Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 1,056 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
I disagree massively with how Israel handles this problem. The issue I have in this thread is people talk about Israel as if they don't have any legitimate grievances, which to me, demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what is going on.

In order to maintain their theocratic (sounds better than racist but the lines are blurred) government they have ticked off a lot of people with brutal living conditions. Israels grievance is that some of these ticked off people are shooting back.

Quote:
Peace will be forever out of reach until at least one side decides to give up using violence. But neither side will, because the other side won't.

The palastinian side CAN"T. Not won't: can't. Can not. Never going to happen. Its not within their power, it simply isn't possible . Israel will only accept ZERO attacks. There cannot be zero attacks. The Palestinian Government doesn't have the resources to stop all of the attacks even if it had the inclination. There is nothing they can do to stop every single one of 3 million palastinians from going on the net and getting rocket plans.

Israel is going to simply have to put up with some risk if they want peace. You live in the woods, you accept that there are bears and coyotes. You move into the middle east you accept that there are knuckle heads with rockets. I don't think israel is willing to do that though.

Peace on the Israeli side requires the Israeli government to act. (itself unlikely) Peace on the Palestinian side would require every single one of the Palestinians to sit in hell, and wait, patiently, for the Israeli government to take an action unpopular with its own people and against its own interests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
That's cool that YOU consider it part of Israel. I must have missed the day they announced you to be the arbiter of these things.

More point and less sarcasm would be appreciated.

When you're criticizing someone's statement like you were you aren't the arbiter either. If you want to say they're factually wrong you're setting a pretty high bar that you haven't reached.

His implication is that Arab's aren't allowed to vote in Israel. All adult citizens are allowed to vote in Israel.

No. His implication, as clearly understood by everyone except you is that Israel controls the lives of large population that are not citizens and do not vote.

Actually, you probably understood it to or you'd be attacking the "more than half the adult population" part as well as the "can't vote" part, since the Arab citizens of Israel are far less than half the population. His statement only makes sense if he's talking about the Palestinians, since that's the only way the population numbers are even close.

It's not the borders themselves, it's that any agreement based on borders from any one specific date will essentially formalize some form of violence against someone. There is no ideal period to reach back to and say "ah, that's when it was good, can we go back to that?" Which is what all drawings on maps are trying to do, except that every line is based on some form of violence against someone.

Peace will be forever out of reach until at least one side decides to give up using violence. But neither side will, because the other side won't.

Let's say you and I are in a fight. I hit you, and felt justified doing it. Now, you feel justified hitting me. I know you're going to do that, so I feel justified defending myself. You of course feel justified defending yourself.

Yeah. I get it. Basic feud logic.

Of course, it's not just that, but the situation Palestinians have to live under in the name of Israeli security and the slow but constant growth of settlements and the web of roads and other support structures that seem designed to ensure that Palestine is not viable.

As for borders, I agree than nothing is ideal. By pointing at the 67 borders, I'm not trying to say "This violence was legitimate and this violence wasn't." Just that that is a set of borders that might make a viable Palestinian state. The current ones certainly don't, as you have said. The alternatives are to start from a previous set, make up something entirely new, not based on current status or history, or just accept that Palestine is not viable and will have to remain occupied and controlled by Israel indefinitely. That seems to be your preference. Arguing about what's legitimized by any particular set of borders is little more than a distraction from the position that Palestine cannot be viable because Israel refuses to let it be so, not because of anything inherent to Palestine or the Palestinians.

And yet there is no other way to peace.


At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}. Lack of water security. Ceding their very legitimate claims to land.

There never has been a "Palestinian state". Prior to WW1, it was part of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. From 1918 to 1948, it was controlled by the British. From 1918-1922, the size of the mandate was Israel+Jordan.

The "Palestinian state" existed in name only, when the surrounding Arab nations invaded Israel, took land (Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights) and declared it part of the All Palestinian government (all in 1948).

In 1967, Israel took back land that it had been given by the British in 1948 (but invaded the day after the British left, literally).

Jews took land from Arabs.
Arabs took land from Jews.

Everyone lives on stolen land. Everyone.

Now design a peace agreement that doesn't legitimize one sides stealing of land.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

That's actually the crux of my argument, all this stuff cuts both ways... hence: no peace.

