Otherwise this is the same old cycle that happens again and again. I could understand it if this type of action gives Israel peace for 5 - 10 years, but it doesn't even do that.
What good does the moral high ground do them? It doesn't stop indiscriminate rocket attacks. It doesn't get anybody outside of Israel to play hardball with the Palestinians. It does, in effect, absolutely nothing.
It means that you may actually get support from the rest of the world. What if Hamas made some gestures that actually got the US onboard? Something that made your current administration say to Israel "hold on a mo, they are making an effort here"
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.
Except of course Israel was being attacked back when the West Bank and Gaza were still Jordan and Egypt. Even Jordan and Egypt don't want them back.
They pulled out of Gaza and Hamas started firing rockets at them that day.
Wolfstan wrote: Here's an idea. Why don't one of the warring sides pull the rug from under the other side by doing something profoundly positive?
Because it won't work.
We're talking about the last decolonization war.
Instead of building a jewish state on the ashes of the Third Reich, we built it in our former colonies, for european people to settle there, because these were our colonies and these land belong to european people...
Great idea. Just imagine what would have happened if Great Britain decided to give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to Zulus. Most of them never landed a foot there before, but their imaginary best friend told them it should belong to them and you feel guilty about the Anglo-Zulu War, so...
Because hey, it's your colonies, you can do whatever you want. Seriously, who cares about what texan people think? We don't even know if they can actually think.
Caricature ? Nope. Colonization was exactly like that, and Israel is its last avatar.
Let's build a football stadium, and there will be peace. Yeah, sure.
Litcheur wrote: We're talking about the last decolonization war.
Instead of building a jewish state on the ashes of the Third Reich, we built it in our former colonies, for european people to settle there, because these were our colonies and these land belong to european people...
Great idea. Just imagine what would have happened if Great Britain decided to give Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to Zulus. Most of them never landed a foot there before, but their imaginary best friend told them it should belong to them and you feel guilty about the Anglo-Zulu War, so...
Because hey, it's your colonies, you can do whatever you want. Seriously, who cares about what texan people think? We don't even know if they can actually think.
Caricature ? Nope. Colonization was exactly like that, and Israel is its last avatar.
Let's build a football stadium, and there will be peace. Yeah, sure.
Except for the fact that the US was not a colony of the British Empire for about 100 years before that conflict you mentioned. And at the time that the land that would become the US was a colony none of the States you mentioned were established.
Well considering that Israel people were "given" land in the aftermath of WW2 without asking anybody whose land was given away and the size and magnitude of expansion of Israel I think I feel sorry for those Palestinians. I mean look at this graphic
I know that I would be pissed off is someone tried something like this with my country. I went trough one war when Serbs in the aftermath of dissolving of Yugoslavia tried to occupy big part of Croatia (they managed to do that but we won after all and liberated those parts of Croatia).
The biggest problem in Israel/Palestina is closed circle of hate and sorrow, after three generations there are few families that werent affected by this war (either by losing someone to the opposing side or losing home) so people are thought from birth to hate "the ones over the wall" be it from Palestinian or Israeli side.
Reasoning of giving Israel land is also unbelievable, ok this is your ancestor land so we will transfer and populate this land by people which are Judes and we will not care whatever happens when we leave from here, and yes of course you can have nuclear weapons why not. Maybe Croats should try to get some part of Iran or Karpat mountain region since we came from there in the 7th century.
Also Israel is military country I think they are probably one of the most organized and trained armed forces in the world and on the other side you have AKs (good gun but not so good for assault on Israel) and suicide bombers. I am afraid that there is no solution to this problem and that it will eventually end with extinction of Palestinian people, I only feel sorry for the civilians and innocent people that die because of some, to put it sarcastically, "land dispute".
Hope that I didnt insult anyone it was not my intention.
Wolfstan wrote: It means that you may actually get support from the rest of the world. What if Hamas made some gestures that actually got the US onboard? Something that made your current administration say to Israel "hold on a mo, they are making an effort here"
Israel doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't care about any moral high ground.
Wolfstan wrote: It means that you may actually get support from the rest of the world. What if Hamas made some gestures that actually got the US onboard? Something that made your current administration say to Israel "hold on a mo, they are making an effort here"
Israel doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. They don't care about any moral high ground.
dubovac wrote: Well considering that Israel people were "given" land in the aftermath of WW2 without asking anybody whose land was given away and the size and magnitude of expansion of Israel I think I feel sorry for those Palestinians. I mean look at this graphic
I know that I would be pissed off is someone tried something like this with my country. I went trough one war when Serbs in the aftermath of dissolving of Yugoslavia tried to occupy big part of Croatia (they managed to do that but we won after all and liberated those parts of Croatia).
The biggest problem in Israel/Palestina is closed circle of hate and sorrow, after three generations there are few families that werent affected by this war (either by losing someone to the opposing side or losing home) so people are thought from birth to hate "the ones over the wall" be it from Palestinian or Israeli side.
Reasoning of giving Israel land is also unbelievable, ok this is your ancestor land so we will transfer and populate this land by people which are Judes and we will not care whatever happens when we leave from here, and yes of course you can have nuclear weapons why not. Maybe Croats should try to get some part of Iran or Karpat mountain region since we came from there in the 7th century.
Also Israel is military country I think they are probably one of the most organized and trained armed forces in the world and on the other side you have AKs (good gun but not so good for assault on Israel) and suicide bombers. I am afraid that there is no solution to this problem and that it will eventually end with extinction of Palestinian people, I only feel sorry for the civilians and innocent people that die because of some, to put it sarcastically, "land dispute".
Hope that I didnt insult anyone it was not my intention.
Its a false graph. There is no Palestine. There is Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.
You're making the huge (and likely incorrect) assumption that the Arabs will stop attacking Israel, so long as Israel stops building settlements.
These aren't rational people. Hezbollah attacked Israel in 2006 using the Shebaa Farms area as justification. It's an area that is literally 14 square miles, located geographically on the Golan heights, and wasn't really disputed when Syria controlled the heights. Kind of silly to kick off a war and get over a thousand people killed.
If Israel forces settlers to stop building and return to Israel proper, they will find another reason to justify conflict.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.
I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer. And while one could argue that Hamas is also at fault for placing their installations in densely populated areas, they really do not have much choice on that. The Gaza Strip is hugely overcrowed.
Wyrmalla wrote: My view of Israel's policy over these kinds of threats are that every country in the region hates them, so they need to provide a deterrent.
Nah. Israel has a military that can gak on anyone else in the region. At the same time their former enemies are now tied to the hip of the US just as Israel are. Hell, Egypt actually enforces the border quarantine for Israel. Times have changed. The existential threat to Israel simply isn't there anymore.
And besides, if Israel really was worried and needed to keep it's military in a constant state of readiness, then the last thing they'd want is to grind that military down in local security operations. Ask any American servicemen on here who served in Iraq if that improved the US' military strength?
Actually, in many ways Iraq strengthened the US military. Prior to 2003 the Israelis were the premiere experts in urban combat. I firmly believe that the US does it better these days. Equipment-wise, the military was strengthened in many ways (vehicles, PPE, TTPs, ISR technologies, etc.), and the US military also gained a ton of combat experience. US trauma surgeons are now the best in the world hands down.
Low intensity conflicts can be useful for maintaining readiness and giving younger soldiers experience .FWIW, the IDF IS in a constant state of readiness. During my time there we conducted national readiness exercises multiple times. We aren't going to get caught with our pants down again like we did in 73.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.
I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.
Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!
The truth is, though, that's exactly what Hamas wants. The more dead kids they can video tape, the better for their PR. It's disgusting and monstrous.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.
I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.
Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!
I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh its this time again? Pft, meh, same crap different day. So far the BBC's doing their typical thing of spending all their time noting the Israeli strikes in civilian areas, but failing to point out the Palestinians have been launching just as many rockets at the Israelis. Whatever, call me when this turns into something more than what goes on there every other day of the week. At least this means there's plenty of shots of those snazzy Israeli Merkavas and Namers on the Tv, though otherwise this isn't new until someone other than Hamas involves themselves.
I think the difference here is that while the Isreali airstrikes kill lots of innocent men, women and children, the Palestinian missiles rarely do any actual damage. It is like someone taps you on the nose, and you respond by hitting him in the face with a sledgehammer.
Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!
I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.
Again with the "proportionate" nonsense. If someone is shooting at you and happens to wound you, you don't shoot until you wound him. You shoot until the threat has stopped.
Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!
I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.
Fair enough - as I understand it, the goal of the current operation is to curtail rocket and mortar attacks by hitting Hamas' weapons caches, command centers, and firing positions. I get the impression that most people believe that Israel is indiscriminately carpet-bombing Gaza, which cannot be further from the truth.
What kind of response would be appropriate? Honest question.
Iron_Captain wrote: Whoa now...so because the Palestinians are trying to murder innocent people, but they can't build weapons worth a damn, the Israelis shouldn't retaliate? I take issue with that notion. Some burden of responsibility has to be placed on the nose tapper - if you realize you're going to get your ass handed to you, don't start trouble!
I don't say Israel should not retaliate. Any state should retaliate if someone fires missiles at their territory, regardless of whether they hit anything or not. However, what I am saying is that Isreal's retaliation is disproportionate.
What, in your opinion, is a proportionate response? And how do you determine what is proportionate?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Except for the fact that the US was not a colony of the British Empire for about 100 years before that conflict you mentioned. And at the time that the land that would become the US was a colony none of the States you mentioned were established.
Take any example that suits you.
White people were persecuted for centuries by white people because they didn't agree if they should say "Shalom" or "Salut" (or "Salam", now...) to the same imaginary best friend. Then a huge war was started by white people because they held a grudge against the outcome of the first one (that was started by white people). During that war, millions of white people were exterminated by white people. So, some of these white people (not gypsies, hey...) who have been persecuted by white people and exterminated by white people need a new state to protect them from any further persecution.
Then you expel arab people from the lands they've lived on for centuries.
(I know, they're white too. You get the point.)
Makes perfect sense to me. Palestinians have absolutely no reason to be pissed of. How do they even dare complaining?
Before Israel was created, relations between jews and muslims weren't that bad. Of course, they weren't perfect, but seriously, we're comparing to christians, here. Christians who considered the jews to have commited deicide and persecuted them for centuries before even thinking about putting them in gas chambers.
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
dubovac wrote: Well considering that Israel people were "given" land in the aftermath of WW2 without asking anybody whose land was given away and the size and magnitude of expansion of Israel I think I feel sorry for those Palestinians. I mean look at this graphic.
You do know that Palestine never existed as a country. The people living there prior to the formation of Israel were little more than squatters on land owned by other countries at one point or another.
The people of the neighboring countries hate the so called "palestinians" almost as much as they hate Israel. Its actually why they encourage the conflict, so that they're both fighting each other and neither group is emigrating to the nearby countries.
Israel was given land that was owned by Great Britain. It wasn't owned by the people living there.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What, in your opinion, is a proportionate response? And how do you determine what is proportionate?
Determining what is proportionate is difficult indeed, but preferably it does not involve bombing densely populated areas. Can't Israel insert some special forces to take those Hamas facilities out?
dubovac wrote: Well considering that Israel people were "given" land in the aftermath of WW2 without asking anybody whose land was given away and the size and magnitude of expansion of Israel I think I feel sorry for those Palestinians. I mean look at this graphic.
You do know that Palestine never existed as a country. The people living there prior to the formation of Israel were little more than squatters on land owned by other countries at one point or another.
The people of the neighboring countries hate the so called "palestinians" almost as much as they hate Israel. Its actually why they encourage the conflict, so that they're both fighting each other and neither group is emigrating to the nearby countries.
Israel was given land that was owned by Great Britain. It wasn't owned by the people living there.
Palestine is an existing country. What you are probably aiming at however is that Palestine has never existed as and independent state. Calling the Palestines 'squatters' is a grave insult however and much like calling the native Americans 'squatters'. The rights of a nation to a country are not dependent on the existence of a state or not.
Before the British took over it was part of the Ottoman Empire, and after that it became Mandatory Palestine. The Palestines have been living in the area even longer than the Isrealites have, both have right to the land. What is undisputed however is that the way the re-founding of Isreal and the expulsion of the Arab Palestinians is a form of ethnic cleansing.
Personally short of one side totally exterminating the other, I don't see how this ends any time soon.
What is Israel declares Gaza free to form its own country but: 1. The wall between Israel and Gaza stays up and there will be no trade or movement of goods, people, or services between them. 2. If, after that, attacks come from Gaza they will be viewed as a declaration of war and the entire population will be deported to Libya (just thinking of a country that couldn't stop Israel) and that parcel will then be considered Isreali territory.
Would that work?
Alternatively what if they go Statue of Liberty- 1. We are annexing the Gaza Strip. Upon annexation everyone in the Gaza strip will become Isreali citizens with full rights and duties therein. What about that?
Litcheur wrote: Before Israel was created, relations between jews and muslims weren't that bad. Of course, they weren't perfect, but seriously, we're comparing to christians, here. Christians who considered the jews to have commited deicide and persecuted them for centuries before even thinking about putting them in gas chambers.
According to Mark R. Cohen, during the rise of Islam, the first encounters between Muslims and Jews resulted in conflict when Muhammad expelled the Ancient Jewish tribes of Medina, when refused allegiance. He adds that this encounter was an exception rather than a rule.[7]
Traditionally Jews living in Muslim lands, known as dhimmis, were allowed to practice their religion and to administer their internal affairs but subject to certain conditions.[8] They had to pay the jizya (a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males) to Muslims.[9] Dhimmis had an inferior status under Islamic rule. They had several social and legal disabilities such as prohibitions against bearing arms or giving testimony in courts in cases involving Muslims.[10] Contrary to popular belief, the Quran did not allow Muslims to force Jews to wear distinctive clothing. Obadyah the Proselyte reported in 1100 AD, that the Caliph had created this rule himself:
The Caliph of Baghdad, al-Muqtadi [1075–1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja, [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck … a piece of lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll-tax. Jews also had to wear girdles round their waists. Abu Shuja further imposed two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim] women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad. When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll-tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll-tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll-tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body. (Scheiber, A. "The Origins of Obadyah, the Norman Proselyte" Journal of Jewish Studies (Oxford), Vol. 5, 1954, p. 37.)
In Moorish Spain, ibn Hazm and Abu Ishaq focused their anti-Jewish writings on the latter allegation. This was also the chief motivation behind the 1066 Granada massacre, when "[m]ore than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day",[11] and in Fez in 1033, when 6,000 Jews were killed.[12] There were further massacres in Fez in 1276 and 1465.[13]
The Damascus affair occurred in 1840, when a French monk and his servant disappeared in Damascus. Immediately following, a charge of ritual murder was brought against a large number of Jews in the city including children who were tortured. The consuls of England, France and Germany as well as Ottoman authorities, Christians, Muslims and Jews all played a great role in this affair.[14] Following the Damascus affair, Pogroms spread through the Middle East and North Africa. Pogroms occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jerusalem (1847), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901–02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901–07), Port Said (1903, 1908), Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891), Istanbul (1870, 1874), Buyukdere (1864), Kuzguncuk (1866), Eyub (1868), Edirne (1872), Izmir (1872, 1874).[15] There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[12] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[12]
In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. This is known as the Allahdad incident. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[16]
In 1941, following Rashid Ali's pro-Axis coup, riots known as the Farhud broke out in Baghdad in which approximately 180 Jews were killed and about 240 were wounded, 586 Jewish-owned businesses were looted and 99 Jewish houses were destroyed.[17]
Border police discovered on March 2, 1974 the bodies of (clockwise from top left: Fara Zeibak, Mazal Zeibak, Eva Saad and Lulu Zeibak, in a cave in the Zabdani Mountains.
During the Holocaust, the Middle East was in turmoil. Britain prohibited Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine. In Cairo the Jewish Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) assassinated Lord Moyne in 1944 fighting as part of its campaign against British closure of Palestine to Jewish immigration, complicating British-Arab-Jewish relations. While the Allies and the Axis were fighting for the oil-rich region, the Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husayni staged a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and organized the Farhud pogrom which marked the turning point for about 150,000 Iraqi Jews who, following this event and the hostilities generated by the war with Israel in 1948, were targeted for violence, persecution, boycotts, confiscations, and near complete expulsion in 1951. The coup failed and the mufti fled to Berlin, where he actively supported Hitler. In Egypt, with a Jewish population of about 75,000, young Anwar Sadat was imprisoned for conspiring with the Nazis and promised them that "no British soldier would leave Egypt alive" (see Military history of Egypt during World War II) leaving the Jews of that region defenseless. In the French Vichy territories of Algeria and Syria plans had been drawn up for the liquidation of their Jewish populations were the Axis powers to triumph.
The tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict were also a factor in the rise of animosity to Jews all over the Middle East, as hundreds of thousands of Jews fled as refugees, the main waves being soon after the 1948 and 1956 wars. In reaction to the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Egyptian government expelled almost 25,000 Egyptian Jews and confiscated their property, and sent approximately 1,000 more Jews to prisons and detention camps. The population of Jewish communities of Muslim Middle East and North Africa was reduced from about 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 today.
On March 2, 1974, the bodies of four Syrian Jewish girls were discovered by border police in a cave in the Zabdani Mountains northwest of Damascus. Fara Zeibak 24, her sisters Lulu Zeibak 23, Mazal Zeibak 22 and their cousin Eva Saad 18, had contracted with a band of smugglers to flee from Syria to Lebanon and eventually to Israel. The girl’s bodies were found raped, murdered and mutilated. The police also found the remains of two Jewish boys, Natan Shaya 18 and Kassem Abadi 20, victims of an earlier massacre.[18] Syrian authorities deposited the bodies of all six in sacks before the homes of their parents in the Jewish ghetto in Damascus.[19]
Muslim conquest[edit]
There were, for some long but uncertain period, a significant number of Jews in Arabia. Historians claim that very large numbers of Jews – as high as 80,000 – arrived after the destruction of the First Temple, to join others already long established in places such as the oasis of Khaybar as well as the trading colonies in Medina and Mecca (where they even had their own cemetery). Another theory posits that these Jews were refugees from Byzantine persecutions. Regardless, Arab historians mention some 20 Jewish tribes, including two tribes of Kohanim.[3]
The Constitution of Medina, written shortly after hijra, addressed some points regarding the civil and religious situation for the Jewish communities living within the city from an Islamic perspective. For example, the constitution stated that the Jews "will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs", and they "shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs". After the Battle of Badr, the Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqa breached treaties and agreements with Muhammad. Muhammad regarded this as casus belli and besieged the Banu Qaynuqa. Upon surrender the tribe was expelled.[4] The following year saw the expulsion of the second tribe, the Banu Nadir, accused of planning to kill the prophet Muhammad. The third major Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayza was eliminated after allegedly betraying the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench according to the Mosaic laws enjoined in Torah. Although there were many Jewish tribes present in Medina who continued to live in Medina peacefully after these events such as Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham Banu Alfageer, Banu Najjar Banu Sa'ida, and Banu Shutayba.[5][6]
In year 20 of the Muslim era, or the year 641 AD, Muhammad's successor the Caliph 'Umar decreed that Jews and Christians should be removed from all but the southern and eastern fringes of Arabia—a decree based on the (sometimes disputed) uttering of the Prophet: "Let there not be two religions in Arabia". The two populations in question were the Jews of the Khaybar oasis in the north and the Christians of Najran.[7][8] Only the Red Sea port of Jedda was permitted as a "religious quarantine area" and continued to have a small complement of Jewish merchants.
Middle Ages[edit]
During the Middle Ages, Jewish people under Muslim rule experienced tolerance and integration.[9] Some historians refer to this time period as the "Golden Age" for the Jews as more opportunities became available to them.[9] But this approach is commonly referred to as a myth.[10] Examples of large scale persecution against Jews in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages include the Almohad's persecutions, in which entire Jewish communities in Al-Andalus and North Africa were destroyed, and cases such as the 1033 Fez massacre. In the context of day-to-day life, Abdel Fattah Ashour, a professor of medieval history at Cairo University, states that Jewish people found solace under Islamic rule during the Middle Ages.[11] The Muslim rule at times didn't fully enforced the Pact of Umar and the traditional Dhimi status of Jews. Author Merlin Swartz referred to this time period as a new era for the Jews, stating that the attitude of tolerance led to Jewish integration into Arab-Islamic society.[11]
Jewish integration allowed Jews to make great advances in new fields, such as mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, chemistry and philology.[12] Jewish people also experienced political achievements under Islamic rule.[9] Jews under Islam pursued many economic endeavors that helped integrate them into the Arab marketplace.[13] During early Islam, Leon Poliakov writes, Jews enjoyed great privileges, and their communities prospered. There was no legislation or social barriers preventing them from conducting commercial activities. Commercial and craft guilds did not exist like the ones in Europe. Jewish people under Islamic Rule were no longer excluded from any specific profession and this helped lessen their negative stigma.[13] Many Jews migrated to areas newly conquered by Muslims and established communities there. The vizier of Baghdad entrusted his capital with Jewish bankers. The Jews were put in charge of certain parts of maritime and slave trade. Siraf, the principal port of the caliphate in the 10th century, had a Jewish governor.[14]
Although Jewish life improved under Islamic rule, an interfaith utopia did not exist.[13] Jewish people still experienced persecution. Under Islamic Rule, the Pact of Umar was introduced, which protected the Jews but also established them as inferior.[15] Since the 11th century, there have been instances of pogroms against Jews.[16] Examples include the 1066 Granada massacre, the razing of the entire Jewish quarter in the Andalucian city of Granada.[17] In North Africa, there were cases of violence against Jews in the Middle Ages,[18] and in other Arab lands including Egypt,[19] Syria.[20] and Yemen[21] Jewish population was confined to segregated quarters, or mellahs, in Morocco beginning from the 15th century. In cities, a mellah was surrounded by a wall with a fortified gateway. In contrast, rural mellahs were separate villages inhabited solely by the Jews.[22] The Almohads, who had taken control of much of Islamic Iberia by 1172, were far more fundamentalist in outlook than the Almoravides, and they treated the dhimmis harshly. Jews and Christians were expelled from Morocco and Islamic Spain.[23] Faced with the choice of either death or conversion, some Jews, such as the family of Maimonides, fled south and east to the more tolerant Muslim lands, while others went northward to settle in the growing Christian kingdoms.[24][25] In 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in an offensive manner. The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.[26][27]
Historian Mark R. Cohen writes that conclusions about Jewish life under Islamic rule can only be derived through a comparative approach. Jews of Islam experienced less physical violence than Jews under Western Christendom.[13] Cohen believes a reason for this may be that Islam, unlike Christianity, did not need to establish a separate identity from Judaism.[28] He also states that Jewish people were less threatening to Muslims than Christians during the Middle Ages.[13] Isolated events of persecution did occur but this does not change the fact that Jewish people were treated adequately.[15] Cohen also notes that many people have used the myth that Jews were mistreated under Muslim rule to bolster their political standpoints in response to propaganda.[11]
Seljuk (1077-1307) and Ottoman Turkey (1299-1922)[edit]
Jews have lived in Asia Minor for more than 2,400 years. Originally settling in Asia Minor in its Hellenistic period, they were driven out in the period of Byzantine rule between the 5th and 11th centuries, resettling there only after the occupation of much of Anatolia by Muslim Seljuk forces after the Battle of Manzikert. Jewish civilization grew and thrived with the Seljuk and Ottoman rule. For much of the subsequent Seljuk and Ottoman period, Turkey was a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and it continues to have a Jewish population today which, at 26,000 persons, is the second biggest in the Muslim world today, after Iran.