The Arab neighbors are just as responsible as Israel for cutting off the Palestinian populations from the outside world. Jordan could reinstate passports. Egypt could open borders and allow trade. Syria... well, they have their own problems at the moment.

Then of course you have the treatment of Jewish populations across the Arab world. In 1948 there were approximately 880,000 Jews living in Middle-Eastern/North African countries (excluding Israel). Now it's estimated to be less than 9,000. While some have been killed, many immigrated to Israel.

Whole communities have been destroyed through persecution and have been robbed of billions of dollars of property, in addition to killings. Israel has welcomed these refugees with open arms.

Conversely the Arab countries couldn't care less about the Palestinians, except to use them as a pawn to try and punish Israel. The neighboring countries could do massive amounts of good if they were willing provide aid and open their borders to the Palestinians.

Israel sucks and does mean things to Palestinians.
So does everyone else... including Palestinians (like using their people as human shields).


Putting the blame on Israel and saying that they have to solve the problem isn't going to solve the problem.

Some info on the Jewish exodus from Arab/Muslim countries.

Please make the case of why it is in Israel's interest to cede majority control of their country to the same people who have kicked them out of dozens of other countries. Using the last 70 years of history, make a case for how they will be treated fairly and humanely, instead of how they've been killed and stripped of their property in every other country in the region.


ShadowcatX wrote:


If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

75

Mind you, weighting it for size and deadliness seems appropriate for a fair comparison.

The Exchange

ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

maybe one or two, but they are the ones that blow up a school and hospital instead of landing in a field.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Putting the blame on Israel and saying that they have to solve the problem isn't going to solve the problem.

Some info on the Jewish exodus from Arab/Muslim countries.

Please make the case of why it is in Israel's interest to cede majority control of their country to the same people who have kicked them out of dozens of other countries. Using the last 70 years of history, make a case for how they will be treated fairly and humanely, instead of how they've been killed and stripped of their property in every other country in the region.

Today isn't 70 or 40 years ago. The problem is that Israel in that time hasn't endeared itself to its neighbours. It still has, so far, the backing of e.g the US so an invasion of Israel by any other Arab country is less than likely if a two-state solution were to be implemented (with the '67 borders as a guide line).

They also wouldn't "cede majority control of their country" to "the same people" - what exactly do you consider their contry anyway? - they would give control of the land outside their '67 border to the Palestinians and their government. Not to any of the countries in the Wiki link.

The Exchange

i say they want some desert to live in give the isrealis nevada. there no more reason to fight in the ME


ShadowcatX wrote:
If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

The last count I heard (which was, admittedly two days ago or so) was that Israel had actually fired more rockets into Gaza since this began 18 days ago than had been fired from Gaza.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Putting the blame on Israel and saying that they have to solve the problem isn't going to solve the problem.

Blame is mostly pointless. I think israel going into this with a little more of a "my bad" attitude would be mildly helpful.

Admitting israel has to solve the problem IS the first step in solving the problem.

Israel is the only one that CAN do anything. Thats why they're the ones that have to do something.

The palastinian authority can do nothing. They have no power. They have no ability to act. They have no ability to control. They don't have to do anything because they CAN"T do anything.

The other arab states can't act without upsetting israel. Terrorists in your country= an excuse to invade. The egyptian border is closed to trade at the isreali's "request".

Israel is the road block to any avenue to peace.

Quote:
Please make the case of why it is in Israel's interest to cede majority control of their country to the same people who have kicked them out of dozens of other countries.

The same people. Really? So they're all a collective now? The Palestinians aren't even the same government as the people that did that. In what way are the Palestinians "the same people who kicked them out of dozens of other countries" ?

Quote:
Using the last 70 years of history, make a case for how they will be treated fairly and humanely

The casualties on their side will be higher (they can hardly be lower) but the casualties overall will be lower.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}. Lack of water security. Ceding their very legitimate claims to land.

There never has been a "Palestinian state". Prior to WW1, it was part of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. From 1918 to 1948, it was controlled by the British. From 1918-1922, the size of the mandate was Israel+Jordan.

The "Palestinian state" existed in name only, when the surrounding Arab nations invaded Israel, took land (Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights) and declared it part of the All Palestinian government (all in 1948).

In 1967, Israel took back land that it had been given by the British in 1948 (but invaded the day after the British left, literally).

Jews took land from Arabs.
Arabs took land from Jews.

Everyone lives on stolen land. Everyone.

Now design a peace agreement that doesn't legitimize one sides stealing of land.

F%*& legitimizing one side or the other. I don't care. I don't care that there's never been a Palestinian State.

How about "design a peace agreement that doesn't leave the Palestinians living in a non-viable land that Israel keeps taking more of".
You know the actual Palestinians living there now. Can we worry about them? Yes, and the Israelis too. But not who stole land from who decades or centuries or millenia ago. What happens to the actual real live people there now?


Irontruth wrote:
Egypt could open borders and allow trade.

Just for the record, a large part of the reason Egypt does help Israel enforce the blockade on Gaza is because of US pressure and bribery. That's a large part of the reason we supported Mubarak and his predecessors so long. And why we're happier with Sisi than with Morsi.


Irontruth wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

You objected to Meatrace who was objecting to Doug's Workshop.

The words "shining democracy" weren't in the latter's post; they were "only functional democracy in the region."

I was objecting to the implication that Arab's are disenfranchised in the state of Israel. Which is provably false.

Voter turnout has even increased over the past few years. Though it's still below it's all-time high of 75% in the late 90's.

I'm not claiming the Palestinians are even treated well. They aren't. But making implications of an apartheid system is demonstrably false. The people in the occupied territories aren't Israeli. They're supposed to be Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian. Except Jordan relinquished their claim to the land a few years back, effectively casting the West Bank to the wind.

Israel hasn't treated them well, but you don't need to imply things are worse than they are to prove that. Arabs are just as enfranchised as any other religious/ethnic group.

When Egypt took over the Gaza Strip, it didn't offer the residents citizenship.

Most people in the Golan Heights hold Syrian citizenship.

In 1988, Jordan stripped all residents of the West Bank of citizenship.

Everyone has done their best to screw the Palestinians.

The US has been occupying Puerto Rico for 116 years.

Yeah. But Puerto Ricans get to vote from Puerto Rico. Same with a lot of other American territories, if not all of them.
Yes, they do hold elections there. They don't vote for president, nor do they have a voting member of Congress.

Actually, they can. They are American citizens and can do so if they were in an area to do so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On a related note, we held a small protest against the killings/support for Gaza and Palestine today (small because I live in a smallish city - at least by US standards - around 35,000 people). Around 100-150 people showed up for the protest, which was rather decent on a sweltering hot Summer day when a lot of people are off somewhere on vacation.
It was arranged by the local chapters of the two larger socialistic parties here in Denmark (Red-Green Alliance (my party) and Socialist People's Party) along with the local Danish-Palestinian Friendship Association.
Speeches were held and protest songs were sung.
Here are some pictures, from the set-up and during, in case you're interested (it's from a public Facebook post, not mine, though, so you might have to have a Facebook profile to see it).

(fair warning: I appear in a couple of the pictures ;-) ).


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Putting the blame on Israel and saying that they have to solve the problem isn't going to solve the problem.

Blame is mostly pointless. I think israel going into this with a little more of a "my bad" attitude would be mildly helpful.

Admitting israel has to solve the problem IS the first step in solving the problem.

Israel is the only one that CAN do anything. Thats why they're the ones that have to do something.

The palastinian authority can do nothing. They have no power. They have no ability to act. They have no ability to control. They don't have to do anything because they CAN"T do anything.

The other arab states can't act without upsetting israel. Terrorists in your country= an excuse to invade. The egyptian border is closed to trade at the isreali's "request".

Israel is the road block to any avenue to peace.

Quote:
Please make the case of why it is in Israel's interest to cede majority control of their country to the same people who have kicked them out of dozens of other countries.

The same people. Really? So they're all a collective now? The Palestinians aren't even the same government as the people that did that. In what way are the Palestinians "the same people who kicked them out of dozens of other countries" ?

Quote:
Using the last 70 years of history, make a case for how they will be treated fairly and humanely

The casualties on their side will be higher (they can hardly be lower) but the casualties overall will be lower.

I don't think road block is the right word, but they are indeed far more powerful than what remains of palestine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


I was calling into question inaccurate statements from someone else. I don't care if someone else said something, that's not attributable to me. Just because I'm pointing out Meatrace's inaccuracy, does NOT mean I'm disagreeing with his overall sentiment, just that I find some of his "facts" to not actually be facts.