Early Modern Period[edit]
The Ottoman Empire had served as a refuge for Spanish Jews who had been expelled from the Kingdom of Spain and its territories and possessions, especially after the fall of Muslim Spain in 1492 and Edict of Expulsion. This was also the case for the Maghreb in North Africa, where a Jewish quarter (Mellah), was installed in most large Arabian cities. Later the Jewish converts were driven out of Spain fleeing the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
In 1656, all Jews were expelled from Isfahan because of the common belief of their impurity and forced to convert to Islam. However, as it became known that the converts continued to practice Judaism in secret and because the treasury suffered from the loss of jizya collected from the Jews, in 1661 they were allowed to revert to Judaism, but were still required to wear a distinctive patch on their clothing.[29]
Confined to city quarters, the Bukharan Jews were denied basic rights and many were forced to convert to Islam. They had to wear black and yellow dress to distinguish themselves from the Muslims.[30]
Under the Zaydi rule, the Yemenite Jews were considered to be impure, and therefore forbidden to touch a Muslim or a Muslim's food. They were obligated to humble themselves before a Muslim, to walk to the left side, and greet him first. They could not build houses higher than a Muslim's or ride a camel or horse, and when riding on a mule or a donkey, they had to sit sideways. Upon entering the Muslim quarter a Jew had to take off his foot-gear and walk barefoot. If attacked with stones or fists by Islamic youth, a Jew was not allowed to defend himself. In such situations he had the option of fleeing or seeking intervention by a merciful Muslim passerby.[31]
19th century[edit]
In 1834, in Safed local Muslim Arabs carried out a massacre of the indigenous (Old Yishuv) Jewish population of that city in the Safed Plunder.[citation needed]
In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[32] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[33][34] In 1839, the Allahdad incident, the Jews of Mashhad, Iran, now known as the Mashhadi Jews, were coerced into converting to Islam.[35]
In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the life of Persian Jews:
"…they are obliged to live in a separate part of town…; for they are considered as unclean creatures… Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt… For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans… If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him… unmercifully… If a Jew enters a shop for anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods… Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them... Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever please them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life... If... a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of the Katel (Muharram)…, he is sure to be murdered."[36]
In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were falsely accused of having murdered a Christian monk and his Muslim servant and of having used their blood to bake Passover bread.[37] A Jewish barber was tortured until he "confessed"; two other Jews who were arrested died under torture, while a third converted to Islam to save his life. Throughout the 1860s, the Jews of Libya were subjected to what Gilbert calls punitive taxation. In 1864, around 500 Jews were killed in Marrakech and Fez in Morocco. In 1869, 18 Jews were killed in Tunis, and an Arab mob looted Jewish homes and stores, and burned synagogues, on Jerba Island. In 1875, 20 Jews were killed by a mob in Demnat, Morocco; elsewhere in Morocco, Jews were attacked and killed in the streets in broad daylight. In 1897, synagogues were ransacked and Jews were murdered in Tripolitania.[32]
Twentieth century[edit]
Further information: Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2013)
By the late 1930s, even before the establishment of the state of Israel, conditions of Jews in many Muslim countries were rapidly worsening through a combination of decolonisation, growing Arab nationalism due to European occupation; Nazi influence in the Axis controlled parts of North Africa; and the conflict in the British Mandate of Palestine. By the mid 1970s the vast majority of Jews had left Arab and Muslim countries, moving primarily to Israel, France and the United States, as well as Great Britain and other Commonwealth nations.[38] The reasons for the exodus are varied and disputed.[38] In 1945 there were between 758,000 and 866,000 Jews living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000. In some Arab states, such as Libya which was once around 3 percent Jewish, the Jewish community no longer exists; in other Arab countries, only a few hundred Jews remain.
The largest communities of Jews in a Muslim land exist in the non-Arab countries of Iran and Turkey; both, however, are much smaller than they historically have been. Among Arab countries, the largest Jewish community exists in Morocco.
Jewish ethnic groups that have lived in the majority-Muslim world include Sephardi, Mizrahi, and Temani.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Determining what is proportionate is difficult indeed, but preferably it does not involve bombing densely populated areas. Can't Israel insert some special forces to take those Hamas facilities out?
Hamas facilities are often in densely populated areas of their territory (because the presence of civilians can be a deterrent). Inserting special forces into densely packed, hostile, urban terrain and expecting them to approach a target undetected, complete their mission and extract unnoticed is about as close to fantasy as you can get.
Would your opinion change if you knew that Hamas launches attacks from urban population centers, hospitals, schools, mosques, etc. and forbids the people to leave the area. What about if you were aware that the IDF warns Gaza residents to avoid or evacuate certain areas? And that in doing so Hamas sends human shields there to deter any airstrike?
Determining what is proportionate is difficult indeed, but preferably it does not involve bombing densely populated areas. Can't Israel insert some special forces to take those Hamas facilities out?
If Hamas places its forces and assets next to densely populated areas, there really isn't anything we can do about it other than use the most precise munitions available, which is what we do. And we can't send in SF for the exact reason you describe - all of those "civilians" would immediately pounce on any small infantry unit crossing through the area.
Long story short, any small unit operating in an environment like Gaza would be surrounded and immediately destroyed. The population density is too high and the environment too convoluted. If we were talking about little camps in the middle of the desert you'd have a point.
JERUSALEM – In a recent boost for Middle Eastern peace efforts, the Defense Department confirmed that a raid by Navy SEALs in the West Bank had killed known extremist agitator Isa Ibn Yusuf.
The 35-year old resident was facing a federal indictment on several counts of supporting terrorism and had been accused of recruiting young men for a violent group of zealots.
“It may have taken us 40 days and 40 nights, but we got him,” said Special Operations Command head Admiral William McRaven while describing the mission.
Ibn Yusuf, who at one point claimed he would set the world on fire and that he had not come to bring peace but a sword, was discovered on Sunday during a pre-dawn raid in a cave outside of Jerusalem.
The SEALs, working closely with both the Israeli Mossad and the Palestinian National Authority, were able to locate him through a tip from a close informant, described by Pentagon sources as Ibn Yusuf’s “left hand man.”
While there were previously no definitive images of Ibn Yusuf, who has been alternately described in the media as either Caucasian or African, the SEALs identified him through several prominent scars on his hands and feet.
He was discovered only two days after newspapers suggested he had been dragged through the streets and lynched by an angry mob. Pentagon officials now believe that Ibn Yusuf may have faked his own death after an attempted shakedown of some local financiers.
Jesus wanted posterLocal witness Saul Tarsus said that the SEALs initially tried to capture Ibn Yusuf, but after he attempted to flee across a nearby body of water they unsuccessfully engaged him with multiple gunshots to the torso, limbs, and head.
Tarsus then described being knocked to the ground by a blinding flash of light after the frustrated SEALs called in a 2,000 pound JDAM strike.
The SEALs were able to recover some materials from the cave, described by the Pentagon as a “treasure trove of terrorist literature.” They also found several pieces of wood and a bucket of nails which they suspect were being used to build a crude pressure-plate IED.
McRaven explained how Ibn Yusuf first came to the attention of U.S. intelligence five years ago, after he became the leader of a fanatical religious splinter group, where his frequently apocalyptic, sometimes pseudo-Marxist rhetoric helped him attract both national attention and a large following.
“Our intelligence suggested he lacked the logistical support to feed his network,” McRaven said, “but all of a sudden he produced enough bread and fish to feed them all. That can only mean one thing: Backing from the Saudis and Pakistanis.”
Despite Ibn Yusuf’s death, local officials will be taking additional precautions to ensure there is no rioting by his followers after Friday Prayers, Saturday Shabbat, or Sunday services.
In a related story, Pentagon officials reported that Ibn Yusuf’s eleven remaining lieutenants were successfully killed this afternoon by a targeted drone strike in Galilee.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: You're making the huge (and likely incorrect) assumption that the Arabs will stop attacking Israel, so long as Israel stops building settlements.
Did you read the leaked Hamas peace offer, from a few years back? Where they were basically offering Israel everything they wanted, if only to let up on the
These aren't rational people.
Of for feth's sake. You spend so much time talking about how you'd fight your government if you had to and all that other stupid macho bs, and then you look elsewhere in the world where an impoverished people is actually having it's land taken from it year by year, miss the point entirely and just claim they aren't rational people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Actually, in many ways Iraq strengthened the US military. Prior to 2003 the Israelis were the premiere experts in urban combat. I firmly believe that the US does it better these days. Equipment-wise, the military was strengthened in many ways (vehicles, PPE, TTPs, ISR technologies, etc.), and the US military also gained a ton of combat experience. US trauma surgeons are now the best in the world hands down.
Mwahaha!
Yeah, that's why the US has been so keen to pile in to so many engagements since. I mean hey, a trillion dollars and a few thousands edit away, but we learnt a couple of tricks and our surgeons have more experience.
Yeah, that's why the US has been so keen to pile in to so many engagements since. I mean hey, a trillion dollars and a few thousands shat away, but we learnt a couple of tricks and our surgeons have more experience.
If you want to have a serious conversation about readiness and capability and the net effect on both of OEF/OIF, you're going to need to learn a lot more than you currently know.
Most of the arguments made about Palestinian rights to self determination could also have been made about Ireland prior to independence you know. Or the United States for that matter. There was never any "Ireland" in the past, just a set of squabbling kingdoms. But that wouldn't have made it right for the Irish to have been exterminated, and thankfully the British didn't do so.
The award of Palestine to the Zionists was a tremendous mistake, and it's a mistake everyone in the region is living with today.
Most of the arguments made about Palestinian rights to self determination could also have been made about Ireland prior to independence you know. Or the United States for that matter. There was never any "Ireland" in the past, just a set of squabbling kingdoms. But that wouldn't have made it right for the Irish to have been exterminated, and thankfully the British didn't do so.
The award of Palestine to the Zionists was a tremendous mistake, and it's a mistake everyone in the region is living with today.
The world is a much better place because the amount of "conquering" has died off in the last century.
Tell the people evicted from their land when Irael was created -"Nah mate it's okay, you were CONQUERED. So just move along into that less fertile marginal land and don't cause a fuss!"
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, and it was fething horrible then, too.
The world is a much better place because the amount of "conquering" has died off in the last century.
Tell the people evicted from their land when Irael was created -"Nah mate it's okay, you were CONQUERED. So just move along into that less fertile marginal land and don't cause a fuss!"
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, and it was fething horrible then, too.
The world is a much better place because the amount of "conquering" has died off in the last century.
Tell the people evicted from their land when Irael was created -"Nah mate it's okay, you were CONQUERED. So just move along into that less fertile marginal land and don't cause a fuss!"
And? We don't have time machines, we have the now.
Whembly: Are you for real? You've got to be trolling here.
Frazzled: Yes, we have the now, where Israel's continued expansion into Palestinian land is being primarily financed by you are country. While blaming the Palestinians for fighting back? What, are they just supposed to lie down and die?
I find it really difficult to understand your point of view. It's like you don't consider the Palestinians people at all.
We also give a buttload of money to the Palestinians, so not seeing your point.
Of course there is no Palestine though. Gaza was Egypt. The West Bank was Jordan. Neither country wants them back.
Before they were "occupied" attacks came from there. Thats how they became occupied.
Hamas's entiere being is about maintaining the violence and destroying Israel. They preach it every day. What do you think Israel is going to do that is going to change that?
Again, what if Israel agreed with everything and said Gaza could be a completely separate country? What if Hamas kept attacking (like missiles coming out of Lebanon today).
As Israel what would you do?
Jeez kid they tried to blow up the nuke reactor. Think about that.
I'm just looking for what the solution is, that doesn't involve the death of hundreds of thousands of people. As noted, if I were there (the whole freaking region), I'd pack up my family and not be there any more.
Fraz: Were I in their position (the Palestinian one) I'd probably do the exact same thing. And regardless of the presence of a nation state, there were PEOPLE living in the areas that were settled by the Zionists. Who cares which administrative zone they were living in? Of course they're pissed off, and of course their identity is defined by that dispossession, it makes complete sense to me.
You're talking about poorly armed and financed irregulars fighting a modern, highly equipped army. The desperate tactics used are just the consequence of the divide in power.
What would I do if I were Israel? Damn, that's a difficult question to answer. Putting myself in the head of an Israeli? At the least, stop expanding. At the most, leave the area. Both of which you will of course deride as impossible. But the humanitarian cost of remaining is going to be huge.
Whembly: Being forced off their land by the Zionists was their own doing? Wouldn't you fight back if that was you?
So your answer to the several million Israelis is "time for another Exodus Boys and Girls!" Really? You think thats a workable solution? I guess the Israelis could just tell them, "you first." I suggest you re-examine your own views if that is your answer.
How about Israel make them citizens and give everyone the then going rate for the land - it was New Mexico level garbage land then anyway. How about that? What if they say no?
Da Boss wrote: What would I do if I were Israel? Damn, that's a difficult question to answer. Putting myself in the head of an Israeli? At the least, stop expanding. At the most, leave the area. Both of which you will of course deride as impossible. But the humanitarian cost of remaining is going to be huge.
When you say "leave the area" what area are you talking about?
As I recall didn't Israel pull out of the West Bank, and very shortly thereafter they were receiving rocket fire from there? That doesn't bode well for future disengagement.
Da Boss wrote: What would I do if I were Israel? Damn, that's a difficult question to answer. Putting myself in the head of an Israeli? At the least, stop expanding. At the most, leave the area. Both of which you will of course deride as impossible. But the humanitarian cost of remaining is going to be huge.
When you say "leave the area" what area are you talking about?
As I recall didn't Israel pull out of the West Bank, and very shortly thereafter they were receiving rocket fire from there? That doesn't bode well for future disengagement.
Yes thats exactly what happened.
He's saying everyone in Israel needs to leave I think.
I'm saying that would be the least violent solution. In my view, the Israelis are the aggressors (with European backing originally) having dispossessed the people living there. They also acted aggressively against the British with terrorist attacks when they were not supported to the level they wanted to be. The Zionist cause was (and is) insane, and it was never workable. This clusterfeth is the consequence of that world view.
While Israel remains, it will provoke attacks from the dispossessed palestinians, and then Israel will respond to defend itself, provoking yet more attacks. Without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians (which is happening in slow motion anyway) or genocide on either side, I don't see there ever being a solution.
The other option of course is to export all the Palestinians elsewhere. Either works for me, I guess. But the Palestinians don't have many options for escape, what with the crushing poverty and all that. Edit: I should clarify that I am being flippant here, and was also being flippant earlier. There is no simple solution to this problem, there might not even be a complicated solution- it's a goddamned messy tragedy that probably has no good ending.
If it seems like I am blindly pro-Palestine in this thread, I want to make it clear that I don't support their violence (I can understand it, but I don't support it) and I think it is wrong. I just find the level of support for Israel that always crops up in these threads to be unbelievable, because they are at least as bad, and in my view slightly worse since it was their crazy Zionist movement that "started" the whole conflict off.
So would all Israelis have to leave the country or die, or just the Jewish ones?
As noted I'd suggest outside Brownsville McAllen. Inexpensive to buy the land. Near the sea. We could even arrange a sort of land bridge to Mexico so they could be between two countries for trade an not be hemmed in. Plus its hotter than heck, just like home.
Da Boss wrote: I'm saying that would be the least violent solution. In my view, the Israelis are the aggressors (with European backing originally) having dispossessed the people living there. They also acted aggressively against the British with terrorist attacks when they were not supported to the level they wanted to be.
The Zionist cause was (and is) insane, and it was never workable. This clusterfeth is the consequence of that world view.
Is it workable to think that a country of over 8 million (almost twice that of Ireland) can simply be disbanded. What about the Palestinian cause? Do you think guerrilla war until you have the land from the river to the sea is workable?
Da Boss wrote: While Israel remains, it will provoke attacks from the dispossessed palestinians, and then Israel will respond to defend itself, provoking yet more attacks. Without ethnically cleansing the Palestinians (which is happening in slow motion anyway) or genocide on either side, I don't see there ever being a solution.
"While the UK remains, it will provoke attacks from the dispossessed Irish" - as you tried to equate Anglo-Irish history to the I/P conflict do you find sympathy with this statement? If not why not.
Da Boss wrote: The other option of course is to export all the Palestinians elsewhere. Either works for me, I guess. But the Palestinians don't have many options for escape, what with the crushing poverty and all that.
Edit: I should clarify that I am being flippant here, and was also being flippant earlier. There is no simple solution to this problem, there might not even be a complicated solution- it's a goddamned messy tragedy that probably has no good ending.
Wasn't that supposed to happen, but instead the Arab countries neighboring Israel decided it was best to wipe it out instead?
Da Boss wrote: If it seems like I am blindly pro-Palestine in this thread, I want to make it clear that I don't support their violence (I can understand it, but I don't support it) and I think it is wrong. I just find the level of support for Israel that always crops up in these threads to be unbelievable, because they are at least as bad, and in my view slightly worse since it was their crazy Zionist movement that "started" the whole conflict off.
You just called for an entire, legally constituted country to disband so as to stop people attacking it. Could you see why you might give that impression.
So what would become of the Israelis who were born there and know no other country than their own? Where should they live?
So I'm kinda shocked by what I've read in this thread, but then again everyone has their own perspective on the issue and their voice so its understandable. I should probably cite my credentials before I hop into what I got to say. I currently live in Saudi, but am a Caucasian American (born in Texas) and have lived here for 8 years. For 8 years, I've participated in MUN, been to multiple international conferences, and represented over 19 countries, including Israel.
My point of view on the issue: The situation is downright atrocious. Israel is completely butchering the Palestinians, and all online statistics support this notion. Sure the Palestinians are mustering up a resistance, but their damage output is nominal. All in all, I believe that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. The Americans and British essentially airdropped in the Jews/Zionists into Palestine into 1948, armed them, and told them to have fun. Palestinians on the other hand have lived there for 3,000+ years, lived in the land, and are now slowly being slaughtered off their rightful land. Israel has essentially the number 1 fighting force in the world and is doing great at killing nominally trained resistance, civilians, mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, babies, children, etc... Yes, Palestinians are fighting back, and as they should be because it is undoubtedly their land, not because they're having fun fighting the most powerful military force in the world.
Being in Saudi has given me the opportunity to meet people from Palestine and actually meet Palestinians abroad in many other countries. What they have told me has matched verbatim what has been shown throw media sources like Al-Jazeera or civilian recordings. No matter how you chop it, the Palestinians deserve their rightful homeland, but they're fighting a losing battle, and everyone outside of the middle east or those who are not actively or unbiasedly looking at various news sources which aren't pro-west or conversely pro-east would see that its an unfair, sad fight.
Personally, I'm still shocked at how people readily jump to the claim that Israelis/Zionists deserve Israel/Palestine over the Palestinians who have lived there for thousands of years, while the Israels were basically dropped off there like unwanted children, but continually armed with the best weapons in the world.
Once more, I mean no offense by what I'm saying, I just hope many people on this thread hopefully can see what I'm trying to say and hopefully can agree with me. Happy wargaming guys and girls
Da Boss wrote: I'm saying that would be the least violent solution. In my view, the Israelis are the aggressors (with European backing originally) having dispossessed the people living there. They also acted aggressively against the British with terrorist attacks when they were not supported to the level they wanted to be.
The Zionist cause was (and is) insane, and it was never workable. This clusterfeth is the consequence of that world view.
You do realise that the Zionist cause was a bunch of agitating nutters spread over the fifty years before the founding of Israel? The main reason the Jews ended up in Israel was because after they moved them out of Nazi concentration camps into squalid British camps in Cyprus, no-one wanted to let them back into their countries. Some, like Poland, even celebrated their freedom from the Nazis by slaughtering the few Jews that were left. So the remaining survivors were packed off to Israel with little say in the matter. The Zionists were just a tiny cog in that vast network of causes.
I think it's somewhat harsh to say that the descendants of those concentration camp survivors should just 'leave the area'. What comes next, get everyone in New Zealand to pack up and leave for dispossessing the Maoris? I mean, there's only four million people in New Zealand compared to the seven million Israelis, so that'd be easy in comparison. We could consider it warmup before we start deporting everyone in America, Australia, etc.
My point of view on the issue: The situation is downright atrocious. Israel is completely butchering the Palestinians,
Completely butchering? So they're machine gunning babies into pits predug by their parents at gunpoint, setting on fire all of their houses, hacking women and children apart with machetes, putting heads on spikes...no? Didn't think so. Just a little bit of rhetoric there.
Sure the Palestinians are mustering up a resistance, but their damage output is nominal.
That's good. I'm all in favour of people not dying wherever possible. Wouldn't you agree?
All in all, I believe that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.
Which ones? Because I'd regard anyone born and raised there as being a 'Palestinian' in every way that matters.
The Americans and British essentially airdropped in the Jews/Zionists into Palestine into 1948, armed them, and told them to have fun.
That was precisely what happened. All those Jews were rounded up from Europe, given guns, parachuted in, and told to have fun. You know, in those multiple wars where they fought practically every Arabic nation at the same time on their own. No doubt it was just like 'Inglorious Bastards'.
Palestinians on the other hand have lived there for 3,000+ years,
My word. And there I thought the oldest people in the world never reached much past 100.
lived in the land
That does tend to be part of having lived there for 3,000 years I would have thought. Unless they're in holes or something.
and are now slowly being slaughtered off their rightful land
Israel has essentially the number 1 fighting force in the world and is doing great at killing nominally trained resistance, civilians, mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, babies, children, etc... Yes, Palestinians are fighting back, and as they should be because it is undoubtedly their land, not because they're having fun fighting the most powerful military force in the world.
Undoubtedly? You should read the history of Jerusalem. Most people in that part of the world get depopulated and exiled at least once every half a millennia or so. You'd be surprised how often that part of the world HAS changed hands and ethnicities over the last 3000 years.
those who are not actively or unbiasedly looking at various news sources which aren't pro-west or conversely pro-east would see that its an unfair, sad fight.
Would you find it morally better if both sides all armed themselves with Claymores and had it out in a big field somewhere? I mean, sure, one side is the underdog and all that, but people still get killed. Just because the casualties tend to be more on the side that's less well armed and funded doesn't automatically make the one less well armed better.
Personally, I'm still shocked at how people readily jump to the claim that Israelis/Zionists deserve Israel/Palestine over the Palestinians who have lived there for thousands of years, while the Israels were basically dropped off there like unwanted children, but continually armed with the best weapons in the world.
'Unwanted children'.
Holocaust survivors rejected by their home countries = dropped off like unwanted children.
Embroiled in multiple wars for survival by people who want to 'drive them back into the sea' but hey! They got some good weapons!
Once more, I mean no offense by what I'm saying,
It's funny how often people preface offensive things with that.
I just hope many people on this thread hopefully can see what I'm trying to say and hopefully can agree with me.
Of course! Send all those filthy Yids home already! Or at least take away all their toys and make them mud-wrestle for ownership of the land!
Frazzled wrote: Palestinians lived there before the Israelis did? impressive.
If the Israelis were "butchering" the Palestinians how are any still alive?
Please explain how you intend to move a nation of 8mm Jews, Muslims, and Christians anywhere?
What about the Israelis that lived in Israel when it was still Ottoman territory? Do they have to leave too?
Should we go ahead and preventatively ship out the nondominant Muslim sect as well?
The blythe statements of "they should all move out" is..interesting.
Frazzled wrote: Palestinians lived there before the Israelis did? impressive.
If the Israelis were "butchering" the Palestinians how are any still alive?
Please explain how you intend to move a nation of 8mm Jews, Muslims, and Christians anywhere?
What about the Israelis that lived in Israel when it was still Ottoman territory? Do they have to leave too?
Should we go ahead and preventatively ship out the nondominant Muslim sect as well?
The blythe statements of "they should all move out" is..interesting.
You see, there are ways to converse with others without sounding so rude or so terse. Your response makes you seem so immature and rude its appaling, at least converse like a calm, rational human being.
Yeah, I'd say living on land for thousands of years does make it your land... If I had known that I could just airdrop into New Zealand and be armed to the teeth to claim it as my own, hell sign me up. See the logic, its kinda ridiculous...
Wait, since when did butchering equate to exterminated. Butchering is a perfectly fitting word, and the reason why Palestinians are around is because their numbers are dwindling, they're just surviving. Its truly sad :/
There's no need to take offense or respond in such a harsh manner lol, were on a wargaming website. I didn't say everyone bail out of Israel... I said legal power needs to be handed back to the people who have been there the longest. Those people who have been there are of all the Abrahamic religions and can claim to be Palestinians so your first point lacks meaning, not to mention many of the Israelis hold the Israeli passport because they have no choice (Trust me I've met many of them).
How can Israelis be a part of Israel when it was a kingdom ruled by Turks hundreds of years ago? That makes no sense, and once more, they wouldn't be Israeli's because prior to Israel being there, they would be part of an ethnic group that's been there for hundreds of years, whether it be Palestinians or other ethnicities which may have been there. Are you implying that once Israel was there, it was the end all and everyone was Israeli? If you are, don't bother responding to my post because your being irrational and nothing fruitful would be gained from this post.
The Muslims have no problems with each other in Palestine, they're fighting to keep their religion(s) and ethnicity around. And again, you made the point of moving everyone out when I didn't say we need to kick all the Israelis out....
Why are you so harsh and so rude? This is a gaming forum ffs, we can all discuss an issue like normal people. We shouldn't even be talking because were not walking in the steps of either Palestinians or Israelis for that matter. I just hope there is resolution to this horrible crisis soon. Too many people are dying on both sides.
Dude you're the one advocating crimes against Humanity as defined by the UN, and I'm the one thats immature and rude? Evidently disagreement with you is being harsh.
There's no need to take offense or respond in such a harsh manner lol, were on a wargaming website. I didn't say everyone bail out of Israel... I said legal power needs to be handed back to the people who have been there the longest.
So we find the oldest girl in the region and put her in charge? Well my wife and daughter would naturally agree. How about you?
Otherwise your argument defeats you. Unless we've got some Canaanites running around, the Jews have a priority claim timewise.
if you're arguing the Turks were there first, well the Israelis were there second and the Ottoman Turks don't exist any more. Again your claim is invalidated.
Or at least take away all their toys and make them mud-wrestle for ownership of the land!
Depending on the contestants, that could be mighty interesting...
Are there bikinis involved? I hear there are some good places with mud near the red sea perfectly suited for that sort of thing...
Yeah, I'd say living on land for thousands of years does make it your land... If I had known that I could just airdrop into New Zealand and be armed to the teeth to claim it as my own, hell sign me up. See the logic, its kinda ridiculous...
It isn't really 'thousands of years' though, is it? I mean, exaggeration aside, things have only really been settled round there since Suleiman about five hundred years ago. Before that people moved in, were expelled, were wiped out, were replaced, were all killed again, were deported, cross bred with other ethnicities, and so on.
And five hundred years is a blink of the eyelid historically speaking. I wander round castles twice that age all the time.
Wait, since when did butchering equate to exterminated. Butchering is a perfectly fitting word, and the reason why Palestinians are around is because their numbers are dwindling, they're just surviving. Its truly sad :/
Well, usually butchering is equated to mass bloody wholesale slaughter. If that's not what you had in mind, you should use a different word.
I said legal power needs to be handed back to the people who have been there the longest.
So that would be.....whatever Jews date back to the Roman era?
The Muslims have no problems with each other in Palestine, they're fighting to keep their religion(s) and ethnicity around.
If the Israelis weren't there, they'd most likely be happily butchering each other instead, in traditional Middle-Eastern style.
Frazzled wrote: Dude you're the one advocating crimes against Humanity as defined by the UN, and I'm the one thats immature and rude? Evidently disagreement with you is being harsh.
There's no need to take offense or respond in such a harsh manner lol, were on a wargaming website. I didn't say everyone bail out of Israel... I said legal power needs to be handed back to the people who have been there the longest.
So we find the oldest girl in the region and put her in charge? Well my wife and daughter would naturally agree. How about you?
Otherwise your argument defeats you. Unless we've got some Canaanites running around, the Jews have a priority claim timewise.
if you're arguing the Turks were there first, well the Israelis were there second and the Ottoman Turks don't exist any more. Again your claim is invalidated.
I'm trying to discuss this as friendly as possible legitimately. Im the type who gets really riled up about some issues, but its not worth it. This isn't our fight so to speak. I just found the way you responded to what I said to be harsh, it just seemed like "ok wtv blah blah"
Wait what exactly was I advocating that would be deemed a crime against humanity? Im not asking for anyone to wage all out war? Is it inhumane to say that the ethnic people who have lived upon the land the longest do not deserve the land, well then its just a fault in my rationale in how I believe this "right" should be given. Again, this is how it would also be rationalized in my international relations classes at university, where I study international politics/relations....
I guess you think comical responses to what I'm saying quantifies your points moreso than mine. I'll just respond to them as effectively as possible.
When I was saying hand back legal power to the "group that has lived the longest, I basically mean the majority ethnic populace, not based off of religion. And no, I don't mean the "oldest" girl in the region, as irremarkable a response that is.
I never argued that the turks were there first, I was simply stating they were there before the Israelis. In the event that I was, Palestinians have still been there before Israel....otherwise there wouldn't be a whole Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I hope what im saying here isn't really pissing you guys off, I'm just stating how I feel, and maybe I am biased based off my life but I'm just trying to convey my sentiments as nicely as possible... in a way of probably cooling this post down, what armies do you guys play?
Schuylerlaflare wrote: My point of view on the issue: The situation is downright atrocious. Israel is completely butchering the Palestinians, and all online statistics support this notion. Sure the Palestinians are mustering up a resistance, but their damage output is nominal.
What is your definition of "damage output"
Is the damage output nominal because the Israelis invest in shelter, early warning systems, interception methods, and avoid targeted areas where possible?
Schuylerlaflare wrote: All in all, I believe that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. The Americans and British essentially airdropped in the Jews/Zionists into Palestine into 1948, armed them, and told them to have fun. Palestinians on the other hand have lived there for 3,000+ years, lived in the land, and are now slowly being slaughtered off their rightful land. Israel has essentially the number 1 fighting force in the world and is doing great at killing nominally trained resistance, civilians, mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, babies, children, etc... Yes, Palestinians are fighting back, and as they should be because it is undoubtedly their land, not because they're having fun fighting the most powerful military force in the world.
You make it sound as though the IDF and IAF spend their days indiscriminately firing on unarmed civilians.
Schuylerlaflare wrote: Being in Saudi has given me the opportunity to meet people from Palestine and actually meet Palestinians abroad in many other countries. What they have told me has matched verbatim what has been shown throw media sources like Al-Jazeera or civilian recordings. No matter how you chop it, the Palestinians deserve their rightful homeland, but they're fighting a losing battle, and everyone outside of the middle east or those who are not actively or unbiasedly looking at various news sources which aren't pro-west or conversely pro-east would see that its an unfair, sad fight.
Personally, I'm still shocked at how people readily jump to the claim that Israelis/Zionists deserve Israel/Palestine over the Palestinians who have lived there for thousands of years, while the Israels were basically dropped off there like unwanted children, but continually armed with the best weapons in the world.
So given your knowledge, experience, and access to information from a variety of sources in Saudi how would you suggest the conflict is resolved?
Schuylerlaflare wrote: Is it inhumane to say that the ethnic people who have lived upon the land the longest do not deserve the land, well then its just a fault in my rationale in how I believe this "right" should be given. Again, this is how it would also be rationalized in my international relations classes at university, where I study international politics/relations....
Please quantify exactly what you mean and where you stand then, by answering the following questions:-
-Do you believe that anyone descended from such immigrants has less of a 'right' to participate in the due political process, own land, and have children then someone whose ancestors date back five or six hundred more years?
-Do you believe that if Hamas bases it's portable missile launchers in heavily populated and civilian areas when launching rockets, that Israel should refrain from retaliating against them?
-Do you believe that the Government there should be monopolised by people who have lengthier ancestry in the local area, to the point of stifling the fair democratic process?
Schuylerlaflare wrote: Wait, since when did butchering equate to exterminated. Butchering is a perfectly fitting word, and the reason why Palestinians are around is because their numbers are dwindling, they're just surviving. Its truly sad :/
That's strange, census data shows the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza on the rise.
Surprisingly historically accurate. I was able to recognize almost all of the depictions based on historical events.
When the world basically said "Ok, maybe genocide and gas chambers is not the solution, but they can't stay in Europe... We lost a war but we are still horrible bigots here. Let's dump them off in a land we conquered... what can go wrong?"
I do like how when white people in Europe want to displace an unwanted minority, it is ok... I mean, when you run the world, who gets to tell you your actions are destructive to the rest of the world?
Sadly, what is done is done, and Europe isn't going to ever pay for their crimes. The people are there in the middle east and the occupants are going to have to overcome human nature and try to integrate societies and give everyone equal rights regardless of religion or ancestry. Of course this is impossible because humans are terrible and people in power are also terrible.
I do like how when white people in Europe want to displace an unwanted minority, it is ok... I mean, when you run the world, who gets to tell you your actions are destructive to the rest of the world?
Sadly, what is done is done, and Europe isn't going to ever pay for their crimes.
Funnily enough, America was the main driving force behind that one, not anyone from Europe. The original idea was British from about forty years beforehand,but the British quite frankly didn't want to put them there. But the US pressured them, and the French joined in (mainly to hack off the Brits and score political favours/brownie points), and the rest, as they say, is history. The British capitulated to international pressure, kept the peace for as long as they could whilst they were there, and then got the hell out asap after America kept pushing for them to disband their Empire. Suez was the last gasp.
I do like how when white people in Europe want to displace an unwanted minority, it is ok... I mean, when you run the world, who gets to tell you your actions are destructive to the rest of the world?
Sadly, what is done is done, and Europe isn't going to ever pay for their crimes.
Funnily enough, America was the main driving force behind that one, not anyone from Europe. The original idea was British from about forty years beforehand,but the British quite frankly didn't want to put them there. But the US pressured them, and the French joined in (mainly to hack off the Brits and score political favours/brownie points), and the rest, as they say, is history. The British capitulated to international pressure, kept the peace for as long as they could whilst they were there, and then got the hell out asap after America kept pushing for them to disband their Empire. Suez was the last gasp.
Oh the US was also involved because Europe wanted them all sent to America... The truth is half of Germany should have been turned into Israel and they should have stayed in Europe. There was a whole lot of 'not in my back yard' going on in 1948. Most of the reasons countries even support Israel today is they simply don't want refugees from a war flooding into Europe and integrating with their culture because there is still a lot of anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe.
nkelsch wrote: Oh the US was also involved because Europe wanted them all sent to America... The truth is half of Germany should have been turned into Israel and they should have stayed in Europe. There was a whole lot of 'not in my back yard' going on in 1948. Most of the reasons countries even support Israel today is they simply don't want refugees from a war flooding into Europe and integrating with their culture because there is still a lot of anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe.
Given the events of the Cold War (and the suffering that had been experienced at the hands of the Germans) which half should they have gotten?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Schuylerlaflare wrote: Being in Saudi has given me the opportunity to meet people from Palestine and actually meet Palestinians abroad in many other countries. What they have told me has matched verbatim what has been shown throw media sources like Al-Jazeera or civilian recordings. No matter how you chop it, the Palestinians deserve their rightful homeland, but they're fighting a losing battle, and everyone outside of the middle east or those who are not actively or unbiasedly looking at various news sources which aren't pro-west or conversely pro-east would see that its an unfair, sad fight.
So, living in Saudi how many Israelis have you had the opportunity to interact with? Would it be a fair comment that only hearing one side of the story could lead to a biased conclusion on your part?
Maybe we should leave the middle east the feth alone and let them sort out their own problems.
It took the west thousands of years to grow from a Religious hole of violence and barbarism into the more or less "civilized" society we have now. We've had our fingers in Africa and the nearby region for so long so that they haven't gotten the opportunity.
BlaxicanX wrote: Maybe we should leave the middle east the feth alone and let them sort out their own problems.
It took the west thousands of years to grow from a Religious hole of violence and barbarism into the more or less "civilized" society we have now. We've had our fingers in Africa and the nearby region for so long so that they haven't gotten the opportunity.
The west got to its 'civilized' society through slave exploitation and genocide. I am not sure that letting 'humanity' follow their natural inclinations to eventually reach an acceptable 'civilized' level is a good solution. It is very hard to plug up all those finger-holes left by imperialist rule.
I always get a kick out of saying Jews haven't populated that area as long as Palestinians have.
Jews are Palestinians, they were not foreign invaders of that land. Their culture began in the Levant. One could argue that culturally, their a more pure representation of the original Levant civilizations then modern palestinians, since they've largely become nothing more then Arabs.
Archaeological today points to the fact that the Jewish population grew from a tribe of Canaanites. The physical remains of Jews* are identical to non-jews from that region during the original development of civilization (3500ish BC), which was MUCH earlier then the arab encroachment into that region that todays "Paleistinians" spring from.
*I'm not referring to todays Jews, obviously todays Israeli Jews have a much more diverse gene pool then they did 5500 years ago, having spread their culture throughout much of the world, and then moved back to the region. I was referring to the original Jewish population.
BlaxicanX wrote: Maybe we should leave the middle east the feth alone and let them sort out their own problems.
It took the west thousands of years to grow from a Religious shithole of violence and barbarism into the more or less "civilized" society we have now. We've had our fingers in Africa and the nearby region for so long so that they haven't gotten the opportunity.
I'm all for progress in the ME, but it's important to draw a distinction between Israel and its neighbors. It's definitely not a "religious hole." It's the most progressive country in the ME. In none of Israel's neighbors do women, gays, and other minority populations have equal rights. Arab Muslims have seats in Israel's government. How many Arab Muslim countries would permit a Jew to serve in its government?
This isn't directed at you, but I would like to add that this is not a religious war for the Israelis. Most Israelis are actually quite secular to begin with, but the conflict isn't about that. They don't care whether Palestinians are Muslims, Christians, or Buddhists. This operation is a response to mortar and rocket attacks carried out by Hamas and Fatah militants against Israeli civilians in border towns.
BlaxicanX wrote: Maybe we should leave the middle east the feth alone and let them sort out their own problems.
It took the west thousands of years to grow from a Religious shithole of violence and barbarism into the more or less "civilized" society we have now. We've had our fingers in Africa and the nearby region for so long so that they haven't gotten the opportunity.
I'm all for progress in the ME, but it's important to draw a distinction between Israel and its neighbors. It's definitely not a "religioushole." It's the most progressive country in the ME. In none of Israel's neighbors do women, gays, and other minority populations have equal rights. Arab Muslims have seats in Israel's government. How many Arab Muslim countries would permit a Jew to serve in its government?
This isn't directed at you, but I would like to add that this is not a religious war for the Israelis. Most Israelis are actually quite secular to begin with, but the conflict isn't about that. They don't care whether Palestinians are Muslims, Christians, or Buddhists. This operation is a response to mortar and rocket attacks carried out by Hamas and Fatah militants against Israeli civilians in border towns.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Hamas indoctrinates children to think it is ok to murder jews. They make frikkin TV shows about it. Yet the all inclusive, progressive government that would much rather live in peace is the bad guy.
Accidental slip, ignorance of the situation, or malice. It could be any of those, or some combination of the above. The clip you provided is short on context and serves only as a platform for projection.
Have you any comment on the phenomenon dubbed "Pallywood"?
BlaxicanX wrote: Maybe we should leave the middle east the feth alone and let them sort out their own problems.
It took the west thousands of years to grow from a Religious shithole of violence and barbarism into the more or less "civilized" society we have now. We've had our fingers in Africa and the nearby region for so long so that they haven't gotten the opportunity.
I'm all for progress in the ME, but it's important to draw a distinction between Israel and its neighbors. It's definitely not a "religioushole." It's the most progressive country in the ME. In none of Israel's neighbors do women, gays, and other minority populations have equal rights. Arab Muslims have seats in Israel's government. How many Arab Muslim countries would permit a Jew to serve in its government?
This isn't directed at you, but I would like to add that this is not a religious war for the Israelis. Most Israelis are actually quite secular to begin with, but the conflict isn't about that. They don't care whether Palestinians are Muslims, Christians, or Buddhists. This operation is a response to mortar and rocket attacks carried out by Hamas and Fatah militants against Israeli civilians in border towns.
And also the fact that Hamas now have their hands on rockets capable of hitting targets much deeper within Israeli territory.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.
The same things were said after the 7 day war in '67, if only Israel gave such and such back, the violence would end. Israel eventually returned the land in question and still got attacked.
Wyrmalla wrote: Oh I can understand why they're disgruntled, but the tactics they use to fight the Israelis, both militarily and their domestic policy (which is just rife with anti-Semitism and jihadist crap) paints those use them as being pretty damn awful.
I agree. But the simple fact remains if Israel wanted an end to the issue they could simply stop building settlements and withdraw the settlements they've already built on Palestinian land. But they don't.
I don't think this entitles Palestine to respond as they have, but we need to be realistic about who actually has the power to stop this.
The same things were said after the 7 day war in '67, if only Israel gave such and such back, the violence would end. Israel eventually returned the land in question and still got attacked.
It's also probably worth noting that Israel has respected fully its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. That's not the behavior of an aggressive nation hell-bent on expansion.
Frazzled wrote: Dude you're the one advocating crimes against Humanity as defined by the UN, and I'm the one thats immature and rude? Evidently disagreement with you is being harsh.
There's no need to take offense or respond in such a harsh manner lol, were on a wargaming website. I didn't say everyone bail out of Israel... I said legal power needs to be handed back to the people who have been there the longest.
So we find the oldest girl in the region and put her in charge? Well my wife and daughter would naturally agree. How about you?
Otherwise your argument defeats you. Unless we've got some Canaanites running around, the Jews have a priority claim timewise.
if you're arguing the Turks were there first, well the Israelis were there second and the Ottoman Turks don't exist any more. Again your claim is invalidated.
Also, I'd point out that, if you want ANYONE to take your "cause" seriously, especially The Western world, you simply do NOT actively target women and children in your attacks, regardless of weapon being used.
And that is precisely what the Palestinian side does.... Bombing schools, city busses, hospitals, etc. trying to gain their "freedom" through terror tactics. The Israelis target military targets, certainly they have killed women and children, but this was not their intent, and I'd be willing to bet money that if there was a reliable statistic, we'd see that Palestinians have killed far more "innocents" than Israel has.
Also, since you're so keen on giving the land to "he who was there the longest" where is your fething outrage that Kurdistan STILL isn't a country!? they've been kicked around far more, and for a lot longer than the Jewish/Israeli community has
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note: that post was to be in aggreance with Frazz... not a rebuttal
BlaxicanX wrote: Maybe we should leave the middle east the feth alone and let them sort out their own problems.
It took the west thousands of years to grow from a Religious shithole of violence and barbarism into the more or less "civilized" society we have now. We've had our fingers in Africa and the nearby region for so long so that they haven't gotten the opportunity.
I'm all for progress in the ME, but it's important to draw a distinction between Israel and its neighbors. It's definitely not a "religious hole." It's the most progressive country in the ME. In none of Israel's neighbors do women, gays, and other minority populations have equal rights. Arab Muslims have seats in Israel's government. How many Arab Muslim countries would permit a Jew to serve in its government?
This isn't directed at you, but I would like to add that this is not a religious war for the Israelis. Most Israelis are actually quite secular to begin with, but the conflict isn't about that. They don't care whether Palestinians are Muslims, Christians, or Buddhists. This operation is a response to mortar and rocket attacks carried out by Hamas and Fatah militants against Israeli civilians in border towns.
That may be so, but the thing is, it's immaterial.
Honestly, as callous as it is to say, "who started it" or "who's the aggressor" doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that that entire region is destabilized and as long as its filled with angry Muslims it's going to stay that way, and there's nothing anyone in the West can do to change that.
So there's only two things that can be done to stabilize that region: A) Kill every Muslim in it and let the Jews own the entire area (lulz, obviously won't happen), or B) leave them alone and let the situation burn itself out over the course of however many decades it takes.
And that includes letting Israel handle itself, which I think is what most people would consider the callous part. But... that's just too bad, honestly. We've fethed our own Country, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives both directly and in-directly supporting Israel's sovereignty, pissing off the entire Middle East in the process. Radical Muslims aren't sitting over there pissed off at America and planning its demise because they hate our freedom and our Democracy and our white women and all that other stuff movies show- they hate us because they hate Israel and we are its staunchest defender.
So the morality of it doesn't matter. We're broke, our Military is tired and spread thin, our education system sucks, our economy sucks, we've got massive border problems. Our own country is so fundamentally broken on multiple levels that we have absolutely no business sticking our noses in other peoples' problems. If Israel wants to stay Israel then let them fight for that right. Hopefully they can work something out and survive, but if not... well, they wouldn't be the first country in Man's history to be destroyed or absorbed by another, and they probably won't be the last either. But it's no longer our concern either way. If they want intelligence or some pretty satellite pictures, then whatever. But as far as rolling into someone's country with our tanks and hummers and badass soldiers and telling them how to live their lives and run their country... that gak needs to stop man. We literally can't afford to be the World Police anymore.
I pointed out (in my post, like) that my mass movement idea was flippant, guys. Taking it seriously makes it look like your reading comprehension is really poor. I also stated I don't see any solution to the problem.
But I'm calling some of you out on something here- there are a good few statements here which imply that opponents of Israel's policy in this thread are anti-semetic. That is frankly bs. I am not an anti-semite because I believe Israel's policies are wrong. I don't give a crap what religion or ethnic group they are, it doesn't have any bearing on my opinion. It's a cheap shot to equate opposition to Israeli policies with anti-semitism, and it's especially hilarious coming from the "we're not racist!" brigade who get so touchy whenever race is brought up in threads here.
Ketara: That's a pretty biased outlook on britain's involvement in the mid east, mate. Can't say I agree with that whatsoever.
Ketara: That's a pretty biased outlook on britain's involvement in the mid east, mate. Can't say I agree with that whatsoever.
I assume you're referring to this?
Funnily enough, America was the main driving force behind that one, not anyone from Europe. The original idea was British from about forty years beforehand,but the British quite frankly didn't want to put them there. But the US pressured them, and the French joined in (mainly to hack off the Brits and score political favours/brownie points), and the rest, as they say, is history. The British capitulated to international pressure, kept the peace for as long as they could whilst they were there, and then got the hell out asap after America kept pushing for them to disband their Empire. Suez was the last gasp.
I'd agree I'm scraping over the detail, but as a summary only half a paragraph long, it's reasonably accurate. Yes, the original idea to set up a Jewish homeland was British. Yes, it was forty years before it actually happened. Yes, when the time rolled around, the British were no longer keen on the idea (I believe the idea of Madagascar, the Nazi's old plan was raised by them). But the Americans were the primary instigators and backers for it after WW2, not the British, and its well known that the French weren't all that bothered about it. I'd say all that is more or less public domain and factual, so I'm not entirely sure where the supposed bias is coming from.
If you're referring just to the 'keeping the peace and then got the hell out under American pressure' statement, I'll agree that's extremely sparse on detail, but considering the original subject was shipping all the Jews there in the first place(and it supposedly being the fault of 'Europe'), I considered the rest more or less OT. Although having said that, most of this entire tangent was OT, so I'll make a post that isn't.
As things stand, Hamas is alone in the world. The Egyptian military views them as allies of the Brotherhood and is collapsing all their tunnels. Iran pulled most of their funding after they started backing Syria's enemies in the civil war. Hezbollah's co-operation has dropped for the same reason. Their power has degraded to the extent that they've been forced into trying to form a co-operative power with Fatah, whom they despise.
If Israel can weather this storm of missiles without invading, its entirely possible that Hamas will self-destruct through a lack of funding. With the Iranian and Syrian funding taps cut off, and the revenue from taxing tunnel smuggling fast diminishing, Hamas simply cannot afford to carry on anymore. All they have left to them is a big stock of missiles, and once those are gone, its entirely possible they cannot be replaced.