No, you were pitching a fit because you continued to willingly misinterpret what I said. Something no one else seems to have had a problem understanding.

I never said Arab Israelis were disenfranchised, I said half the population of Israel, of which I am counting the population of Palestine. Or at least the territory of palestine entirely surrounded by Israel.

Feel free to continue to represent my rather clear statement though if it makes you feel superior. Seems to be your only motivation for being on these boards anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I can't pretend to be any kind of expert, but from what I'm picking up, in order to spike a Fatah/Hamas "Unity" government hookup, Netanyahu seizes the opportunity of the tragedy of the three yeshiva students to unleash a wave of state terror and lynchings that even Lord Snow thought was complete bullshiznit.

Hamas, reactionary anti-Semitic fanatics in the best of times, respond as expected and besiege Israel with crude rocket fire, criminally and indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians that has very little effect because Israel has spent billions on Iron Dome.

Israel responds with a barrage of missile fire and a ground assault with the resulting slaughter of civilians that has already been thoroughly parsed in this thread.

If we understand "Israel" to mean the arrogant, murderous regime of Netanyahu and friends, then I have a hard time seeing how Israel is not to blame for this latest round.

As for all of that history stuff, you're right, Comrade Pravda, there can be no just and equitable solution of the conflicting Palestinian and Israeli grievances. Under capitalism.

For a Socialist Federation of the Middle East!

(Nice pics, Comrade Giant. Here's Boston's.)


I'm not sure how to communicate this... because I've been seriously trying....

I do not approve of most of Israel's actions. I think they've done horrible things, many of which probably amount to war crimes.

What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.


Irontruth wrote:
What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong.

I guess it depends on who you mean by "you guys."


Irontruth wrote:
What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.

Not sure if I'm a 'you guys' or not, but I'm under no illusions that it doesn't take at least two to tango.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

I'm not sure how to communicate this... because I've been seriously trying....

I do not approve of most of Israel's actions. I think they've done horrible things, many of which probably amount to war crimes.

What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.

Thus far, Israel has perpetuated the story that they are the defender in all conflicts. Much of history matches their story. Jews don't own the media or control Hollywood or anything, but their voice has been the dominant one in this and just about every conflict since WWII. The other side of just about every fight that has occurred has been vilified and reduced to mustache twirling villains. Usually they are. Sometimes things are more complicated than they initially appear, and I think that is the case here.


In potentially good news, there is a temporary ceasefire in effect and it appears to be holding so far, despite Israel claiming it would continue to "locate and neutralise" Hamas tunnels.

I assume negotiations for a longer ceasefire are going on, but it's not clear how likely that is.


I remember that during Pillar of Ash, there was a Britishiznoid brother who appreciated the post-game commentary of Gush Shalom activist and Counterpunch contributor, Uri Avnery.

It's not post-game yet for Protective Edge, but here he is again:

Once and For All
This is Not a War on Terror; the War Itself is an Act of Terror
by URI AVNERY


Mark Sweetman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.
Not sure if I'm a 'you guys' or not, but I'm under no illusions that it doesn't take at least two to tango.

This is the kind of thinking that got me detention for breaking someone's hand with my head.


Irontruth wrote:

What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.

I'll try to explain why I'm so hard on israel. In addition to what Freehold said try this exercise.

Finish the following sentence.

In order to end the fighting, the government of the Palestinian areas can ______________


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.

I'll try to explain why I'm so hard on israel. In addition to what Freehold said try this exercise.

Finish the following sentence.

In order to end the fighting, the government of the Palestinian areas can ______________

Stop fighting back. Disarm. Stop protesting, even nonviolently.

The last is only necessary if you consider Border Guards shooting teens "fighting".

Of course, they would have to crackdown very hard on other factions within PAlestine to pull this off.

None of this would end the occupation, get Palestine a state of there own or stop the expansion of the settlements. It's likely it wouldn't even stop Israel from arresting (or even assassinating) Palestinian "terrorists". At least not for years to come.

Of course, the flip side of that is "In order to end the fighting, the Israeli government can ______________"

As far as I can see there's little they can do that will stop the rocket attacks in the short run.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
What puzzles me though, is how you guys talk as if Israel is the only side doing anything wrong. They aren't. Other sides are actively engaged in perpetuating this conflict also.
Not sure if I'm a 'you guys' or not, but I'm under no illusions that it doesn't take at least two to tango.
This is the kind of thinking that got me detention for breaking someone's hand with my head.