With the wall up and the Israeli blockade, the jihadists cannot move in in the same way they did in Syria and Iraq. So if Israel weather the missiles, watch Hamas self-destruct, and then bribe/coerce the notoriously corrupt Fatah into line whilst sponsoring them to supplant Hamas (by relaxing certain trade restrictions for Fatah and so on), they may actually be able to initiate the peace process in the least possible destructive way over the next few generations.
What needs to happen first though, is Hamas needs to end.
Going total war on Gaza every time rockets get shot their way seems to be ineffective at achieving any goal other than killing human shields.
Not sure why its wrong to point out that Israels offensives in the region are little more than shooting galleries that achieve marginal if any strategic results. If it were otherwise we would have a new one ever couple of years.
Going total war on Gaza every time rockets get shot their way seems to be ineffective at achieving any goal other than killing human shields.
Not sure why its wrong to point out that Israels offensives in the region are little more than shooting galleries that achieve marginal if any strategic results. If it were otherwise we would have a new one ever couple of years.
One could argue that if there weren't such massive Palestinian casualties as a result of Israeli actions, the Israeli casualties would most likely be higher. Less destroyed launchers and disruption of Hamas' activities would probably result in more missiles and more evenhanded casualty figures.
Israel views even a hundred Palestinian deaths to save one Israeli life as worth it. Whether that is a mature or responsible approach could probably fill a textbook in back and forth, but I genuinely don't understand people who go, 'One side firing military projectiles at the other killed more people, so they must be the baddies!' It seems a very simplistic and out of context approach to take.
Going total war on Gaza every time rockets get shot their way seems to be ineffective at achieving any goal other than killing human shields.
Not sure why its wrong to point out that Israels offensives in the region are little more than shooting galleries that achieve marginal if any strategic results. If it were otherwise we would have a new one ever couple of years.
One could argue that if there weren't such massive Palestinian casualties as a result of Israeli actions, the Israeli casualties would most likely be higher. Less destroyed launchers and disruption of Hamas' activities would probably result in more missiles and more evenhanded casualty figures.
Israel views even a hundred Palestinian deaths to save one Israeli life as worth it. Whether that is a mature or responsible approach could probably fill a textbook in back and forth, but I genuinely don't understand people who go, 'One side firing military projectiles at the other killed more people, so they must be the baddies!' It seems a very simplistic and out of context approach to take.
Yup, and despite this media seems to take the attitude that because Palestinian civilians are dying that means the Israelis are the baddies. If the Israelis didn't have better equipment than Hamas then they'd presumably have a similar, if not higher (consider that the Palestinian miles aren't attacking purely strategic targets). It just strikes me as being so sensationalist that the media just sees this as such a clean cut issue, whilst ignoring the matter's background and that there's more factors than just one side launching rockets at another (and well hell that the Palestinians are launching any rockets at all, which is being glazed over). I feel bad for the Palestinians, not just the ones that have died, but they really, really, need to get on top of their country, as as it is right now under Hamas it doesn't come across as a very nice place if you don't agree with the government's rhetoric. I'm biased over matters involving Israel naturally, but whilst not being strictly clean cut, that Hamas are launching rockets and using human shields (along with all the other crap they pull. Come they have state sanctioned terrorist training camps) doesn't make them come across as the victims in this situation.
And if the Palestinians didn't agree with Hamas in part would they still be in power? There's been enough revolutions in the region to show one would be possible, and its not as if the Israelis wouldn't be happy if they were gone (I'm surprised that the current government hasn't deposed them already). Meh, don't elect a terrorist organisation and maybe you won't be complaining on the news when that group starts using you as human shields and brain washing your kids (but then again you elected them, so maybe you agree with them, or you were just dumb enough to think they would make Palestine more relatable on the world stage). As it stands now NATO and the UN would rather have the Israelis on their side than Palestine and their allies (who generally have also butted heads with most of the UN's member states), so this matter's hardly going to go anywhere at least based on international involvement. If one of Palestine's allies decides to weigh in then we'll be seeing foreign aid (not soldiers mind), but till then the Israelis could steam roll the whole country and nobody would bat an eye bar saying a few lukewarm words to satisfy the media. Meh, if this current affair actually goes anywhere than just having Hamas quieten down for a few years (as hell are they really doing more than having their DPRK style rhetoric fest at the moment?) call me, as at the moment it doesn't look like where its going anywhere other than maybe the IDF moving in to kill a bunch of terrorists (and yes, naturally a million civilians, all babies of course, with no Israeli casualties, I mean at least according to the media). If this results in Hamas being removed from power then great, but its hardly going to create peace between the two countries.
Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as that. Israel's enacted some fairly atrocious levels of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people over the years, and most victims don't take a peaceful response to that sort of thing. When your little sister was killed in a air strike against a set of rockets based down the road, when you're denied a University level education, and you can't find a job because of economic restrictions, you tend to be somewhat inclined to back people who oppose the ones responsible for all of the above.
It would be nice for the Holocaust pity party to end, especially when people display a kind of callousness, shown in this thread, toward the Palestinians.
Ketara wrote: Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as that. Israel's enacted some fairly atrocious levels of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people over the years, and most victims don't take a peaceful response to that sort of thing. When your little sister was killed in a air strike against a set of rockets based down the road, when you're denied a University level education, and you can't find a job because of economic restrictions, you tend to be somewhat inclined to back people who oppose the ones responsible for all of the above.
To keep it in perspective, if some crazy Floridians decided to make a habit out of firing rockets at major cities in Georgia, I would fully expect the US government to come in and blast us until we stopped. I would also run for the hills when that government called and said 'we will be blasting this area. Get out', which I believe Israel has been doing. Anyone staying had a chance to run. Even if those guys firing off the rockets were radical seperatists who were sure the South could rise again. I certainly would not expect any sort of federal aid, or to be treated as the other peaceful states until my state stopped blowing random people up.
Ketara wrote: Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as that. Israel's enacted some fairly atrocious levels of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people over the years, and most victims don't take a peaceful response to that sort of thing. When your little sister was killed in a air strike against a set of rockets based down the road, when you're denied a University level education, and you can't find a job because of economic restrictions, you tend to be somewhat inclined to back people who oppose the ones responsible for all of the above.
To keep it in perspective, if some crazy Floridians decided to make a habit out of firing rockets at major cities in Georgia, I would fully expect the US government to come in and blast us until we stopped. I would also run for the hills when that government called and said 'we will be blasting this area. Get out', which I believe Israel has been doing. Anyone staying had a chance to run. Even if those guys firing off the rockets were radical seperatists who were sure the South could rise again. I certainly would not expect any sort of federal aid, or to be treated as the other peaceful states until my state stopped blowing random people up.
Except in this case, the guys firing those rockets are the Florida State Government.
LordofHats wrote: I assume to point out that Israel responds with massively disproportionate force.
At the risk of repeating myself "What, in your opinion, is a proportionate response? And how do you determine what is proportionate?"
Do you think that there are other factors here that may influence the casualty rates, such as Israel building shelters, and Hamas launching attacks from densely populated urban areas? What about Hamas refusing to left people leave after Israel has warned people that they are at risk of staying in the area? Or Hamas' use of human shields?
At risk of repeating the point, it's not really a matter of debate that Israel's "lets bomb the feth out of them" strategy has achieved little more than racking up civilian casualties. We're going to do this whole song a dance again in a few years, just like last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, like all the other times going on fifty years.
You can moan about human shields all you want, but it looks like Hamas' strategy of hiding behind a helpless population is working a lot better than Israel's strategy of blowing that population to bits. At least in so far as Hamas is just gonna end up doing this song and dance again a few years from now because Israel seems unable to make the kind of strikes that can cripple the various terror cells that make up the organization.
Ketara wrote: Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as that. Israel's enacted some fairly atrocious levels of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people over the years, and most victims don't take a peaceful response to that sort of thing. When your little sister was killed in a air strike against a set of rockets based down the road, when you're denied a University level education, and you can't find a job because of economic restrictions, you tend to be somewhat inclined to back people who oppose the ones responsible for all of the above.
To keep it in perspective, if some crazy Floridians decided to make a habit out of firing rockets at major cities in Georgia, I would fully expect the US government to come in and blast us until we stopped. I would also run for the hills when that government called and said 'we will be blasting this area. Get out', which I believe Israel has been doing. Anyone staying had a chance to run. Even if those guys firing off the rockets were radical seperatists who were sure the South could rise again. I certainly would not expect any sort of federal aid, or to be treated as the other peaceful states until my state stopped blowing random people up.
Except in this case, the guys firing those rockets are the Florida State Government.
Or at the very least, Florida State University... Not quite the government itself, but they at minimum have state sanctioning
So what is proportionate, and how do you define it? YOu seem rather unable or unwilling to address this point, but you can declare that Israel's actions are disproportionate.
Regarding Israel's strategy when dealing with massed rocket attacks the Lebanon border has been pretty quiet after Cast Lead,
LordofHats wrote: At risk of repeating the point, it's not really a matter of debate that Israel's "lets bomb the feth out of them" strategy has achieved little more than racking up civilian casualties. We're going to do this whole song a dance again in a few years, just like last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, like all the other times going on fifty years.
You can moan about human shields all you want, but it looks like Hamas' strategy of hiding behind a helpless population is working a lot better than Israel's strategy of blowing that population to bits. At least in so far as Hamas is just gonna end up doing this song and dance again a few years from now because Israel seems unable to make the kind of strikes that can cripple the various terror cells that make up the organization.
Actually, one way to stop this is to stop legitimizing the Hamas.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So what is proportionate, and how do you define it? YOu seem rather unable or unwilling to address this point, but you can declare that Israel's actions are disproportionate.
I've already pointed out that I consider their methods to be tantamount to total war;
Going total war on Gaza every time rockets get shot their way seems to be ineffective at achieving any goal other than killing human shields.
It's not neceassary to define what is proportionate to point out that current methods was far more force than is justified by their conflict.
Stop legitimizing Hamas
It's been pointed out on countless occasions that Hamas' ruling officials aren't the problem. Their inability to control their own organization is. It would be easier to stop legitimizing them if Israel changed strategy and left ground for a more sympathetic and reasonable body to take control of the area, but Israel seems to like keeping Hamas in charge. Sort of a strategy of 'perfect instability' I'd call it. Where things around them aren't stable enough for any significant threats to their national secuirty to prop up in their neighbors but there's just enough of a modicum of stableity in the area they can control the tempo. it works. It just kills a whole lot of Palestinians and leaves them in a state of perpetual screwed.
LordofHats wrote: I've already pointed out that I consider their methods to be tantamount to total war;
It is a common occurrence that countries engaging in total war warn civilians to evacuate an area before launching a military strike? What actions do you believe show that Israel is engaged in total war, does this belief of yours include periods when Israel is not launching military operations in response to attack?
It is a common occurrence that countries engaging in total war warn civilians to evacuate an area before launching a military strike?
And they attack anyway knowing the civilians are still going to be there, while terror cells bounce off the strike which has failed to achive its goal. Israel is rather indifferent to the civilians that get killed in their operations. They play the game, but their actions show they don't care that much.
What actions do you believe show that Israel is engaged in total war
They launch air and artillery strikes against targets where they know civilians will be killed. Such strikes are not only ineffective against harming Hamas itself, as by the time Israel has attacked they've already moved, but they result in a lot of collateral damage as the force used in excess of what would be needed to achieve the goal. Hamas learned from the PLO and the 1980's that Israel is indifferent towards civilian deaths as a matter of policy. They've been using that ever since in their silly little PR campaign.
does this belief of yours include periods when Israel is not launching military operations in response to attack?
To an extent yes. Their continued bloackade of Gaza and the Palestinians hasn't stopped Hamas' ability to arm itself, but it has left the Palestinians destitute and with no options. Israel treats Palestinians in their own borders like criminals and has sweeping disrcriminatory policies against them. They've marked the entire population as their enemy as a matter of policy, and Israel itself is quite militarized as a state. If it's not total war, its damn close.
You know those times Sebster says that getting guns is the easy part of the revolution? Hamas is kind of the poster child for that Israel has some tough border controls, but it's never stopped anyone from getting Hamas and other terror groups what they want. It has left Palestinians at the mercy of these organizations who see them as puppets in their PR war.
Israel: You've got the dial set to 11, turn it back down to 1 or 2.
You'd think Israel would have one of the best and most developed anti-terror programs in the world... Except they don't. Whatever they do behind the scenes, it seems to do nothing to Hamas and its subsidiaries, but that just goes back to my point that Israel's government seems to want to maintain the instability of the region where its at. I don't really believe Israel can be this bad at these kind of operations, leading me to suspect the curret status quo is one they're attempting to control rather than fix it.
LordofHats wrote: They launch air and artillery strikes against targets where they know civilians will be killed. Such strikes are not only ineffective against harming Hamas itself, as by the time Israel has attacked they've already moved, but they result in a lot of collateral damage as the force used in excess of what would be needed to achieve the goal. Hamas learned from the PLO and the 1980's that Israel is indifferent towards civilian deaths as a matter of policy. They've been using that ever since in their silly little PR campaign.
That is by no means total war. If Israel waged total war against Hamas, the conflict would be over in a couple months. As much as 50% of the Palestinian population might even survive. Much of Hamas likely would, too, they'd just be in another country.
The reality of modern military strikes against irregular forces is that you're going to kill civilians. You try to minimize casualties as much as possible, and you can even call of strikes against non-immediate threats when the risk of civilian casualties would be too great, but enacting a policy of "If there's going to be collateral damage, don't do anything," is just not feasible.
LordofHats wrote: And they attack anyway knowing the civilians are still going to be there, while terror cells bounce off the strike which has failed to achive its goal. Israel is rather indifferent to the civilians that get killed in their operations. They play the game, but their actions show they don't care that much.
Hamas has embedded itself within the civilian population, and fires rockets from population centers. Israel actively warns residents before they carry out a strike, actions intended to minimize civilian casualties. Should Israel not be able to defend herself against these attacks?
You may also have missed the news reports about Hamas leaders being targeted and killed in strikes since this operation began. That's hardly bouncing off the strike
LordofHats wrote: They launch air and artillery strikes against targets where they know civilians will be killed. Such strikes are not only ineffective against harming Hamas itself, as by the time Israel has attacked they've already moved, but they result in a lot of collateral damage as the force used in excess of what would be needed to achieve the goal. Hamas learned from the PLO and the 1980's that Israel is indifferent towards civilian deaths as a matter of policy. They've been using that ever since in their silly little PR campaign.
You keep saying "disproportionate" or an "excess" of force, yet when asked what you mean by this you refuse to explain
Is launching 762 rockets so far this year disproportionate? What about deliberately targeting civilians? Sending troops via sea to kill as many civilians as possible? Because these are all things that Hamas has done in just 2014. In 2012 they launched over 2200 rockets at Israel
LordofHats wrote: To an extent yes. Their continued bloackade of Gaza and the Palestinians hasn't stopped Hamas' ability to arm itself, but it has left the Palestinians destitute and with no options. Israel treats Palestinians in their own borders like criminals and has sweeping disrcriminatory policies against them. They've marked the entire population as their enemy as a matter of policy, and Israel itself is quite militarized as a state. If it's not total war, its damn close.
You know those times Sebster says that getting guns is the easy part of the revolution? Hamas is kind of the poster child for that Israel has some tough border controls, but it's never stopped anyone from getting Hamas and other terror groups what they want. It has left Palestinians at the mercy of these organizations who see them as puppets in their PR war.
Why is Gaza being blockaded? And Israel is not the only country with a border to Gaza too. Why have you not mentioned Egypt as blockading the area?
What about Gaza where the school children are taught that Jews are descended from apes and should be killed, or the training camps set up for school children where they handle rifles and play games based on killing or capturing Israelis?
It is interesting reading the distinction you make between the Palestinians and Hamas, yet you do not do the same for Israel.
Those poor downtrodden Israeli Arabs. Like Nawaf Massalha the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, 12 members of the Knesset, and many others such as Salim Joubran, a Christian Arab from Haifa descended from Lebanese Maronites, became the first Arab to hold a permanent appointment on the Court. Joubran's expertise lies in the field of criminal law.[133] George Karra, a Christian Arab from Jaffa has served as a Tel Aviv District Court judge since 2000. He was the presiding judge in the trial of Moshe Katsav. In 2011, he was nominated as a candidate for the Israeli Supreme Court.[134]
Foreign Service: Ali Yahya, an Arab Muslim, became the first Arab ambassador for Israel in 1995 when he was appointed ambassador to Finland. He served until 1999, and in 2006 was appointed ambassador to Greece. Other Arab ambassadors include Walid Mansour, a Druze, appointed ambassador to Vietnam in 1999, and Reda Mansour, also a Druze, a former ambassador to Ecuador. Mohammed Masarwa, an Arab Muslim, was Consul-General in Atlanta. In 2006, Ishmael Khaldi was appointed Israeli consul in San Francisco, becoming the first Bedouin consul of the State of Israel.[135]
Israel Defense Forces: Arab Generals in the IDF include Major General Hussain Fares, commander of Israel's border police, and Major General Yosef Mishlav, head of the Home Front Command and current Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories.[citation needed] Both are members of the Druze community. Other high-ranking officers in the IDF include Lieutenant Colonel Amos Yarkoni (born Abd el-Majid Hidr/ عبد الماجد حيدر) from the Bedouin community, a legendary officer in the Israel Defense Forces and one of six Israeli Arabs to have received the IDF's third highest decoration, the Medal of Distinguished Service.
Israeli Police: In 2011, Jamal Hakroush became the first Muslim Arab deputy Inspector-General in the Israeli Police. He has previously served as district commander of two districts.[136]
Jewish National Fund: In 2007, Ra'adi Sfori became the first Arab citizen of Israel to be elected as a JNF director, over a petition against his appointment. The court upheld the JNF's appointment, explaining, "As this is one director among a large number, there is no chance he will have the opportunity to cancel the organization's goals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
You try to minimize casualties as much as possible
I contend Israel only does as much as they think they should too keep international pressure as low as possible. Their war record really speaks for itself on this front. Our drone strikes kill civilians all the time and have a better record. For everyone killed by the Israeli military in Gaze, civilians amount for as much as 75% of the casualties, most of them killed in attacks that showed no discrimination between the armed and the unarmed. In campaigns that that achieve no long term goals. That's a piss poor record.
Should Israel not be able to defend herself against these attacks?
They don't need this much force to do that.
That's hardly bouncing off the strike
Say that in a few years when this all happens again.
enacting a policy of "If there's going to be collateral damage, don't do anything," is just not feasible.
Who ever suggested they shouldn't do anything?
You keep saying "disproportionate" or an "excess" of force, yet when asked what you mean by this you refuse to explain
Is launching 762 rockets so far this year disproportionate?
I mentioned artillery striking and air campaigns several times. Honestly I'm not going to put 2 and 2 together for you you should be capable of that on your own here.
In 2012 they launched over 2200 rockets at Israel
And as someone already showed, for all the rockets they fire their aim sucks. Killing hundreds of civilians every time a few Israelis get killed isn't helping anyone. Israel could be taking measures to lead to a long term solution but thus far seems uninterested in them. So long as that is the case, I see no reason not to call them out on their regular offensives that don't help anything.
It is interesting reading the distinction you make between the Palestinians and Hamas, yet you do not do the same for Israel.
Um, I've specifically pointed my comments at the Israeli government. And just because people have government positions doesn't mean they aren't be discriminated against. Whenever some local polity wants to build new projects in Palestinian neighborhoods, they just bulldoze the place down. In response to the recent killing of three Israeli teenagers, a mob killed a Palestinian teenager in equally brutal fashion. Palestinian businesses are less likely to get loans from banks. If you're this unfamiliar with Israels domestic policies.
We gave a black guy the Navy's highest honor in 1942. he was still discriminated against as were other blacks. Japanese Americans in the 442nd were the most decorated unit in US military history and they got discriminated against too. Discrimination doesn't stop because you give someone a nice desk job or some medals.
You try to minimize casualties as much as possible
I contend Israel only does as much as they think they should too keep international pressure as low as possible. Their war record really speaks for itself on this front. Our drone strikes kill civilians all the time and have a better record. For everyone killed by the Israeli military in Gaze, civilians amount for as much as 75% of the casualties, most of them killed in attacks that showed no discrimination between the armed and the unarmed. In campaigns that that achieve no long term goals. That's a piss poor record.
How the feth do you propose the IDF to "handle" this then?
You forget, many of the weapon cache and launching sites are done in populated areas. Schools, hospitals, libraries, etc... are known to store these weapons. You'd need help from the natives to facilitate that...
How do you combat against that?
The IDF even setup tiplines and such for the natives to report where these weapon cache exists.
Should Israel not be able to defend herself against these attacks?
They don't need this much force to do that.
I'd argue they've been awfully restrained. There's only so much they can do before the whole regions blows up.
That's hardly bouncing off the strike
Say that in a few years when this all happens again.
enacting a policy of "If there's going to be collateral damage, don't do anything," is just not feasible.
Who ever suggested they shouldn't do anything?
What's your idea?
You keep saying "disproportionate" or an "excess" of force, yet when asked what you mean by this you refuse to explain Is launching 762 rockets so far this year disproportionate?
I mentioned artillery striking and air campaigns several times. Honestly I'm not going to put 2 and 2 together for you you should be capable of that on your own here.
What's the "appropriate" response then?
In 2012 they launched over 2200 rockets at Israel
And as someone already showed, for all the rockets they fire their aim sucks. Killing hundreds of civilians every time a few Israelis get killed isn't helping anyone. Israel could be taking measures to lead to a long term solution but thus far seems uninterested in them. So long as that is the case, I see no reason not to call them out on their regular offensives that don't help anything.
Why not? You'd rather go "Eye for an Eye" route?
You see, this is the problem with asymetrical warfare.... when one side is even more heavily armed, they're implored not to use disportionate force.
THAT is what keeping this conflict "hot" as the more heavily armed forces is fighting near their opponent's level.
It is interesting reading the distinction you make between the Palestinians and Hamas, yet you do not do the same for Israel.
Um, I've specifically pointed my comments at the Israeli government. And just because people have government positions doesn't mean they aren't be discriminated against. Whenever some local polity wants to build new projects in Palestinian neighborhoods, they just bulldoze the place down. In response to the recent killing of three Israeli teenagers, a mob killed a Palestinian teenager in equally brutal fashion. Palestinian businesses are less likely to get loans from banks. If you're this unfamiliar with Israels domestic policies.
Do you really think that's happening in a vacuum? Or could it be that the radical Palestinians are flaming these sectarian issues as well?
LordofHats wrote: At risk of repeating the point, it's not really a matter of debate that Israel's "lets bomb the feth out of them" strategy has achieved little more than racking up civilian casualties. We're going to do this whole song a dance again in a few years, just like last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, like all the other times going on fifty years.
You can moan about human shields all you want, but it looks like Hamas' strategy of hiding behind a helpless population is working a lot better than Israel's strategy of blowing that population to bits. At least in so far as Hamas is just gonna end up doing this song and dance again a few years from now because Israel seems unable to make the kind of strikes that can cripple the various terror cells that make up the organization.
Maybe Israel should modify their strategy to the US "Massive Retaliation" strategy of the 50s. I like Ketara's idea though. Whatb if the ISIS thing united Iran, the US, Syria, and Israel...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Israel: You've got the dial set to 11, turn it back down to 1 or 2.
Or turn it up to 25.
Gaza is an urban center. WWII shows us what happens to urban centers if the guys with the bombers take the gloves off. I am not advocating this, just saying to ignorant people who are saying Isreal is using total war are woefully uneducated.
The strikes may seem brutal but compared to what they could do the dial is low, no mass bombardments by artillary, or leveling entire towns. Look how much damage ww2 era tech could do and multiply. Bombs are far more powerful and accurate.
Not good but there only going to put up with rocket fire so long before they hit back, even with iron dome.
jhe90 wrote: The strikes may seem brutal but compared to what they could do the dial is low, no mass bombardments by artillary, or leveling entire towns. Look how much damage ww2 era tech could do and multiply. Bombs are far more powerful and accurate.
Not good but there only going to put up with rocket fire so long before they hit back, even with iron dome.
From a targeting perspective the Israelis are acting very restrained. Hamas and their ilk purposely set launch sites and weapons caches where any retaliatory strikes are bound to damage civilian infrastructure and/or cause civilian casualties. The Israelis actually pass on hitting many targets they could legitimately strike in favor of a very limited response trying to take out specific node types within the Hamas structure. For example, yes, they hit the houses of some Hamas leaders and capped them and their families. But the munition types and delivery systems did very little damage to neighboring structures. That is very indicative of a targeteering effort designed to minimize collateral damage.
Now, Israeli intel (like anyone's) is never 100% and Hamas is very good at the deception game and at manipulating public/international opinion.
Hmn, perhaps an obvious point, but it was interesting to hear the former head of the Israeli Ministry of Defence talk about the Iron Dome on the BBC there. Without out he said the alternative would've been for the Israelis taking a much harder stance against their enemies, amounting to them being involved in more wars. If the Israelis didn't have a way of defending themselves against Hamas rockets then they sure as hell wouldn't be using their strategic strikes method they're using at the moment. Well they've also invested in building bunkers and training people on how to handle airstrikes, but I doubt the Israelis would be using kid gloves if those rockets Hamas is sending over were actually killing people (plenty of people are being injured though, something not mentioned on the news often). The Israelis don't enjoy going to war or killing civilians, but all the money they invest in their military shows just how much they know their enemies are willing to force their hand. The Israelis tactics aren't going to stop the conflict, but they certainly reduce the number of casualties (on both sides). Diplomacy doesn't quite work in this situation given the distrust on both sides (that and the Israelis kind of find it difficult to talk to Hamas when they have primary demands like "yeah, would you mind releasing all those terrorists you have imprisoned, oh and I take it giving us all your land too wouldn't be much of a problem?"). So the Israelis did what they can to put down Hamas' latest spate of attacks with the minimum amount of casualties, but the media puts on hysterics about civilian deaths and people jump on the "Hamas are the victims here" camp. Whatever, I don't recall the media being this biased when American Marines were driving through Iraqi cities shooting at everything that moved, or how little civilian deaths are reported on in Afghanistan (though the fire doctrine of "only shoot if you can confirm you've been shot at, and even then fill out all this paperwork" presumably lowers how many of those occur, at least around those units that adhere to it). Meh, there's worse conflicts out there that are being handled in a far less humane manner, but people seem to jump on this one. Complain away about what the Israelis are doing, but unless you can come up with a better solution what they're doing right now is saying a hell of a lot more lives than what other countries do when handling terrorists (not just NATO like I mentioned, nah take a look at the Chinese and Russia).
LordofHats wrote: I contend Israel only does as much as they think they should too keep international pressure as low as possible. Their war record really speaks for itself on this front. Our drone strikes kill civilians all the time and have a better record. For everyone killed by the Israeli military in Gaze, civilians amount for as much as 75% of the casualties, most of them killed in attacks that showed no discrimination between the armed and the unarmed. In campaigns that that achieve no long term goals. That's a piss poor record.
Your contention is based on what?
Do US drone strikes have to contend with the following?
You keep talking about proportionate use of force, yet when pressed on it you keep declining to state what force you believe to be reasonable.
LordofHats wrote: Say that in a few years when this all happens again.
It strikes me as a difficult position to take to de-cry attempts to minimize civilian casualties, and at the same time complain about targeted strikes against terrorist cells/leaders. So what is your opinion of how Israel should respond?
enacting a policy of "If there's going to be collateral damage, don't do anything," is just not feasible.
Who ever suggested they shouldn't do anything?
You managed to insert a response to Seaward in the middle of our exchange.
LordofHats wrote: I mentioned artillery striking and air campaigns several times. Honestly I'm not going to put 2 and 2 together for you you should be capable of that on your own here.
You're avoiding the question. You keep talking about a proportionate response to hundreds of rockets, but you cannot actually elaborate on what you mean by disproportionate.
LordofHats wrote: And as someone already showed, for all the rockets they fire their aim sucks. Killing hundreds of civilians every time a few Israelis get killed isn't helping anyone. Israel could be taking measures to lead to a long term solution but thus far seems uninterested in them. So long as that is the case, I see no reason not to call them out on their regular offensives that don't help anything.
So because no one is hit (thanks to warning systems, shelters, and Iron Dome) Israel should just ignore hundreds of rockets fired at it. Interesting argument.
Their offensives that don't help? Other than kill Hamas leaders, thus losing expertise and skills, destroying stockpiles of weapons so they are not used against Israel, and the fact that Cast Lead stopped rocket attacks from the Lebanon. That level of not helping?
LordofHats wrote: Um, I've specifically pointed my comments at the Israeli government. And just because people have government positions doesn't mean they aren't be discriminated against. Whenever some local polity wants to build new projects in Palestinian neighborhoods, they just bulldoze the place down. In response to the recent killing of three Israeli teenagers, a mob killed a Palestinian teenager in equally brutal fashion. Palestinian businesses are less likely to get loans from banks. If you're this unfamiliar with Israels domestic policies.
Really? Tally says otherwise;
Government; 1
Israel; 21 on this page alone
And the murder was a heinous act that drew outrage and condemnation, as well as arrests and a forthcoming trial. What do you think happens in Gaza when Israelis are killed? They hand out treats and celebrate. You can compare and contrast the differences
LordofHats wrote: We gave a black guy the Navy's highest honor in 1942. he was still discriminated against as were other blacks. Japanese Americans in the 442nd were the most decorated unit in US military history and they got discriminated against too. Discrimination doesn't stop because you give someone a nice desk job or some medals.
So no actual examples of Israel discriminating, just a series of generalizations.
Spent a couple years living under rocket attacks. It sucks. Though after a month I just roll over and go back to sleep. If its my time to go its my time to go
You keep talking about proportionate use of force, yet when pressed on it you keep declining to state what force you believe to be reasonable.
According to the Law of War (or law of armed conflict or something like that) Proportionate use of force is:
Using the least amount of force to complete a military objective. Basically, you must do everything you can to limit collateral damage, but you still need to accomplish your military objectives.
For the US, this means that we don't generally drop a JDAM on one dude digging an IED hole on the side of the road, however we will drop that JDAM on a compound that current surveillance and intel reporting says is occupied by a large amount of militants.
How the feth do you propose the IDF to "handle" this then?
Preferably something other than "keep Gaza a third world crap hole where terrorists can control everyone." That strategy has been tried going on 30 years. Not working out is it? Israel needs to develop a comprehensive policy to weaken Hamas' rule, but it's fairly obvious by now Israel likes keeping Hamas in charge. You don't find it strange they dropped the PLO like rock, after a decade of negotiation and working for a peace, to start trying to court Hamas instead? Israel likes keeping Gaza the way it is.
They do need to get Palestinians on their side, but that'll never happen with their current policies which leave them with no one to turn to but Hamas.
when one side is even more heavily armed, they're implored not to use disportionate force.
Um yeah... That's how the whole morality of war thing gets applied by most people. Bombing an entire village to hit 1 target hasn't been in style since WWII.
THAT is what keeping this conflict "hot"
What keeps the conflict hot is that nothing is being done to resolve it. No matter how many bombs Israel drops in Gaza, it's not going to resolve the problem unless they go full genocide. If Israel had a plan for what they were going to do to resolve the conflict, people would probably lighten up on them, but Israel doesn't really have a plan and has shown no interest in developing one or accepting ones others have proposed.
There are countless plans proposed that don't involve dealing with Hamas as a body, but Israel can always fall back to the "we'll do it if Hamas agrees" line which Hamas will never agree to anything more than cease fires so they get to wave their arms and say "we tried guys see!"
Or could it be that the radical Palestinians are flaming these sectarian issues as well?
It's hard to tell which Palestinians are radical and which ones are just angry about being bombed. Current Israeli policy produces a big overlap. The bigger problem in that field is Israel's approach to the population in Gaza, which is to create a enemy population and then cry foul when that population falls into the hands of terrorist organizations.
You keep talking about proportionate use of force, yet when pressed on it you keep declining to state what force you believe to be reasonable.
I've explained why I think their force is disproportionate. Turning that around and asking what I think is proportionate is just dodging the point and claiming its wrong by asking a different question while never addressing the first.
and at the same time complain about targeted strikes against terrorist cells/leaders.
Carpeting Gaza in artillery shells and air bombs and rolling tanks through the area isn't a targeted strike. it's the opposite of a targeted strike.
You managed to insert a response to Seaward in the middle of our exchange.
So many quote boxes XD
You're avoiding the question. You keep talking about a proportionate response to hundreds of rockets, but you cannot actually elaborate on what you mean by disproportionate.
This is why Asia is beating us in Math scores people.
Israel should just ignore hundreds of rockets fired at it.
Again. Who said they should do nothing? It's a fairly vast sea between "you're response is disproportionate" and "don't do anything."
Their offensives that don't help? Other than kill Hamas leaders, thus losing expertise and skills, destroying stockpiles of weapons so they are not used against Israel, and the fact that Cast Lead stopped rocket attacks from the Lebanon. That level of not helping?
It's not helping because Hamas will just do it again in a few years. One of the criteria of Just War is that the goal must be achievable. Israel's goals in their offensives are laughable. They don't even improve the short term security of their state. They don't falter Hamas at all because really, saying Hamas leaders are dying is like tell the Giants they'll never win a game because a few line backers broke their ankles. Hamas cells have an angry and captive population to pull new line backers from. israel's done an excellent job giving them that.
Really? Tally says otherwise;
Government; 1
Israel; 21 on this page alone
Excellent deductions there Dread. You really have me on the ropes now.
So no actual examples of Israel discriminating, just a series of generalizations.
"I'm ignorant of what goes on in this part of the world and choose to just repeat talking points I've heard from other ignorant people and the internet without doing any relevant reading or research and demand that other people do it for me and if they don't they're wrong."
A fine argument.
I'm just curious as to what definition LordofHats is working from
The one that gets ignored whenever Israel and Russia are involved (which is the one we apply to most everyone else in the world as posted by Ensis Ferrae). Cause like, when's the last time anyone talked seriously about Chechnya?
LordofHats wrote: Carpeting Gaza in artillery shells and air bombs and rolling tanks through the area isn't a targeted strike. it's the opposite of a targeted strike.
Are you really going to argue the Israelis are 'carpeting Gaza in artillery shells and air bombs'?
Come on, that just isn't close to honest or accurate. You're better than that.
CptJake wrote: Come on, that just isn't close to honest or accurate. You're better than that.
It's a little hyperbolic yeah, but all this 'Israel uses targeted strikes" nonsense deserves a hyperbolic answer.
One of the greatest feats in Israel's history is tricking so much of the world into thinking they're strikes are targeted. There is so much unexploded ordnance in Gaza that it makes western France look like candy land. Two to three dozen Palestinians are killed every year from undetonated ordnance (and are left out of casualty figures). UN teams have been in the country around the clock since 2006 trying to get rid of all of it. You don't get that many explosives in a country because you're being appropriately discriminate in your attacks..
The best way to prevent further conflict on Israels' part would have been to have agreed to the peace proposal hammered out in the 90's with Fatah. Fatah even agreed to not have the Palestinian capital as Jerusalem proper but in an out lying suburb. Instead Israel did what it normally does and dither at the table till it can assassinate some "terrorist" leader thereby starting the rocket attacks again and keep expanding the illegal settlements (which are built on land confiscated from Palestinians - everyone seems to forget that aspect).
Fatah was seen as powerless by the Palestinians and therefore voted in Hamas, in a few years I am wondering who they will vote in next.
Unlikely to ever happen. The most likely outcome would be that the upper echelons of Hamas would be deposed by the lower ones, but as some have shown well, Israel keeps killing the lower echelon leaders and leaving the core leaders untouched, almost like they want to keep Hamas in power A more cynical man might even suggest that certain parties in Hamas are telling Israel who to kill to keep the lower ends from getting to ornery.
LordofHats wrote: Unlikely to ever happen. The most likely outcome would be that the upper echelons of Hamas would be deposed by the lower ones, but as some have shown well, Israel keeps killing the lower echelon leaders and leaving the core leaders untouched, almost like they want to keep Hamas in power A more cynical man might even suggest that certain parties in Hamas are telling Israel who to kill to keep the lower ends from getting to ornery.
Better to face the enemy I know than the enemy I don't know... ehh?
And my new Deadpool avatar is making my comments so much worse than they otherwise should be
We all could be wrong. Israel on borderline cordon and search, air strike, and veil threats. How do we not know their main goal is to kill Hamas financially by making them expend all their missiles.
I note that you didn't answer what your contention was that Israel "only does as much as they think they should too keep international pressure as low as possible" was based upon.
LordofHats wrote: Preferably something other than "keep Gaza a third world crap hole where terrorists can control everyone." That strategy has been tried going on 30 years. Not working out is it? Israel needs to develop a comprehensive policy to weaken Hamas' rule, but it's fairly obvious by now Israel likes keeping Hamas in charge. You don't find it strange they dropped the PLO like rock, after a decade of negotiation and working for a peace, to start trying to court Hamas instead? Israel likes keeping Gaza the way it is.
They do need to get Palestinians on their side, but that'll never happen with their current policies which leave them with no one to turn to but Hamas.
How and when did Israel try to court Hamas?
How long do you think it should take to get Palestinians on Israel's side? How does the Right of Return affect this? How should Israel respond to continued rocket attacks during this time period? Hamas have not held elections since they were initially voted in, and deals harshly with anyone who they deem disloyal. How can the transition be made away from Hamas by the people in Gaza?
LordofHats wrote: Um yeah... That's how the whole morality of war thing gets applied by most people. Bombing an entire village to hit 1 target hasn't been in style since WWII.
Except Israel doesn't bomb an entire village to hit just one target. To claim otherwise flies in the face of reality
LordofHats wrote: I've explained why I think their force is disproportionate. Turning that around and asking what I think is proportionate is just dodging the point and claiming its wrong by asking a different question while never addressing the first. . .This is why Asia is beating us in Math scores people.
You have not explained what you believe should be considered proportionate. In fact you have refused to at every stage. Now you're resorting to flippant comments to deflect
LordofHats wrote: Carpeting Gaza in artillery shells and air bombs and rolling tanks through the area isn't a targeted strike. it's the opposite of a targeted strike.
First it was "shooting galleries", "total war" and now this. I sincerely hope you weren't typing any of those with a straight face
LordofHats wrote: Again. Who said they should do nothing? It's a fairly vast sea between "you're response is disproportionate" and "don't do anything."
That word again, but you still can't tell us what you mean when you say it.
You took that quote beautifully out of context, and choose to ignore the meat of it; "So because no one is hit (thanks to warning systems, shelters, and Iron Dome) Israel should just ignore hundreds of rockets fired at it. Interesting argument.
Their offensives that don't help? Other than kill Hamas leaders, thus losing expertise and skills, destroying stockpiles of weapons so they are not used against Israel, and the fact that Cast Lead stopped rocket attacks from the Lebanon. That level of not helping?" You're trying to force a false comparison between one side that values protecting civilian lives, and another that continually places civilian lives at risk. No comment about the Hamas video that was linked to either that may help explain some of the disparity in casualty figures?
LordofHats wrote: It's not helping because Hamas will just do it again in a few years. One of the criteria of Just War is that the goal must be achievable. Israel's goals in their offensives are laughable. They don't even improve the short term security of their state. They don't falter Hamas at all because really, saying Hamas leaders are dying is like tell the Giants they'll never win a game because a few line backers broke their ankles. Hamas cells have an angry and captive population to pull new line backers from. israel's done an excellent job giving them that.
You keep ignoring the result of Cast Lead because it contradicts this narrative that you keep spinning.
LordofHats wrote: Excellent deductions there Dread. You really have me on the ropes now.
At not stage did you claim that you were treating the Israeli government as separate from the civilian population until your double standard was pointed out. Interesting that you (again) resorted to a flippant comment instead of engaging with the matter
LordofHats wrote: "I'm ignorant of what goes on in this part of the world and choose to just repeat talking points I've heard from other ignorant people and the internet without doing any relevant reading or research and demand that other people do it for me and if they don't they're wrong."
A fine argument.
Not as good as yours of not providing evidence, not refuting evidence that runs counter to your narrative, refusing to actually explain what you mean, gross distortions, accusations of bad faith where absolutely none exist, and just repeating talking points while you trot out the same old unsubstantiated claims about Israel ("shooting gallery", "total war", Israel being unconcerned by civilian deaths, dual standards when speaking about Palestinians being separate from Hamas and not going the same for Israelis and their government etc.)
LordofHats wrote: The one that gets ignored whenever Israel and Russia are involved (which is the one we apply to most everyone else in the world as posted by Ensis Ferrae). Cause like, when's the last time anyone talked seriously about Chechnya?
And which definition is that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Unlikely to ever happen. The most likely outcome would be that the upper echelons of Hamas would be deposed by the lower ones, but as some have shown well, Israel keeps killing the lower echelon leaders and leaving the core leaders untouched, almost like they want to keep Hamas in power A more cynical man might even suggest that certain parties in Hamas are telling Israel who to kill to keep the lower ends from getting to ornery.
Seeing as many core leaders live elsewhere (Syria and Lebanon for example) going after them is less easy than it sounds. But lets stick with the cynical man's theory instead....
Gaza City (CNN) -- Israel has accepted an Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire. But with Hamas' military wing rejecting the gesture outright, there may be little hope of seeing an end to the near constant exchange of fire that has so far killed more than 190 Palestinians in Gaza.
The Israeli Security Cabinet met early Tuesday morning and reached a decision to halt aerial strikes beginning at 9 a.m. (2 a.m. ET).
"We remain alert and preserve high preparedness levels, both defensive and offensive," military spokesman Peter Lerner said. "If the Hamas terror organization will fire at Israel, we shall respond." he tweeted.
The plan calls for all sides to cease hostilities in Gaza. It also calls for the opening of border crossings, once the security situation is stable, and for high-level talks among those involved.
The response from Hamas' military wing contradicted the one from its political wing.
"We are still discussing and there is no official position yet from from the movement on the Egyptian initiative," Mousa Abumarzook, senior member of Hamas, said on his official Facebook page.
Hamas' military wing, the Qassam Brigades, dismissed any talks of a cease-fire, saying its battle with "the enemy" will "increase in ferocity and intensity."
"We in the Al-Qassam Brigades reject altogether the proposal, which for us is not worth the ink that it was written with."
Since the Cabinet's announcement, rocket fire continued from Gaza into its territory, the Israeli military said.
"We got to the final hurdle and what they should have done is dealt a huge blow to Hamas which would have taken them years to recover from," said Itamar Shimoni, mayor of Ashkelon where many of the rockets have fallen.
'A first step'
Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said the Israeli acceptance of the Egyptian proposal should be seen as "a first step, not the end."
"We have to be cautious of this cycle of violence which the Palestinian people continue to suffer," she said.
Earlier, Hamas mocked the proposal in public, with a spokesman describing it as a "joke."
"We did not receive this declared paper from the Egyptians ... which means it's an initiative for the media. It's not a political initiative," said Osama Hamdan.
Speaking on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer," he continued: "It's not really an initiative. It's not really an idea, what they are trying to do is to corner the Palestinians and to help the Israelis more."
The stakes are high and climbing.
By Tuesday, the death toll from a week of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza had reached 194 with at least 1,400 wounded, according to Palestinian health authorities.
The death toll is now greater than the number of people killed in Gaza during the 2012 conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Civilian casualties
Amid the diplomatic maneuvering, the residents of Gaza are stuck in the middle of the continued fighting. The United Nations has said that most of the people killed by Israel's aerial attacks are civilians.
"I urgently call on the Israeli Security Forces to put an end to attacks against, or endangering, civilians and civilian infrastructure which are contrary to international humanitarian law," said Pierre Krahenbuhl, commissioner general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, or UNWRA.
There are now 17,000 refugees taking shelter in 20 schools in Gaza, UNWRA said, and the airstrikes have damaged 47 of its buildings, including clinics, schools and warehouses.
The Israeli military says it uses a variety of methods, including phone calls and leaflets, to warn civilians of impending strikes.
But UNWRA called on Israel to exercise maximum restraint and precaution to avoid more casualties.
Doctor: Human shield around hospital
"Clearly at this stage not enough is being done in that regard," Krahenbuhl said.
'This is tyranny'
Israel said Monday its forces have struck 1,470 "terror targets" across Gaza, including 770 concealed rocket launchers.
But in one area of northern Gaza, Mohamed Abu Hassan said Monday he doesn't understand why his house was severely damaged in an Israeli airstrike that struck the building next door.
There was no unusual activity in the house in the town of Jabalya, he said.
"My son isn't even here. He's working in Libya," Hassan said. Only his wife is at the house.
"Is she fighting Israel?" he asks. "This is tyranny."
15 seconds to seek shelter
Israel has used its Iron Dome defense system against some of the more than 1,088 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel, the military said.
On Monday, the system intercepted a rocket fired from Gaza toward the Israeli border town of Sderot, close to CNN's Blitzer.
"We heard a loud boom," he said. "If you don't seek shelter, you're gonna be in danger because even though the rocket was destroyed in the air, the shrapnel starts coming down very, very quickly."
When sirens go off, people along the border have about 15 second to seek shelter. Farther north in Tel Aviv, where the Iron Dome system also intercepted a rocket Monday, people have about a minute.
More than 60 of the rockets fired from Gaza have targeted Ashkelon, with more flying overhead on Tuesday.
"So as you see Hamas don't accept the cease-fire," resident Merav Danielie said, seeming to accept her fate.
"It won't last because Hamas always will get more bombs from Iran ... so it doesn't really matter," she said. "Six months from today, it will start all over again. As long as they don't have a state they will always hate us."
Seventy percent of Israel's population lies within range of Hamas rocket attacks, according to the Israel Defense Forces. The defense system has intercepted roughly a fifth of the rockets fired, the IDF said early Tuesday.
So far, no Israelis have been killed by the rocket attacks.
Kerry delays trip
Secretary of State John Kerry was preparing a possible trip to the Middle East to lay groundwork for a cease-fire, but several U.S. officials told CNN Monday night that Kerry is postponing the visit to give Egyptian efforts a chance to take root.
One official said the United States wants to give Egypt a chance to reassert itself as a power broker the Middle East, as it did during the 2012 cease-fire.
The current Egyptian President, the ex-military chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, has weaker relations with Hamas than former President Mohammed Morsy, who brokered the 2012 deal. Morsy was ousted by the military in 2013.
Earlier, Kerry spoke by phone with Netanyahu and expressed U.S. concerns about escalating tensions. He reiterated that the U.S. is prepared to help bring about a cease-fire, a senior State Department official said.
But "offering facilitation is not enough," Yousef Munayyer of the Washington-based Palestine Center told CNN's "New Day."
"It's important that the United States demand a cease-fire," he said. "There is no military solution to this."
CptJake wrote: Come on, that just isn't close to honest or accurate. You're better than that.
It's a little hyperbolic yeah, but all this 'Israel uses targeted strikes" nonsense deserves a hyperbolic answer.
One of the greatest feats in Israel's history is tricking so much of the world into thinking they're strikes are targeted. There is so much unexploded ordnance in Gaza that it makes western France look like candy land. Two to three dozen Palestinians are killed every year from undetonated ordnance (and are left out of casualty figures). UN teams have been in the country around the clock since 2006 trying to get rid of all of it. You don't get that many explosives in a country because you're being appropriately discriminate in your attacks..
The strikes are targeted. Unexploded ordinance from the past (or even recent times) has zero bearing on strikes being targeted. The Israelis have a process very similar to ours, they are not just indiscriminately chucking bombs from air planes or artillery shells and missiles into Gaza.