Yeah, I ran into that back in school. Some bullies were very good at timing their harrassment so the victim would snap and take a swing at them just when a teacher came into view.

Or they'd just punish the attacker and the kid being beaten equally. Or quasi-equally, since the bully (and his parents) usually didn't care about the punishment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Stop fighting back. Disarm. Stop protesting, even nonviolently.

The palastinian government cannot take any of these actions.

Fighting is being done by individuals. They have very little central control over them.

If israels blocade isn't keeping weapons out, the palastinians can't either.

The Palestinian government can't stop the protests. They don't have enough police, the police can't mobilize from one area to another, and they don't have the jails to hold them all.

and then, as you point out, their lives will STILL suck, and they'd still have to wait for israel to act. Even granting the palastinians the ability to do all this (which they don't have) you STILL need to wait for Israel to do something to stop the oppression.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

75

Mind you, weighting it for size and deadliness seems appropriate for a fair comparison.

And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

75

Mind you, weighting it for size and deadliness seems appropriate for a fair comparison.

And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

I don't know the answer. I'm not even sure it's a useful question.

If you're speaking of the median month, the answer is pretty close to 0%. For this year, before this present escalation, however the median number of missiles would be well below 100. I believe around 20.

If you did an average over this year, including the present conflict, which you would need to do to get the numbers up to where you implied they would be, Isreal's average goes way up, but I don't know how much. It's fairly easy to get numbers on missiles launched into Israel.
It's much harder to get numbers on what Israel's used in Protective Edge. I also think it would be somewhat biased to use only missiles in the comparison, though that's what you asked, since Israel also uses various forms of artillery, which can do easily as much damage.

Edit: Actually I withdraw the 0%. Though it's probably still low in absolute numbers. The Israeli missiles do tend to do more damage. Even civilian damage.


ShadowcatX wrote:


And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

Again. Can you show me I'm wrong or can you just insult me with some passive aggressive pseudo wisdom? If you demand that I count a 5 pound home made rocket the same as a thousand pound high explosive rocket, AND I don't count any of the other forms of ordinance Israel might use then you're obviously biasing the question, on purpose.

I don't have numbers for how many rockets israel has fired (thats probably classified) What I do have are the casualty figures that show Israel Is killing a heck of a lot more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Stop fighting back. Disarm. Stop protesting, even nonviolently.

The palastinian government cannot take any of these actions.

Fighting is being done by individuals. They have very little central control over them.

If israels blocade isn't keeping weapons out, the palastinians can't either.

The Palestinian government can't stop the protests. They don't have enough police, the police can't mobilize from one area to another, and they don't have the jails to hold them all.

and then, as you point out, their lives will STILL suck, and they'd still have to wait for israel to act. Even granting the palastinians the ability to do all this (which they don't have) you STILL need to wait for Israel to do something to stop the oppression.

Yes it can. Hamas can stop digging tunnels. They can stop smuggling weapons into their territory. They can stop paying out money to the families of suicide bombers.

Yes, other extremists could continue fighting against the wishes of people like Hamas. But Hamas could cooperate with law enforcement in finding and bringing those people to legitimate justice. Stop offering safe haven.

All of these things are extremely possible and would take away many of Israel's concerns about safety and security.

You, Bob and I are at a bar. Bob and I start a fight against you, but you manage to beat us both up. Later, Bob and I keep picking fights with you, so you don't trust us.

I have three options to get you to stop kicking my ass:
1) Work with Bob and try to win this time
2) Stop participating at all
3) Actively join against Bob.

Now, if Bob's my friend, maybe I really don't want to do 3. But to switch from 1 to 2 would at least go a long way to fixing things between you and me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Stop fighting back. Disarm. Stop protesting, even nonviolently.

The palastinian government cannot take any of these actions.

Fighting is being done by individuals. They have very little central control over them.

If israels blocade isn't keeping weapons out, the palastinians can't either.

The Palestinian government can't stop the protests. They don't have enough police, the police can't mobilize from one area to another, and they don't have the jails to hold them all.

and then, as you point out, their lives will STILL suck, and they'd still have to wait for israel to act. Even granting the palastinians the ability to do all this (which they don't have) you STILL need to wait for Israel to do something to stop the oppression.