You want to talk about indiscriminate chucking of munitions, look at Hamas and the types of rockets they use and the mechanisms they use to pick/hit targets.
CptJake wrote: You want to talk about indiscriminate chucking of munitions, look at Hamas and the types of rockets they use and the mechanisms they use to pick/hit targets.
That chicken they've trained to peck at a map of Israel is still alive?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I note that you didn't answer what your contention was that Israel "only does as much as they think they should too keep international pressure as low as possible" was based upon.
The basic principle that any country will do as much as they think they can get away with, and how every time this happens Israel keeps the roller coaster going till the world starts paying attention after a few days and they suddenly slow down now that everyone is watching.
How and when did Israel try to court Hamas?
And this is the point where it becomes blatantly apparent you're not that familiar with the conflict. Israel is constantly courting Hamas despite their claims that the PLO is the legitimate government of Palestinians. These days they pretty much ignore the PLO completely and refuse to move on any action without Hamas' agreement, which they know is never going to get very far.
In a certain light this is reasonable as everyone has to deal with Hamas right now, but Israel doesn't have any sort of plan revolved around actually removing Hamas from power or trying to get the PLO swept back in.
How long do you think it should take to get Palestinians on Israel's side?
At this point? A long ass time. You can't dig yourself a 80 year hole of conflict and expect to get out of said hole quick and clean.
How does the Right of Return affect this?
Most Palestinians don't even want to return, they just want the right recognized, which is kind of silly but w/e. Even if Gaza were to turn out to be a pretty great place to live I doubt most of the refugees who've fled to surrounding countries would want to go back (though said countries might well start forcing them).
How should Israel respond to continued rocket attacks during this time period?
Israel could try not launching a military campaign searching for needles in the haystack for one.
Hamas have not held elections since they were initially voted in, and deals harshly with anyone who they deem disloyal. How can the transition be made away from Hamas by the people in Gaza?
By offering a better option. Time might allow the PLO to sweep itself back in, but any plan to remove Hamas from power would need radical changes to Israeli policy in the region. End their blockade and start nation building the area. To an extent however, Israel would need to brace itself to suck up some hurt to achieve the goal, because continued offensives over individual incidents like what started this current round of conflict is only going to keep progress from being made.
Except Israel doesn't bomb an entire village to hit just one target. To claim otherwise flies in the face of reality
In a literal sense? There aren't that many villages actually in Gaza cause its pretty urban but in a realistic sense;
Leveling most of a block is pretty comparable.
You have not explained what you believe should be considered proportionate. In fact you have refused to at every stage. Now you're resorting to flippant comments to deflect
One deflect deserves another. It's like a game of pong.
First it was "shooting galleries", "total war" and now this. I sincerely hope you weren't typing any of those with a straight face
My face is a little slanted from all the face palms so straight face is kind of impossible.
You took that quote beautifully out of context, and choose to ignore the meat of it; [u]"So because no one is hit (thanks to warning systems, shelters, and Iron Dome) Israel should just ignore hundreds of rockets fired at it. Interesting argument.
Casualties from them remain low because rockets just aren't that deadly. Iron Dome is not that effective against them (it only stops 25%) but really I don't think it was ever intended to be. The point of Iron Dome is preparation for the inevitable day Hamas gets its hands on smart munitions*. Now that they have drones that day is getting closer.
Since 2001 64 civilians have been killed by rockets and mortars from Gaza. Israel's offensives have killed over 3000 civilians (moderate estimate). Israelis injured in the fighting in the same time frame number around 1400. Palestinians number around 8000. Really, you're trying to take a bloody cheek and use it to justify a brutal mugging. Saying "Hamas is using human shields" isn't really making up for it.
*And because the US wants to see such a system in practice so we helped them out on it.
You're trying to force a false comparison between one side that values protecting civilian lives, and another that continually places civilian lives at risk.
No I'm forcing a valid comparison between two sides, one that shows indifference towards civilians in the line of fire, and another that likes putting them there because they know the first is indifferent.
No comment about the Hamas video that was linked to either that may help explain some of the disparity in casualty figures?
The disparity in casualty figures is that Israel pretends some of the civies they kill are militants, Hamas pretends some of the militants were civies, and the UN gets to go in and figure out what the numbers actually were which is pretty much always somewhere in the middle from what both sides give.
You keep ignoring the result of Cast Lead because it contradicts this narrative that you keep spinning.
Cast Lead? Yeah. That's a great refutation you've come up with there It's not like Cast Lead happened in 2008 and Echo Return and Pillar of Defense followed a few years later, which is kind of what I keep hinting at here. Now we've got Protective Edge, and in a few years there'll be another fancily named offensive after both sides have simmered down a bit.
If anything Cast Lead had the benefit of resulting in a decline in the use of force by Israel, cause Israel really got hammered for that one. On the most bright side it lead to both Israel and Hamas toning it down a bit because it was getting hard for both sides to maintain their respective charades of full victim hood when they were going at it that harshly.
Interesting that you (again) resorted to a flippant comment instead of engaging with the matter
I just find it laughable that the best you can come up with is that I choose to abstractly use 'Israel' in reference to the discussion.
Not as good as yours of not providing evidence,
Provide no evidence. Insult the other side for not providing evidence.
not refuting evidence that runs counter to your narrative
Patent nonsense isn't worth refuting (or rather I've grown tired of trying at all in the case of Israel-Palestine conflict). It's funny to read though.
refusing to actually explain what you mean
I have, you in your usual style just ignore it.
gross distortions,
Pot. Kettle.
accusations of bad faith where absolutely none exist,
Meeting bad faith with good faith just ends up with more bad faith being returned. Meeting it with more bad faith is at least somewhat entertaining
and just repeating talking points
I keep hoping they might sink in. I have a skeptical yet, slightly optimistic, outlook on the human race to maintain you know.
And which definition is that?
And this is where you show you don't read as there is really only one definition of proportionate force, it was posted here, and I even named who posted it and you still ask the question and pretend I'm the one trotting out dishonest arguments
Seeing as many core leaders live elsewhere (Syria and Lebanon for example) going after them is less easy than it sounds. But lets stick with the cynical man's theory instead....
The US doesn't shirk from violated sovereign air space to get its guys and Israel is a whole lot more dedicated to killing targets when they want to than we are
The strikes are targeted. Unexploded ordinance from the past (or even recent times) has zero bearing on strikes being targeted.
Most of the stuff from 2004 (and to Israel's credit they at least toned down from that level of overkill) has been cleaned out for years. What's there now is what Israel has put in since 2008-onwards. There'll be more now.
The Israelis have a process very similar to ours, they are not just indiscriminately chucking bombs from air planes or artillery shells and missiles into Gaza.
And yet, almost 3/4 of the people they kill are non-combatants.
You want to talk about indiscriminate chucking of munitions, look at Hamas and the types of rockets they use and the mechanisms they use to pick/hit targets.
Little Timmy throwing wild punches stops justifying little Johnny throwing wild punches back around the fourth grade.
But they do not target non-combatants, unlike Hamas. Big difference. Add in Hamas very deliberately uses non-combatants to shield/screen caches, launch sites, and leadership nodes.
Again, they types of munitions/delivery systems the Israelis use are chosen very deliberately to minimize collateral damage. You can never eliminate it completely, not when fighting groups like Hamas.
Go ahead and explain why you believe the Israelis are not targeting their strikes. What specifically besides unexploded ordinance (which is a very silly reason) influences your thoughts?
I mean seriously, they are destroying very specific houses, not city blocks or even sections. You can't get much more targeted than that.
CptJake wrote: But they do not target non-combatants, unlike Hamas. Big difference. Add in Hamas very deliberately uses non-combatants to shield/screen caches, launch sites, and leadership nodes.
Which, is a "War Crime™" in itself.
Again, they types of munitions/delivery systems the Israelis use are chosen very deliberately to minimize collateral damage. You can never eliminate it completely, not when fighting groups like Hamas.
Go ahead and explain why you believe the Israelis are not targeting their strikes. What specifically besides unexploded ordinance (which is a very silly reason) influences your thoughts?
I mean seriously, they are destroying very specific houses, not city blocks or even sections. You can't get much more targeted than that.
LordofHats wrote: The basic principle that any country will do as much as they think they can get away with, and how every time this happens Israel keeps the roller coaster going till the world starts paying attention after a few days and they suddenly slow down now that everyone is watching.
So your contention is rooted in a sweeping generalization, which has no more basis than your own bias.
LordofHats wrote: And this is the point where it becomes blatantly apparent you're not that familiar with the conflict. Israel is constantly courting Hamas despite their claims that the PLO is the legitimate government of Palestinians. These days they pretty much ignore the PLO completely and refuse to move on any action without Hamas' agreement, which they know is never going to get very far.
In a certain light this is reasonable as everyone has to deal with Hamas right now, but Israel doesn't have any sort of plan revolved around actually removing Hamas from power or trying to get the PLO swept back in.
So nothing to substantiate your position again, just another lazy swipe.
LordofHats wrote: At this point? A long ass time. You can't dig yourself a 80 year hole of conflict and expect to get out of said hole quick and clean.
And what should Israel do during this time should it come under further attack? How does Israel court the Palestinians without provoking Hamas, or strengthening Hamas?
LordofHats wrote: Most Palestinians don't even want to return, they just want the right recognized, which is kind of silly but w/e. Even if Gaza were to turn out to be a pretty great place to live I doubt most of the refugees who've fled to surrounding countries would want to go back (though said countries might well start forcing them).
Do you have a source for that claim? Because that completely contradicts the one state solution that many Palestinians have been pressing for, and not giving ground on (including the PLO)
LordofHats wrote: Israel could try not launching a military campaign searching for needles in the haystack for one.
Then what do you propose they do in response to hundreds of rockets being fired at them?
LordofHats wrote: By offering a better option. Time might allow the PLO to sweep itself back in, but any plan to remove Hamas from power would need radical changes to Israeli policy in the region. End their blockade and start nation building the area. To an extent however, Israel would need to brace itself to suck up some hurt to achieve the goal, because continued offensives over individual incidents like what started this current round of conflict is only going to keep progress from being made.
Given that Hamas kill Palestinians who disagree with them how likely it is do you think that there exists the conditions for a better option to flourish? If they were to rely on Israel for protection any new regime will be seen as lackeys. Hamas were unable to keep their agreement for a unity government with the PLO, adding a third group would not make this any easier.
Also the blockade is there to help prevent war material reaching Hamas for use against Israel. Why should Israel be the ones to make the sacrifices to her security by easing the blockade? Israel withdrew from Gaza and suffered rocket attacks shortly thereafter. The lesson being that Hamas will not reciprocate when their goal is the destruction of the Jewish State.
I'm always amazed that the demand is that Israel be the one to capitulate when it is Hamas and other militant groups that are the instigators.
LordofHats wrote: In a literal sense? There aren't that many villages actually in Gaza cause its pretty urban but in a realistic sense;
Your source- "Islamic Invitation Turkey... it is Hizbullah that will certainly triumph. Qur'an 5/56"
That seems like such a reputable site, with a limited bias. . . Pity that is the only actual source that you have provided in our exchanges.
I am unable to do an image search while at work, but I wonder if this is an older image from Iraq or Syria that has been re-used. The BBC were caught out by this already in this conflict. Or was this a site that was also being used as a weapons cache in a civilian area?
LordofHats wrote: One deflect deserves another. It's like a game of pong.
So you're still unable to give an honest answer
LordofHats wrote: My face is a little slanted from all the face palms so straight face is kind of impossible.
Reading your own ridiculously hyperbolic posts may produce that reaction
LordofHats wrote: Casualties from them remain low because rockets just aren't that deadly. Iron Dome is not that effective against them (it only stops 25%) but really I don't think it was ever intended to be. The point of Iron Dome is preparation for the inevitable day Hamas gets its hands on smart munitions*. Now that they have drones that day is getting closer.
Since 2001 64 civilians have been killed by rockets and mortars from Gaza. Israel's offensives have killed over 3000 civilians (moderate estimate). Israelis injured in the fighting in the same time frame number around 1400. Palestinians number around 8000. Really, you're trying to take a bloody cheek and use it to justify a brutal mugging. Saying "Hamas is using human shields" isn't really making up for it.
*And because the US wants to see such a system in practice so we helped them out on it.
So in your estimation it is ineffective against dumb munitions, but will prove it's worth against smart munitions..... is this another groundless assertion or do you have something to support this claim?
Hamas are using human shields. And hiding arms in civilian areas. And launching rockets from civilian areas. Hamas refuses to let civilians leave areas that Israel gives warnings about. Hamas glorifies martyrdom. That is a very stark contrast to Israel's approach of early warning systems and shelters. But continue to believe your fantasy of "total war" and a one sided "shooting gallery"
LordofHats wrote: No I'm forcing a valid comparison between two sides, one that shows indifference towards civilians in the line of fire, and another that likes putting them there because they know the first is indifferent.
You mean the side that minimizes civilian casualties, uses smart munitions (often with limited payloads), and warns civilians to evacuate an area before a strike? That "indifference towards civilians"
LordofHats wrote: The disparity in casualty figures is that Israel pretends some of the civies they kill are militants, Hamas pretends some of the militants were civies, and the UN gets to go in and figure out what the numbers actually were which is pretty much always somewhere in the middle from what both sides give.
That is an amazing conclusion to draw from that video where Hamas admits to using human shields. It is almost as if you are really trying to gloss over their conduct which leads directly to civilian loss of life, and then use these same casualties a a rod to beat Israel
LordofHats wrote: Cast Lead? Yeah. That's a great refutation you've come up with there It's not like Cast Lead happened in 2008 and Echo Return and Pillar of Defense followed a few years later, which is kind of what I keep hinting at here. Now we've got Protective Edge, and in a few years there'll be another fancily named offensive after both sides have simmered down a bit.
If anything Cast Lead had the benefit of resulting in a decline in the use of force by Israel, cause Israel really got hammered for that one. On the most bright side it lead to both Israel and Hamas toning it down a bit because it was getting hard for both sides to maintain their respective charades of full victim hood when they were going at it that harshly.
Thank you, it is a great refutation. Especially when you consider that afterwards rocket fire from Lebanon almost completely ceased
LordofHats wrote: I just find it laughable that the best you can come up with is that I choose to abstractly use 'Israel' in reference to the discussion.
When you claim to make the distinction between the Israeli population and the government, and don't, yet make that very distinction between the Palestinians and Hamas then expect to be called out on it
LordofHats wrote: Provide no evidence. Insult the other side for not providing evidence.
What evidence did you believe I had omitted?
LordofHats wrote: I keep hoping they might sink in. I have a skeptical yet, slightly optimistic, outlook on the human race to maintain you know.
Accuse others of using talking points, use them yourself. I think you may have said something in relation to this...."Pot. Kettle."
LordofHats wrote: And this is where you show you don't read as there is really only one definition of proportionate force, it was posted here, and I even named who posted it and you still ask the question and pretend I'm the one trotting out dishonest arguments
I can't imagine why you would think that after you refuse to say what you mean...
LordofHats wrote: The US doesn't shirk from violated sovereign air space to get its guys and Israel is a whole lot more dedicated to killing targets when they want to than we are
Have you missed the outcry over this, or do you enjoy being contrary?
LordofHats wrote: Patent nonsense isn't worth refuting (or rather I've grown tired of trying at all in the case of Israel-Palestine conflict). It's funny to read though.
. . .
Pot. Kettle.
. . .
Meeting bad faith with good faith just ends up with more bad faith being returned. Meeting it with more bad faith is at least somewhat entertaining
Now it just looks like you're just trolling at this stage. No need for me to respond any further to you on this matter then
Israel's offensives have killed over 3000 civilians (moderate estimate).
By who's counting?? If you remember, the US conducted that survey in Iraq, asking how many people had family members killed, etc.... and if THAT number was to be believed, we had killed something like 10 million people in a matter of 3 years
Israel's offensives have killed over 3000 civilians (moderate estimate).
By who's counting?? If you remember, the US conducted that survey in Iraq, asking how many people had family members killed, etc.... and if THAT number was to be believed, we had killed something like 10 million people in a matter of 3 years
CptJake wrote: Go ahead and explain why you believe the Israelis are not targeting their strikes. What specifically besides unexploded ordinance (which is a very silly reason) influences your thoughts?
There's a very marginal difference between not targeting non-combatants, and choosing to ignore the non-combatant casualties when you decide to launch a 'targeted' strike. It reaches a point where Israel should be called to task over the rising death rate and the lack of progress in the conflict. This current round in particular has been especially bad thus far in producing civilian deaths.
I mean seriously, they are destroying very specific houses, not city blocks or even sections
Yeah, they target them with artillery shells and air campaigns, hit their target and everything else immediately around it.
They're using target saturation weapons in a urban populated area. That's the shoddiest a targeted strike can get. Even at the height of the Iraq war we were doing a better job.
Which, is a "War Crime™" in itself.
Responding to a war crime like this is easily construed as a war crime itself. One doesn't justify the other.
By who's counting
UN. Hamas would have you believe that everyone who isn't a militant is a child
which has no more basis than your own bias.
That's pretty much this entire thread in a nut shell (and any thread that has ever appeared on Israel-Palestine).
How does Israel court the Palestinians without provoking Hamas, or strengthening Hamas?
Israel could have taken steps to end this years ago when the Road for Peace plan was accepted by Israel and the PLO, but Israel demanded the PLO live up the agreement while refusing to do so themselves. The PLO (not sure if they were being noble or stupid) actually went along with it and Hamas ended up supplanting them. Israel remained steadfast in refusing to stop building settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, and comically, when they finally got around to it, it was too late because Hamas was taking over and 2006 Hamas was a lot worse than current Hamas (this is back when Israel actually went after Hamas' leaders and killed them). They might want to start by living up to their initial agreement to cease building all settlements in all the occupied territories.
Pretending the blockade is working is ludicrous. It's not. If they open the border, then ground is set for a reconstruction process. They need to get back behind the PLO, as that's the most realistic option to remove Hamas. There is no way to remove Hamas without provoking them, but if Israel started working with Palestinians rather than against them they'd find attacking Hamas a far easier task. The Palestinians don't like Hamas. Hamas wore out its ivory gloss coating many years ago.
Do you have a source for that claim?
And you say I make lazy swipes but then you say this which kind of furthers my claim.
The older generation that leads Hamas and the PLO might want to go back, but the younger generation doesn't namely because they've never been there to begin with. Most Palestinians have been displaced by the conflict and no longer live in Palestine. The longer the conflict goes the less likely they are to return. Further, the PLO has stated for years that it's not interested in leading Palestinians back into Israel, something they took some flak for many years ago, but when reporters investigated the right of return issue in 2010 they found overwhelmingly that Palestinians want the right recognized as a matter of principle but aren't interested in moving back (many said they would like to visit).
So in your estimation it is ineffective against dumb munitions, but will prove it's worth against smart munitions..... is this another groundless assertion or do you have something to support this claim?
Some people go shooting, some go drinking, some go reading. Iron Dome specifically was designed to target rockets and mortar grenades, but those targets are small, hard to hit, and building this kind of a defense system solely to stop them makes little sense. It's fairly obvious Iron Dome is a joint project by the US and Israel to build a practical proof of concept for interception systems. For Israel its a useful testing ground and platform to expand on, as it's only a matter of time until Hamas finally gets something more deadly and Israel is planning ahead for when that happens. Now that Hamas has gotten its hands on drones, that gak will hit the fan soon.
It is almost as if you are really trying to gloss over their conduct which leads directly to civilian loss of life
I don't really see one act as justifying the other.
Especially when you consider that afterwards rocket fire from Lebanon almost completely ceased
Rocket fire from Lebanon has never been as significant or as long term as rocket fire from Gaza. Stopping rocket fire from Gaza is okay as an immediate goal, but Israel never follows any of it up with any sort of plan to fix the problem long term, meaning the current conflict remains. Defining short term as 'next year' is comical to me. If there's just going to be another rocket attack in a few years, then your policy for protecting your citizens needs to be adjusted.
Have you missed the outcry over this, or do you enjoy being contrary?
I don't particularly care about the outcry over the US drone campaign. By all rights the US drone campaign has been at least somewhat effective in achieving its goals and has a civilian casualty rate somewhere between 1:5 and 2:5 at the worst, which blows Israel out of the water. Turns out we're a lot better at hitting targets in a populated area without killing a whole bunch of extras and we drone strike militants hiding among civilians all the time.
Now it just looks like you're just trolling at this stage. No need for me to respond any further to you on this matter then
Well there's very little point in being serious with many of things you say.
If you want to look at the collective punishment its economic. Its the cutting off of social services and medicines. On a similar note I have always found it strange that people were more outraged by abu graib than by the estimated half a million children who died of preventable diseases. A far crueler death than by bombings.
Crablezworth wrote: Pretty much. I love the shot of the reporter in tel aviv with a golf shirt and the other In gaza with his vest on.
Awful nice of Hamas to develop that app that warns Israeli citizens of rocket strikes. Man, Jon Stewart and his crew are never wrong in their take on stuff.
Palestinian firefighters and residents try to extinguish fire at a house destroyed by an overnight Israeli air strike, on July 16, 2014, in Gaza City. New Israeli air and tank strikes in Gaza early today killed several people, medics said, bringing the death toll from Israel's operation in the besieged Palestinian territory to 204. AFP PHOTO / MAHMUD HAMS (Photo credit should read MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images)
GAZA/JERUSALEM, July 16 (Reuters) - Israel resumed its air strikes in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday a day after holding its fire in deference to an Egyptian-proposed cease-fire deal that failed to get Hamas militants to halt rocket attacks.
Attacks in the Gaza Strip killed at least seven Palestinians in the early hours of Wednesday, Gaza health officials said, and destroyed the house of Mahmoud Zahar - who is believed to be in hiding elsewhere - in the first apparent targeting of a top Hamas political leader.
The week-old conflict seemed to be at a turning point on Tuesday, with Hamas defying Arab and Western calls to cease fire and Israel threatening to step up an offensive that could include an invasion of the densely populated enclave.
The Israeli military said on Wednesday it had sent out warning messages to residents in the northern Gaza Strip to evacuate their homes by 0800 (0500 GMT) ahead of renewed attacks.
Palestinian officials said residents in two Gaza City neighborhoods had received the warnings but Gaza Interior Ministry told people not to heed the Israeli messages and dismissed them as psychological warfare.
Gaza militants kept up rocket salvoes into Israel, firing more than 150 rockets at Israel since Tuesday, when the truce was to begin.
Under the blueprint announced by Egypt - Gaza's neighbor and whose military-backed government has been at odds with Islamist Hamas - a mutual "de-escalation" was to have begun at 9 a.m. (0600 GMT), with hostilities ceasing within 12 hours.
Hamas' armed wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, rejected the ceasefire deal, a proposal that addressed in only general terms some of its key demands, and said its battle with Israel would "increase in ferocity and intensity".
But Moussa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas political official who was in Cairo, said the movement, which is seeking a deal that would ease the Egyptian and Israeli border restrictions throttling Gaza's economy, had made no final decision on Cairo's proposal.
Israel, citing the persistent salvoes, resumed attacks in Gaza six hours after implementation of the truce was to have begun. The military said it targeted at least 20 of Hamas' hidden rocket launchers, tunnels and weapons storage facilities.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks late on Tuesday that Israel had no choice but to "expand and intensify" its campaign on Hamas, though he did not specifically mention the possibility of a ground incursion.
The Israeli security cabinet which met into the early hours of Wednesday had discussed a limited ground operation, an Israeli official said.
TRUCE TERMS
Gaza medical officials say 195 Palestinians, including at least 150 civilians, among them 31 children, have been killed.
One Israeli has been killed in the fighting. Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted 20 of the Hamas projectiles, including two over the Tel Aviv area, and the rest caused no damage or casualties.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack against Israel's commercial capital, which has been targeted frequently since the war began, as well as for the rocket that killed the Israeli man along the border.
The Iron Dome has shot down most projectiles liable to hit Israeli towns and cities, but the rocket salvoes have made a rush to shelters a daily routine for hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
Israel has mobilized tens of thousands of troops for a threatened invasion into the enclave, that is home to 1.8 million Palestinians, if the rocket volleys persisted.
The surge in hostilities over the past week was prompted by the murder last month of three Jewish seminary students in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the revenge killing on July 2 of a Palestinian youth in Jerusalem. Israel said on Monday three Jews in police custody had confessed to killing the Palestinian.
Speaking in Vienna, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry supported Israel: "I cannot condemn strongly enough the actions of Hamas in so brazenly firing rockets, in multiple numbers, in the face of a goodwill effort (to secure) a cease-fire."
Netanyahu, whose security cabinet voted 6-2 earlier on Tuesday to accept the truce, had cautioned that Israel would respond strongly if rockets kept flying.
He expected the "full support from the responsible members of the international community" for any intensification of Israeli attacks in response to Hamas spurning a truce.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached an agreement with Hamas in April that led to the formation of a unity government last month, called for acceptance of the proposal, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA said.
Abbas was expected to arrive in Cairo on Wednesday for talks with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Palestinian leader's spokesman said. The Arab League, at a meeting on Monday, also welcomed the cease-fire plan.
Under the proposal announced by Egypt's Foreign Ministry, high-level delegations from Israel and the Palestinian factions would hold separate talks in Cairo within 48 hours to consolidate the cease-fire with "confidence-building measures".
Hamas leaders have said any deal must include an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza and a recommitment to a truce reached in an eight-day war there in 2012.
Hamas also wants Egypt to ease curbs at its Rafah crossing with Gaza, imposed after the military ousted President Mohamed Mursi, an Islamist, a year ago.
The Egyptian proposal made no mention of Rafah or when restrictions might be eased.
Hamas has faced a cash crisis and Gaza's economic hardship has deepened as a result of Egypt's destruction of cross-border smuggling tunnels. Egyptian authorities also accuse Hamas of assisting anti-government Islamist militants in Egypt's Sinai peninsula, an accusation that the Palestinian group denies.
Hamas has said it also wants the release of hundreds of its activists arrested in the West Bank while Israel searched for the three missing teenagers.
The proposed truce also made no mention of the detainees. (Additional reporting by Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Noah Browning in Gaza and Michael Georgy and Yasmine Saleh in Cairo; Writing by Maayan Lubell and Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Robert Birsel)
Palestinian firefighters and residents try to extinguish fire at a house destroyed by an overnight Israeli air strike, on July 16, 2014, in Gaza City. New Israeli air and tank strikes in Gaza early today killed several people, medics said, bringing the death toll from Israel's operation in the besieged Palestinian territory to 204. AFP PHOTO / MAHMUD HAMS (Photo credit should read MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images)
GAZA/JERUSALEM, July 16 (Reuters) - Israel resumed its air strikes in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday a day after holding its fire in deference to an Egyptian-proposed cease-fire deal that failed to get Hamas militants to halt rocket attacks.
Attacks in the Gaza Strip killed at least seven Palestinians in the early hours of Wednesday, Gaza health officials said, and destroyed the house of Mahmoud Zahar - who is believed to be in hiding elsewhere - in the first apparent targeting of a top Hamas political leader.
The week-old conflict seemed to be at a turning point on Tuesday, with Hamas defying Arab and Western calls to cease fire and Israel threatening to step up an offensive that could include an invasion of the densely populated enclave.
The Israeli military said on Wednesday it had sent out warning messages to residents in the northern Gaza Strip to evacuate their homes by 0800 (0500 GMT) ahead of renewed attacks.
Palestinian officials said residents in two Gaza City neighborhoods had received the warnings but Gaza Interior Ministry told people not to heed the Israeli messages and dismissed them as psychological warfare.
Gaza militants kept up rocket salvoes into Israel, firing more than 150 rockets at Israel since Tuesday, when the truce was to begin.
Under the blueprint announced by Egypt - Gaza's neighbor and whose military-backed government has been at odds with Islamist Hamas - a mutual "de-escalation" was to have begun at 9 a.m. (0600 GMT), with hostilities ceasing within 12 hours.
Hamas' armed wing, the Izz el-Deen al-Qassam Brigades, rejected the ceasefire deal, a proposal that addressed in only general terms some of its key demands, and said its battle with Israel would "increase in ferocity and intensity".
But Moussa Abu Marzouk, a Hamas political official who was in Cairo, said the movement, which is seeking a deal that would ease the Egyptian and Israeli border restrictions throttling Gaza's economy, had made no final decision on Cairo's proposal.
Israel, citing the persistent salvoes, resumed attacks in Gaza six hours after implementation of the truce was to have begun. The military said it targeted at least 20 of Hamas' hidden rocket launchers, tunnels and weapons storage facilities.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks late on Tuesday that Israel had no choice but to "expand and intensify" its campaign on Hamas, though he did not specifically mention the possibility of a ground incursion.
The Israeli security cabinet which met into the early hours of Wednesday had discussed a limited ground operation, an Israeli official said.
TRUCE TERMS
Gaza medical officials say 195 Palestinians, including at least 150 civilians, among them 31 children, have been killed.
One Israeli has been killed in the fighting. Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted 20 of the Hamas projectiles, including two over the Tel Aviv area, and the rest caused no damage or casualties.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack against Israel's commercial capital, which has been targeted frequently since the war began, as well as for the rocket that killed the Israeli man along the border.
The Iron Dome has shot down most projectiles liable to hit Israeli towns and cities, but the rocket salvoes have made a rush to shelters a daily routine for hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
Israel has mobilized tens of thousands of troops for a threatened invasion into the enclave, that is home to 1.8 million Palestinians, if the rocket volleys persisted.
The surge in hostilities over the past week was prompted by the murder last month of three Jewish seminary students in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and the revenge killing on July 2 of a Palestinian youth in Jerusalem. Israel said on Monday three Jews in police custody had confessed to killing the Palestinian.
Speaking in Vienna, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry supported Israel: "I cannot condemn strongly enough the actions of Hamas in so brazenly firing rockets, in multiple numbers, in the face of a goodwill effort (to secure) a cease-fire."
Netanyahu, whose security cabinet voted 6-2 earlier on Tuesday to accept the truce, had cautioned that Israel would respond strongly if rockets kept flying.
He expected the "full support from the responsible members of the international community" for any intensification of Israeli attacks in response to Hamas spurning a truce.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached an agreement with Hamas in April that led to the formation of a unity government last month, called for acceptance of the proposal, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA said.
Abbas was expected to arrive in Cairo on Wednesday for talks with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Palestinian leader's spokesman said. The Arab League, at a meeting on Monday, also welcomed the cease-fire plan.
Under the proposal announced by Egypt's Foreign Ministry, high-level delegations from Israel and the Palestinian factions would hold separate talks in Cairo within 48 hours to consolidate the cease-fire with "confidence-building measures".
Hamas leaders have said any deal must include an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza and a recommitment to a truce reached in an eight-day war there in 2012.
Hamas also wants Egypt to ease curbs at its Rafah crossing with Gaza, imposed after the military ousted President Mohamed Mursi, an Islamist, a year ago.
The Egyptian proposal made no mention of Rafah or when restrictions might be eased.
Hamas has faced a cash crisis and Gaza's economic hardship has deepened as a result of Egypt's destruction of cross-border smuggling tunnels. Egyptian authorities also accuse Hamas of assisting anti-government Islamist militants in Egypt's Sinai peninsula, an accusation that the Palestinian group denies.
Hamas has said it also wants the release of hundreds of its activists arrested in the West Bank while Israel searched for the three missing teenagers.
The proposed truce also made no mention of the detainees. (Additional reporting by Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Noah Browning in Gaza and Michael Georgy and Yasmine Saleh in Cairo; Writing by Maayan Lubell and Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Robert Birsel)
What a shame that doesn't support what the cynical man thought earlier
Ironclad Warlord wrote: If you want to look at the collective punishment its economic. Its the cutting off of social services and medicines. On a similar note I have always found it strange that people were more outraged by abu graib than by the estimated half a million children who died of preventable diseases. A far crueler death than by bombings.
If Hamas really cared about their people, they'd smuggle in food and medicine instead of weapons.
Israel wouldn't shoot back if they weren't getting shot at first. Poke the tiger, get the teeth. Is the tiger wrong for mauling you when you irritate it?
And if you don't like the tiger, either learn to live with it or move. The tiger isn't going anywhere.
Grey Templar wrote: If Hamas really cared about their people, they'd smuggle in food and medicine instead of weapons.
Israel wouldn't shoot back if they weren't getting shot at first. Poke the tiger, get the teeth. Is the tiger wrong for mauling you when you irritate it?
And if you don't like the tiger, either learn to live with it or move. The tiger isn't going anywhere.
I'm sure that Hamas being badakes it alright for starving the entire Gaza Strip.
Grey Templar wrote: If Hamas really cared about their people, they'd smuggle in food and medicine instead of weapons.
Israel wouldn't shoot back if they weren't getting shot at first. Poke the tiger, get the teeth. Is the tiger wrong for mauling you when you irritate it?
And if you don't like the tiger, either learn to live with it or move. The tiger isn't going anywhere.
I'm sure that Hamas being badakes it alright for starving the entire Gaza Strip.
Actually, it does.
A few foreigners suffering vs your own countryman getting killed by a well funded terrorist organization which has an open supply line.
If you were in Israel's position you'd make the same choice.
The innocence of some of the Palestinians shouldn't allow terrorists free reign over an area.
The real question is why are the "good" Palestinians so stupid they don't kick Hamas out when they are the reason for their suffering.
Grey Templar wrote: If Hamas really cared about their people, they'd smuggle in food and medicine instead of weapons.
Israel wouldn't shoot back if they weren't getting shot at first. Poke the tiger, get the teeth. Is the tiger wrong for mauling you when you irritate it?
And if you don't like the tiger, either learn to live with it or move. The tiger isn't going anywhere.
I'm sure that Hamas being badakes it alright for starving the entire Gaza Strip.
Actually, it does.
A few foreigners suffering vs your own countryman getting killed by a well funded terrorist organization which has an open supply line.
If you were in Israel's position you'd make the same choice.
The innocence of some of the Palestinians shouldn't allow terrorists free reign over an area.
The real question is why are the "good" Palestinians so stupid they don't kick Hamas out when they are the reason for their suffering.
"A few"
And perhaps because, well... Unarmed citizens vs. heavily armed terrorrists? Uh..
Grey Templar wrote: If Hamas really cared about their people, they'd smuggle in food and medicine instead of weapons.
Israel wouldn't shoot back if they weren't getting shot at first. Poke the tiger, get the teeth. Is the tiger wrong for mauling you when you irritate it?
And if you don't like the tiger, either learn to live with it or move. The tiger isn't going anywhere.
I'm sure that Hamas being badakes it alright for starving the entire Gaza Strip.
Actually, it does.
A few foreigners suffering vs your own countryman getting killed by a well funded terrorist organization which has an open supply line.
If you were in Israel's position you'd make the same choice.
The innocence of some of the Palestinians shouldn't allow terrorists free reign over an area.
The real question is why are the "good" Palestinians so stupid they don't kick Hamas out when they are the reason for their suffering.
"A few"
And perhaps because, well... Unarmed citizens vs. heavily armed terrorrists? Uh..
Hamas won an election. Let's not try to pretend like Palestinians and Hamas are two discrete groups of people. Many Palestinians support Hamas.
Hamas won an election. Let's not try to pretend like Palestinians and Hamas are two discrete groups of people. Many Palestinians support Hamas.
They won an election in 2006 when they did have overwhelming support after people were convinced the PLO were Israeli puppets. Turns out using your voters as human shields tends to bleed that support away after 8 years.
Hamas won an election. Let's not try to pretend like Palestinians and Hamas are two discrete groups of people. Many Palestinians support Hamas.
They won an election in 2006 when they did have overwhelming support after people were convinced the PLO were Israeli puppets. Turns out using your voters as human shields tends to bleed that support away after 8 years.
The image that the PLO were Israeli puppets was the PLO's own fault. Israel refused to pull back its settlements and the PLO kind of laid back and took it. A harsher stance over continued construction could have helped them avoid that image but whether it would have stopped Hamas is questionable (cause while they had support, I doubt anyone would put it past Hamas to rig the vote if they thought they might lose or just take power by force). Many Palestinians at the time became convinced the PLO was either weak, or in Israel's pocket. By the time Israel finally got around to pulling out of Gaza it was too late as Hamas was already on the road to power, and they never pulled out of the West Bank.
EDIT: Lebanon and Syria didn't help either. Both actively worked against the PLO at the time and helped to arm little baby Hamas.
The real question is why are the "good" Palestinians so stupid they don't kick Hamas out when they are the reason for their suffering.
This in some part goes back to the above. When the PLO ceased being able to/didn't want to sustain civil services like police, clinics, garbage collection, etc, Hamas stepped in and provided said services. They didn't just get voted in because they all hate Israel, the Hamas people were providing social services as well.
I voted for GW Bush because I didn't want Democrat-level tax increases, and all I got was a lousy war (Iraq).
Whether or not they voted for Hamas because they wanted to cause drama is kind of irrelevant - with politics you don't just get the aspects of a candidate that you like. You get ALL of the aspects. So whoever voted for Bush had to deal with foreign conflicts of questionable necessity and the religious sociopathy regarding gay marriage and abortion.
I'm not saying that they're all Hamas-loving Jew-hating Islamic death cultists. Many are, and many probably are not. However, it doesn't change the fact that Hamas won a nominally democratic election and now represents the Palestinian people, for better or worse.
I'm not saying that they're all Hamas-loving Jew-hating Islamic death cultists. Many are, and many probably are not. However, it doesn't change the fact that Hamas won a nominally democratic election and now represents the Palestinian people, for better or worse.
I'm not saying the opposite (really I think many Palestinians do hate Israel. They have a pretty long standing reason too). But winning an election in 2006 doesn't mean Hamas still has the support of the people. One of the reasons they always reject the first few cease fire proposals every time this happens is because they want to flex their muscles and remind everyone they're in charge.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: I voted for GW Bush because I didn't want Democrat-level tax increases, and all I got was a lousy war (Iraq).
Whether or not they voted for Hamas because they wanted to cause drama is kind of irrelevant - with politics you don't just get the aspects of a candidate that you like. You get ALL of the aspects. So whoever voted for Bush had to deal with foreign conflicts of questionable necessity and the religious sociopathy regarding gay marriage and abortion.
I'm not saying that they're all Hamas-loving Jew-hating Islamic death cultists. Many are, and many probably are not. However, it doesn't change the fact that Hamas won a nominally democratic election and now represents the Palestinian people, for better or worse.
Well, they represent part of that nation, the Gaza Strip, the PLO still retains power in the West Bank. Though they purport to have a "unity" government now, in many way's there's effectively 2 Palestinian governments.
The Unity government collapsed earlier this year. Turns out the PLO wasn't down with Hamas' craziness and Hamas wasn't down with not destroying Israel.
LordofHats wrote: The Unity government collapsed earlier this year. Turns out the PLO wasn't down with Hamas' craziness and Hamas wasn't down with not destroying Israel.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Reminder: Even during combat operations the IDF is risking life and limb to deliver food and medical aid to Gaza civilians.
No one ignores that.
They just aren't accepting it as making up for stuff like this. It happens every time the conflict flares up. A conflict that's lasted for decades with no end in sight, meaning its just going to keep happening. Some of us are kind of past the point where the aid delivered is really making up for the damage being caused.
The bright side for the immediate hostilities for now is that the ceasefire appears to have been extended while delegates talk in Egypt.
This is a rather effective illustration of how unbalanced this conflict is, especially so if you believe the rhetoric that Israel attempts to limit civilian casualties while Hamas actively seeks them out.
Interesting that the government previous to Hamas seemed to be better at killing Israeli kids. The things you learn on Dakka.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Seems their doing a massive Cordon and Search. Heard they found twenty rockets in a elementary school
The israelis should leave the schools extra curricular activities alone. Sports fields would be few and far between and rockets are plentiful. How can a kid be expected to be a well rounded human without extra curricular activities?
For shame israel, think of the children.
nice one Ouze.
Now with new bomb shelter. Come to McMatzos on a Friday night and spend some lovely family time together in our air conditioned shelter. Gas masks available for free!
Bullockist wrote: nice one Ouze.
Now with new bomb shelter. Come to McMatzos on a Friday night and spend some lovely family time together in our air conditioned shelter. Gas masks available for free!
LuciusAR wrote:I'm not sure what the conflict being unbalanced has to do with anything. Since when does being ill prepared to fight confer moral authority?
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
Seaward wrote:Since people started getting their moral codes from Tumblr slacktivists.
I am perfectly happy with my moral code thanks, I've had it longer than tumblr existed as well, it involves seeing the difference between the occupier and the occupied. I have sympathy with the people of Gaza, who have to face a realistic fear of death almost constantly, be it from air strike or from malnutrition or from some easily preventable disease. Whilst I do feel sympathy for the people of Israel who are under attack from Hamas, they are not in the same position in terms of risk, and their cause gets no sympathy from me, they are the occupying force here, whilst still encroaching further with settlements which is unjustifiable.
Frazzled wrote:Well you have to justify shooting rockets at children somehow.
Sorry are you referring to the side that has killed 10 times fewer children here?
There are effective ways to be insurgents, and ineffective ways. Targeting schools and bus stops, to the point that Israel builds shelters for them, is not effective. Likewise, after Hamas begins hiding missiles in elementary schools I take Hamas' complaints about taking children as casualties with an extra strength vitamin duh. Duh.
Hamas is not attacking military targets, or targets of any strategic value. Or if they are, I have not heard of it- are there any articles about them attacking anything but civilians? If I am wrong about Hamas, I am happy to change my opinion. right now, they seem to be standing in a school bus, throwing grenades at people in the street as they drive by while complaining about how many occupants of the bus the cops are killing.
I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
LuciusAR wrote: I'm not sure what the conflict being unbalanced has to do with anything. Since when does being ill prepared to fight confer moral authority?
I usually thing; "Do people want Israeli and Palestinian children killed equally? That's a little disturbing." When it gets brought up
No, the point should be why are so many children dying at all. Some say that 'human shields' fails to account for the number of Palestinian civilian deaths. Others might say that when two men are pointing guns at each other and one grabs a bystander and holds them in front of themselve, even if they start shooting the other man the other man isn't really morally superior to shoot through the hostage to kill their attacker.
It's understandable and excusable as an act in the heat of a moment or as an immediate respons. But when its been going on for over a decade and there's a couple thousand dead bystanders on the ground and neither shooter is showing any sign they want to stop shooting each other, there's not really any moral high ground at that point.
Gitzbitah wrote: I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.
That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?
Any armed resistance will naturally devolve over time as others join the fray and the losing side gets more desperate.
The Weather Underground in the United States represents a very acute and small sampling of an organization that actually achieved their result of targeting organizations related to the government (for war protest purposes) without causing civilian casualties.
Although after their stint as far left activists, several members did have a run in with a Brinks truck.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
Nah, B52's would probably still be way too modern. Anything that can fly is a no-no.
Isreal will have to use good old fashioned trebuchets to bomb Gaza. With plague infected pigs... Say yay to the trebuchet!
Gitzbitah wrote: I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.
That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?
Rebellions cause civilian casualties. When you employ people willing to fight for their beliefs against the government, you can't expect much restraint at the individual level. I would argue that you have to look at an organization's policies rather than the individual incidents to establish whether the organization is targeting the government or the population. Both of those incidents are terrible, and I would much rather have no violence or deaths at all- but if violence must be used, let it be directed against government and economic targets. I would argue that an armed rebellion ought to target the government, and not the population as a means of altering governmental policy. And while a degree of sheltering within the local population is to be expected, armed action should only be engaged in when combatants are not in neutral homes or areas.
They are the messiest and worst of conflicts, and no one comes out as the good guy.
Gitzbitah wrote: I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.
That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?
but you're ok with Hamas kidnapping and murdering teenage boys?
Gitzbitah wrote: I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.
That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?
Rebellions cause civilian casualties. When you employ people willing to fight for their beliefs against the government, you can't expect much restraint at the individual level. I would argue that you have to look at an organization's policies rather than the individual incidents to establish whether the organization is targeting the government or the population. Both of those incidents are terrible, and I would much rather have no violence or deaths at all- but if violence must be used, let it be directed against government and economic targets. I would argue that an armed rebellion ought to target the government, and not the population as a means of altering governmental policy. And while a degree of sheltering within the local population is to be expected, armed action should only be engaged in when combatants are not in neutral homes or areas.
They are the messiest and worst of conflicts, and no one comes out as the good guy.
Hamas have very little chance of targeting anything, a large proportion of strikes they launch never even make it to the border. I do not support the acts of terror by Hamas, however you cannot equate terrorists with a supposedly civilised state. Gaza has no army, no air force, no navy, they are a refugee population in their own lands who are attacked by a modern military without any means of defending themselves. That is a very tenuous definition of a war.
Gitzbitah wrote: I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.
That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?
but you're ok with Hamas kidnapping and murdering teenage boys?
Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
If they don't want to die they shouldn't elect a group that believes in exterminating the other side.
Sorry what was your argument again?
Here's the fun part - why are they shooting at Israel again?
I Israel does what you say they want will they quit shooting rockets at Israel? What if they don't? Can Israel go Dresden on Gaza?
What does Israel get in return?
Why doesn't Egypt take back Gaza? It is after all, Eyptian territory.
He's supporting the Gazans. The Gazans elected Hamas. Hamas, in addition to firing rockets daily and hiding those rockets in hospitals and schools, recently kidnapped and killed three teenagers. You know, the third that started this most recent round of fun time.
Inversely, Israel also has blood on its hands in a myriad of ways.
But when you say, Hey if Israel just lets go completely of Gaza will that work? Then you get the "no all the Israelis need to leave crowd." And we're back to bombing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.
YOU JUST DID.
"derp they're not targetting anything, they're just launching rockets that mostly get intercepted derp"
Dude they shot rockets at a NUCLEAR REACTOR. Even Zombie Stalin knew not to do that.
Again. What exactly does Hamas want, besides the destruction of Israel?
This is why we wshould stay out of it, of the whole area frankly.
Clearly anyone who disapproves of Israeli policy wants the terrorists to win.
Ya know... we could almost have this thing play out inside a large building.. the Palestinians take it over, grabbing hostages, including one off-duty Jewish detective's estranged wife (he happens to be in town visiting her, trying to patch up their marriage). Of course, these terrorists don't get him, and he's able to crawl through airshafts and other parts of the building to take out the Terrorist group-members one by one, until eventually, he meets the Leader of the Terrorists and they fight resulting in the Terrorist being thrown from the building to his death.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ya know... we could almost have this thing play out inside a large building.. the Palestinians take it over, grabbing hostages, including one off-duty Jewish detective's estranged wife (he happens to be in town visiting her, trying to patch up their marriage). Of course, these terrorists don't get him, and he's able to crawl through airshafts and other parts of the building to take out the Terrorist group-members one by one, until eventually, he meets the Leader of the Terrorists and they fight resulting in the Terrorist being thrown from the building to his death.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
If they don't want to die they shouldn't elect a group that believes in exterminating the other side.
If Israel didn't want to face rocket attacks perhaps they shouldn't elect people like Michael Ben-Ari who claimed “There are no innocents in Gaza … mow them (all) down”. Or Moshe Feiglin who offered this "solution" to the conflict. Perhaps the Jerusalem Post shouldn't publish things like this.
Sorry what was your argument again?
Two state solution, withdrawal to the original borders by Israel and an end to the blockade. But I suppose that means I support terrorists or am an anti-semite or something.
Here's the fun part - why are they shooting at Israel again?
Spoiler:
I Israel does what you say they want will they quit shooting rockets at Israel?
The leaked documents from 2011 say so yes.
What if they don't? Can Israel go Dresden on Gaza?
Is that what you think they should do? Firebomb over a million people, most under the age of 18?
What does Israel get in return?
They get peace, and they get to stop committing war crimes.
He's supporting the Gazans. The Gazans elected Hamas.
How many years ago? Because the majority of Gazans no longer support the rocket attacks, conversely the majority of Israelis support an even more extreme bombing campaign against Gaza.
Hamas, in addition to firing rockets daily and hiding those rockets in hospitals and schools, recently kidnapped and killed three teenagers. You know, the third that started this most recent round of fun time.
The IDF have been kidnapping and torturing children for years, as was outlined in last years UN report. Notice how I didn't naturally assume you supported these actions just because you support Israel, guess I must be doing this wrong.
But when you say, Hey if Israel just lets go completely of Gaza will that work? Then you get the "no all the Israelis need to leave crowd." And we're back to bombing.
Again, please quote where I have said all Israelis need to leave Israel. You know, this could work better if you respond to what I actually say.
Clearly anyone who disapproves of Israeli policy wants the terrorists to win.
Ya know... we could almost have this thing play out inside a large building.. the Palestinians take it over, grabbing hostages, including one off-duty Jewish detective's estranged wife (he happens to be in town visiting her, trying to patch up their marriage). Of course, these terrorists don't get him, and he's able to crawl through airshafts and other parts of the building to take out the Terrorist group-members one by one, until eventually, he meets the Leader of the Terrorists and they fight resulting in the Terrorist being thrown from the building to his death.
And then both sides start shooting random innocents.
Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.
YOU JUST DID.
"derp they're not targetting anything, they're just launching rockets that mostly get intercepted derp"
Dude they shot rockets at a NUCLEAR REACTOR. Even Zombie Stalin knew not to do that.
Again. What exactly does Hamas want, besides the destruction of Israel?
This is why we wshould stay out of it, of the whole area frankly.
Except he didn't say that. He said that the majority of their attacks don't reach Israel and that due to the technology they cannot target with any accuracy.
dæl wrote:Hamas have very little chance of targeting anything, a large proportion of strikes they launch never even make it to the border. I do not support the acts of terror by Hamas, however you cannot equate terrorists with a supposedly civilised state. Gaza has no army, no air force, no navy, they are a refugee population in their own lands who are attacked by a modern military without any means of defending themselves. That is a very tenuous definition of a war.
How many Israeli civilians have died due to Hamas' random rocket attacks?
And now how many Gaza civilians have died due to Israel's targeted strikes?
Two state solution, withdrawal to the original borders by Israel and an end to the blockade. But I suppose that means I support terrorists or am an anti-semite or something.
They tried that with Arafat. the PLO said no.
Hamas's stated goal is the extermination of Israel, not "two states." Thats kind of hard to negotiate over.
Two state solution, withdrawal to the original borders by Israel and an end to the blockade. But I suppose that means I support terrorists or am an anti-semite or something.
They tried that with Arafat. the PLO said no.
Hamas's stated goal is the extermination of Israel, not "two states." Thats kind of hard to negotiate over.
Ah yes, because something which didn't work 10 years ago couldn't possibly work now. It's such a shame that politics never changes.
Um, no. Israel and the PLO came to terms in 2002. Israel refused to abide by the most basic element of the agreement; to stop building settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. It shouldn't be a shock that when the PLO tried to maintain the agreement as best they could and got nothing for it, radicals like Hamas managed to jump up and take over. Today Fatah as a group still gets called collaborators even by Palestinians who don't support Hamas.
Israel lost the legitimacy of being able to say "we tried to do this peacefully" in 2002. They've never approached the peace process with honesty.
Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.
YOU JUST DID.
"derp they're not targetting anything, they're just launching rockets that mostly get intercepted derp"
Is that a direct quote is it? Besides which that isn't supporting Hamas, it was explaining why they don't target military facilities. Did you actually not understand that or did you intentionally misquote me?
What exactly does Hamas want, besides the destruction of Israel?
Withdrawal to the 1967 borders, as was outlined in 2006 and again in 2011
This is why we wshould stay out of it, of the whole area frankly.
I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.
Honestly, I highly doubt that.
Economic sanctions may force their hand, they would lack the veto they effectively have in the UN.
They have no veto in the UN, as the US alone can't veto anything. France, Russia, and China are typically against Israel, with Britain as a swing vote. If we can count on anyone not to cut Israel slack, it's the UN (because Israel is like, the only country in the world the UN is ever actually bothering go after for anything).
When it comes to the UN the US and Israel have barely made any progress.
It's become painfully apparent the last 10 years that Israel will never leave the West Bank on its own. It'll take a lot more than losing US support to get them to change the current course they're on. Our support for them isn't small but it's not necessary for them. They've made a point of assure the self-sufficiency of their military. They can get by without my government's help just fine. Economic sanctions are kind of a joke. They haven't stopped Iran, North Korea, or anyone really. When a country is dead set on its ideological course costing them money is just taken as a cost of achieving the goal.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
Well, if Israel stopped killing peoples mums and dads and brothers and sisters and instead worked to improve the situation in the strip then Hamas might not get so much support.
"Lets kill the other guy because he's killing us" is a lot more catchy than "Lets kill the other guy who is giving us medical aid and food and schools and all round being quite nice, actually"
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
A combination of the Christian Right and the conservative value of a strong national defense combined together to create some amazing things sometimes.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
A combination of the Christian Right and the conservative value of a strong national defense combined together to create some amazing things sometimes.
Someone should probably tell them that Israel is Jewish
Someone should probably tell them that Israel is Jewish
Jesus was Jewish, and Christians love Jesus
When Israel declared its independence only two countries recognized them; the United States and in a fantastic case of irony, Iran. The Christian Right in the US has always supported Israel's right to exist and the right of Jews to return to the Holy Land.
I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.
Honestly, I highly doubt that.
Economic sanctions may force their hand, they would lack the veto they effectively have in the UN.
They have no veto in the UN, as the US alone can't veto anything. France, Russia, and China are typically against Israel, with Britain as a swing vote. If we can count on anyone not to cut Israel slack, it's the UN (because Israel is like, the only country in the world the UN is ever actually bothering go after for anything).
I should have specified the security council, apologies.
It's become painfully apparent the last 10 years that Israel will never leave the West Bank on its own. It'll take a lot more than losing US support to get them to change the current course they're on. Our support for them isn't small but it's not necessary for them. They've made a point of assure the self-sufficiency of their military. They can get by without my government's help just fine. Economic sanctions are kind of a joke. They haven't stopped Iran, North Korea, or anyone really. When a country is dead set on its ideological course costing them money is just taken as a cost of achieving the goal.
Fair point, what do you think could force them into changing their current course?
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
Evidently the blockade is not sufficiently strong enough to stop Hamas from being in thousands of rockets. Thats an impressive achievement.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
Evidently the blockade is not sufficiently strong enough to stop Hamas from being in thousands of rockets. Thats an impressive achievement.
That would be because the ships carrying rockets are smuggling in illegal goods and so don't just sail in in full view of the Israeli navy.
The ships carrying real aid are sailing in in full view, broadcasting that they are Red Cross, or whatever. And so Israel stops them.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
A combination of the Christian Right and the conservative value of a strong national defense combined together to create some amazing things sometimes.
That makes a certain amount of sense, but there has to be some serious cognitive blind spot to see Israel as the victim in this situation, and the complete disregard for the innocent people of Gaza (it often seems that they are all guilty of terrorism by association, which is utter nonsense the second you stop to think about it). Did the death of Rachael Corrie have any impact on the support for Israel? Or was she just seen by the right as some silly little liberal girl who shouldn't have been there?
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
This.
Is.
War.
It's time for the world to recognize this for what it is...
This is not a skirmish in some rough neighborhood. This is not Israel getting a boner for bullying their adversaries. This is absolutely one side (and their supporters) who wants to eradicate Israel.
What you're watching is a Proxy War over Israel's existance.
I understand where you're coming from: You're looking at this as a humanitarian crisis that Israel is not free from culpability. As human beings, we should always speak to this as a reminder that war is ugly in the hopes that loss of innocent lives are mitigated.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
It has nothing to do with religion as Lordofhat is insinuating...
We see a country/group fighting for their literal existance. That's all.
It's become painfully apparent the last 10 years that Israel will never leave the West Bank on its own. It'll take a lot more than losing US support to get them to change the current course they're on. Our support for them isn't small but it's not necessary for them. They've made a point of assure the self-sufficiency of their military. They can get by without my government's help just fine. Economic sanctions are kind of a joke. They haven't stopped Iran, North Korea, or anyone really. When a country is dead set on its ideological course costing them money is just taken as a cost of achieving the goal.
Fair point, what do you think could force them into changing their current course?
A miracle and a significant shift in the domestic politics of the Israeli government. Zionism (or rather its probably better described as Neo-Zionism) is still a prominent political ideology on all sides of the political theater. Post-Zionism being something primarily embraced by academia in Israel, public opinion could shift over the next few generations. Maybe. The New Historians made huge waves in the Ivory Tower. Outside the Ivory Tower not so much.
It has nothing to do with religion as Lordofhat is insinuating...
We see a country/group fighting for their literal existance. That's all.
Yes. The Republican party took up the cause of Israel's eternal struggle back in 1982 solely because they saw a country in a hard fight, and for no other possible reason. Elections? Pft. They didn't need votes back then.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
This.
Is.
War.
It's time for the world to recognize this for what it is...
This is not a skirmish in some rough neighborhood. This is not Israel getting a boner for bullying their adversaries. This is absolutely one side (and their supporters) who wants to eradicate Israel.
What you're watching is a Proxy War over Israel's existance.
I understand where you're coming from: You're looking at this as a humanitarian crisis that Israel is not free from culpability. As human beings, we should always speak to this as a reminder that war is ugly in the hopes that loss of innocent lives are mitigated.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
It has nothing to do with religion as Lordofhat is insinuating...
We see a country/group fighting for their literal existance. That's all.
If it is war then Israel is committing war crimes. Put their leaders on trial.
Also, how is a small group of terrorists with some Rockets threatening the existence of Israel, a country with modern weapons and equipment?
You have an interesting way of reading articles. The one from Moshe Feiglin honestly feels completely reasonable. And like it or not it is a solution to the problem. It even proposes that those that choose to stay and weren't involved with militants would become citizens. The rest is just a common sense way to run a war and finish the issue. Definitely calling for the extermination of the Palenstinian people.
The other sounds just like something out of most media involved in a war. I lost count of the number of op-ed's that were in US media during the height of our wars in Afganistan and Iraq. It's long on wind and rhetoric. Happens with columns like that.
My support for Israel isn't unwavering. I'm sure they could do something that would push me out of my support for them. What's happening in Gaza isn't it though. I can't imagine what would happen to a country that was shooting rockets at America (even if they weren't causing civilian casualties). I find Israel's response to be a feather touch in comparison.
Meh, it's just another round. Two solutions exist. Everyone becomes a citizen of Israel and calms the f-down. Or Israel removes the Palestinians from the area. In some ways I feel sorry for the Palestinians. I feel that they get used by the anti-Israel organizations. Those orgnizations are hindering the unification of the country.
It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.
So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.
No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?
Forced by whom?
The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
This.
Is.
War.
It's time for the world to recognize this for what it is...
This is not a skirmish in some rough neighborhood. This is not Israel getting a boner for bullying their adversaries. This is absolutely one side (and their supporters) who wants to eradicate Israel.
What you're watching is a Proxy War over Israel's existance.
I understand where you're coming from: You're looking at this as a humanitarian crisis that Israel is not free from culpability. As human beings, we should always speak to this as a reminder that war is ugly in the hopes that loss of innocent lives are mitigated.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
It has nothing to do with religion as Lordofhat is insinuating...
We see a country/group fighting for their literal existance. That's all.
If it is war then Israel is committing war crimes. Put their leaders on trial.
How so? Be very specific and what legal justification.
Because if it were that easy... I can see The Hague itching to put Israel on trial.
Also, how is a small group of terrorists with some Rockets threatening the existence of Israel, a country with modern weapons and equipment?
A) because it isn't just about the Hamas. There are other powerful groups who wants this Proxy War.
B) what else should Israel do? One state solution? Two state solution? Given that, if any one of those occured, do you really think there will be Peace in this region?
I doubt anyone will get far thinking Israel will ever be charged with war crimes. Creating a humanitarian crisis? *shakes hand* eh, maybe.
A one state solution, might have worked. A long ass time ago before this became such a dug in conflict. A two state solution can work, but expecting that to end all violence is naive. There will be terrorists in that place attacking Israel for generations no matter what. But instead of a conflict of Israel vs Palestine it could be a conflict of Israel + Palestine vs the extremists who want to destroy them both.
LordofHats wrote: Yes. The Republican party took up the cause of Israel's eternal struggle back in 1982 solely because they saw a country in a hard fight, and for no other possible reason. Elections? Pft. They didn't need votes back then.
Stable democracies and reliable allies in that region are remarkably hard to come by. Come to think of it, Israel's the only one.
That might have something to do with it. But simplistic conservative-bashing is going to go out style around the time, "Won't someone please think of the (Palestinian in this case) children!" hand-wringing, so have at it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I doubt anyone will get far thinking Israel will ever be charged with war crimes. Creating a humanitarian crisis? *shakes hand* eh, maybe.
A one state solution, might have worked. A long ass time ago before this became such a dug in conflict. A two state solution can work, but expecting that to end all violence is naive. There will be terrorists in that place attacking Israel for generations no matter what. But instead of a conflict of Israel vs Palestine it could be a conflict of Israel + Palestine vs the extremists who want to destroy them both.
I'm going to make an understatement:
The Palestinians haven't shown themselves to be terribly reliable at policing their own.
You have an interesting way of reading articles. The one from Moshe Feiglin honestly feels completely reasonable. And like it or not it is a solution to the problem. It even proposes that those that choose to stay and weren't involved with militants would become citizens. The rest is just a common sense way to run a war and finish the issue. Definitely calling for the extermination of the Palenstinian people.
The other sounds just like something out of most media involved in a war. I lost count of the number of op-ed's that were in US media during the height of our wars in Afganistan and Iraq. It's long on wind and rhetoric. Happens with columns like that.
My support for Israel isn't unwavering. I'm sure they could do something that would push me out of my support for them. What's happening in Gaza isn't it though. I can't imagine what would happen to a country that was shooting rockets at America (even if they weren't causing civilian casualties). I find Israel's response to be a feather touch in comparison.
Meh, it's just another round. Two solutions exist. Everyone becomes a citizen of Israel and calms the f-down. Or Israel removes the Palestinians from the area. In some ways I feel sorry for the Palestinians. I feel that they get used by the anti-Israel organizations. Those orgnizations are hindering the unification of the country.
The Sharon article explicitly calls for the extermination of a people, thats not cool, and yet for some reason Hamas is the only side which calls for the extermination of the other if you listen to some people.
You seem able to place yourself in the shoes of Israel, perhaps try it with Palestine, another country, say Russia, claims your land, is given a set of borders but ignores them and keeps encroaching more, they take everything from you and force your economy down to pan. At what point does the US, a country so enamoured with the idea of armed rebellion against its own government, when do you take up arms?
I fail to see your solutions as solutions, the one is abhorrent (where would they go? and why should they go? who is going to take these millions of refugees? and again, why should they)
The other is possibly even worse, Israel is a "Jewish State", if it were secular then perhaps a single state solution could work, otherwise you are making people second class citizens based on the religion they are born into. A two state solution is the only option while Israel wishes to be a Jewish state.
Seaward wrote: But simplistic conservative-bashing is going to go out style around the time, "Won't someone please think of the (Palestinian in this case) children!" hand-wringing, so have at it.
I don't even see how on anything I said earth that's conservative bashing. Why does Israel find so much support among the US government? A whole bunch of geo-political reasons, but the typical voter doesn't give a damn about any of them. How do you get the typical voter to back you? You give them something they do give a damn about; the right of a state to defend itself from attack and religion are both strong contenders in the connect with voter race.
When the religious right was being courted by the Regan coalition, one of the things that ended up bringing them on board was a strong stance in support of Israel. This stance has since bled over into the general scene of conservative politics. That's not bashing anyone. It's just acknowledging the politics of the subject for what they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The Palestinians haven't shown themselves to be terribly reliable at policing their own.
I'm just gonna take that as a pun about all the low level police officers in the West Bank who deal with PNA out the front door and Hamas out the back door
dæl wrote: You seem able to place yourself in the shoes of Israel, perhaps try it with Palestine, another country, say Russia, claims your land, is given a set of borders but ignores them and keeps encroaching more, they take everything from you and force your economy down to pan. At what point does the US, a country so enamoured with the idea of armed rebellion against its own government, when do you take up arms?
When do I take up arms? Immediately.
When do I lay them down? When I've made no progress in 65 years. Winners never quit, and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.
I fail to see your solutions as solutions, the one is abhorrent (where would they go? and why should they go? who is going to take these millions of refugees? and again, why should they)
Certainly none of their neighboring Muslim backers.
dæl wrote: You seem able to place yourself in the shoes of Israel, perhaps try it with Palestine, another country, say Russia, claims your land, is given a set of borders but ignores them and keeps encroaching more, they take everything from you and force your economy down to pan. At what point does the US, a country so enamoured with the idea of armed rebellion against its own government, when do you take up arms?
When do I take up arms? Immediately.
When do I lay them down? When I've made no progress in 65 years. Winners never quit, and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.
So you supported the Palestinian cause for the first 65 years? Or not at all?
I fail to see your solutions as solutions, the one is abhorrent (where would they go? and why should they go? who is going to take these millions of refugees? and again, why should they)
Certainly none of their neighboring Muslim backers.
Why should any country take millions of refugees? Would you be happy for the US take them?
Also, do you think the entire Palestinian people are some hive mind who all unswervingly support Islamic extremism?
LordofHats wrote: I doubt anyone will get far thinking Israel will ever be charged with war crimes. Creating a humanitarian crisis? *shakes hand* eh, maybe.
A one state solution, might have worked. A long ass time ago before this became such a dug in conflict. A two state solution can work, but expecting that to end all violence is naive. There will be terrorists in that place attacking Israel for generations no matter what. But instead of a conflict of Israel vs Palestine it could be a conflict of Israel + Palestine vs the extremists who want to destroy them both.
So what you're really saying is, if Israel wants peace, it has to take out everyone in Gaza. Thats no bueno either.
So what you're really saying is, if Israel wants peace, it has to take out everyone in Gaza. Thats no bueno either.
... Well... In a super dark HBO original series sort of way, it would technically end the conflict XD
EDIT I don't care about some absolute idea of peace that much. I consider that impossible. I do think that the conflict as it is now can end however, which is ultimately better for everyone involved.
Why should any country take millions of refugees? Would you be happy for the US take them?
Becuase the Gaza strip is actually Egyptian territory, and the West Bank is Jordanian territory, thats why.
Its interesting that their own countries won't take them.
EDIT: I take that back Before Israel conquered it, it was controlled by the Egyptians. Before Egypt, for ten years it was "independent" but controlled by Egypt. Before 1948 it was controlled by Britain
Why should any country take millions of refugees? Would you be happy for the US take them?
Becuase the Gaza strip is actually Egyptian territory, and the West Bank is Jordanian territory, thats why.
Its interesting that their own countries won't take them.
Hrm, calling them Jordanian and Egyptian isn't entirely true. Both were claimed only in the 1948 war. Jordan's claim on the West Bank wasn't recognized by other Arab nations, and was only officially recognized by Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. In any event, it ceded it's claims to the PLO nearly 30 years ago. Likewise, Egypt gave up Gaza as part of the 1978 Camp David accords.
dæl wrote: If Israel didn't want to face rocket attacks perhaps they shouldn't elect people like Michael Ben-Ari who claimed “There are no innocents in Gaza … mow them (all) down”. Or Moshe Feiglin who offered this "solution" to the conflict. Perhaps the Jerusalem Post shouldn't publish things like this.
Should we start posting what Hamas thinks of Israel? You'll find far less savory quotes from people who are in higher positions of power than the son (who is such an important player there isn't even a Wiki page for him) of a former Prime Minister, or Deputy Speaker of the Knesset who advocates "The GSS and IDF will thoroughly eliminate all armed enemies from Gaza. The enemy population that is innocent of wrong-doing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave. Israel will generously aid those who wish to leave"
Want to tell us how Hamas sees this being resolved long term? How about what Hamas teaches school children?
But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?
You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.
As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.
Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?
I'm sure you're aware that Hamas' leaders are being bankrolled by Qatar. So they are affected a lot less than the average person. Hence Whembley's reference to their leaders.
If you want to stop Hamas you need to stop the flow of weapons, show them that aggression doesn't work, and get Qatar to the table too
In happier news, a guy I trained (and who I never thought would make an acceptable soldier) is apparently kicking some serious ass, judging by his FB updates!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Soldier from my brigade was the first IDF soldier killed in ground combat in Gaza. Currently investigating a possible friendly fire case. RIP bro
In happier news, a guy I trained (and who I never thought would make an acceptable soldier) is apparently kicking some serious ass, judging by his FB updates!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Soldier from my brigade was the first IDF soldier killed in ground combat in Gaza. Currently investigating a possible friendly fire case. RIP bro
In happier news, a guy I trained (and who I never thought would make an acceptable soldier) is apparently kicking some serious ass, judging by his FB updates!
Sorry to hear that Nuggz about your buddy
As for your buddy in the track(?) Combat is when some people becomes alive and thrive in it
I wanted to add that, for everyone complaining about civilian casualties, consider this:
When the US military invaded Iraq in 2003, they didn't use roof-knocking to warn civilians of impending missile strikes, they didn't call civilians living near target areas to warn them to evacuate, and they didn't take NEARLY as much flak is Israel is currently receiving for inflicting civilian casualties.
How many civilians did the US military kill in any major operation in Iraq? One estimate says over 133,000 as a whole since 2003. Kind of hypocritical when people cry about Israel accidentally killing Arab Muslims living in Palestine but don't really give a gak about the US and its allies killing Arab Muslims living in Iraq...and let's not forget the fact that Iraq wasn't shooting rockets at American civilians.
I'm not knocking the US' performance in Iraq, only saying that the scale of civilian casualties is disproportionate for the amount of criticism Israel receives relative to other nations. If the IDF behaved like Russia, they'd have to buy body bags for every man, woman, and child in Gaza, then consider it mission accomplished.
When the US military invaded Iraq in 2003, they didn't use roof-knocking to warn civilians of impending missile strikes, they didn't call civilians living near target areas to warn them to evacuate, and they didn't take NEARLY as much flak is Israel is currently receiving for inflicting civilian casualties.
When the US military invaded Iraq in 2003, they didn't use roof-knocking to warn civilians of impending missile strikes, they didn't call civilians living near target areas to warn them to evacuate, and they didn't take NEARLY as much flak is Israel is currently receiving for inflicting civilian casualties.
Iraq didn't last 30 years.
I don't see how that's relevant to anything I posted.
I don't see how that's relevant to anything I posted.
Because the two aren't really comparable as conflicts. Acting like we should judge the Iraq war or the Israel-Palestine conflict by the same standards is dense.
I don't see how that's relevant to anything I posted.
Because the two aren't really comparable as conflicts. Acting like we should judge the Iraq war or the Israel-Palestine conflict by the same standards is dense.
I don't see how that's relevant to anything I posted.
Because the two aren't really comparable as conflicts. Acting like we should judge the Iraq war or the Israel-Palestine conflict by the same standards is dense.
So...Arab Muslims living in Iraq don't matter when they're killed by the US military, but Arab Muslims living in Gaza matter when they're killed by the IDF? This is a curious point of view...
The things you learn on Dakka.