Yes it can. Hamas can stop digging tunnels. They can stop smuggling weapons into their territory. They can stop paying out money to the families of suicide bombers.

While I agree they could stop digging tunnels and smuggling weapons, are they actually still paying the families of suicide bombers? In fact when was the last Palestinian suicide bombing?

If you're only talking about families of past suicide bombers, I doubt that would have any effect on current conflicts, as long as they aren't generating more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hamas can stop digging the tunnels. They cannot stop the tunnels from being dug. That is an enormous difference you're not getting, and it applies no matter what you want to fill the blanks in with.

Hammas can stop firing rockets. They cannot stop the rockets from being fired.

If Hamas stopped digging the tunnels someone else would dig the tunnels: they're not just terror tunnels, they're multi use. They smuggle everything from weapons to x boxes, medicine and caviar.

If Hamas as an organization died tomorrow, someone else would set up shop , put up a sign that says "under new management" and then it would continue unabated. You cannot treat "the palastinians" as a single entity. What central control over the area that exists is loose to non existant. Your expectation and experience that a government has effective control over its territory and people does not apply here.

Quote:
All of these things are extremely possible and would take away many of Israel's concerns about safety and security.

It would not. Israel is more than a little twitchy when it comes to security and will remain so for the foreseeable future: certainly longer than than anyone can keep the entirety of the Palestinian population away from a shovel.


Irontruth wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Stop fighting back. Disarm. Stop protesting, even nonviolently.

The palastinian government cannot take any of these actions.

Fighting is being done by individuals. They have very little central control over them.

If israels blocade isn't keeping weapons out, the palastinians can't either.

The Palestinian government can't stop the protests. They don't have enough police, the police can't mobilize from one area to another, and they don't have the jails to hold them all.

and then, as you point out, their lives will STILL suck, and they'd still have to wait for israel to act. Even granting the palastinians the ability to do all this (which they don't have) you STILL need to wait for Israel to do something to stop the oppression.

Yes it can. Hamas can stop digging tunnels. They can stop smuggling weapons into their territory. They can stop paying out money to the families of suicide bombers.

Yes, other extremists could continue fighting against the wishes of people like Hamas. But Hamas could cooperate with law enforcement in finding and bringing those people to legitimate justice. Stop offering safe haven.

All of these things are extremely possible and would take away many of Israel's concerns about safety and security.

You, Bob and I are at a bar. Bob and I start a fight against you, but you manage to beat us both up. Later, Bob and I keep picking fights with you, so you don't trust us.

I have three options to get you to stop kicking my ass:
1) Work with Bob and try to win this time
2) Stop participating at all
3) Actively join against Bob.

Now, if Bob's my friend, maybe I really don't want to do 3. But to switch from 1 to 2 would at least go a long way to fixing things between you and me.

Well, it seems like you're not only saying that I should stop participating, but actively join, since you want Hamas to "cooperate with law enforcement in finding and bringing those people to legitimate justice."

BTW, who is "law enforcement" in this case? Israel? Do you really think Israel can provide legitimate justice in anything involving Palestinians? Do you really think anyone in Palestine would trust them to do so? If not, in Gaza, Hamas is law enforcement. In the West Bank, it's Fatah. If I understand correctly, until the start of the present conflict

Quote:
While there has been intermittent rocket fire from Gaza since the cease-fire that ended the November 2012 Pillar of Defense conflict, Israel has credited Hamas with largely doing its best to keep the various militant factions in line.

Your analogy also implies that the trouble is always started by Bob and I. That you are never the one starting problems, but just winning the fights.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hamas can stop digging the tunnels. They cannot stop the tunnels from being dug. That is an enormous different you're not getting, and it applies no matter what you want to fill the blanks in with.

Hammas can stop firing rockets. They cannot stop the rockets from being fired.

If Hamas stopped digging the tunnels someone else would dig the tunnels: they're not just terror tunnels, they're multi use. They smuggle everything from weapons to x boxes, medicine and caviar.

If Hamas as an organization died tomorrow, someone else would set up shop , put up a sign that says "under new management" and then it would continue unabated. You cannot treat "the palastinians" as a single entity. What central control over the area that exists is loose to non existant. Your expectation and experience that a government has effective control over its territory and people does not apply here.

Quote:
All of these things are extremely possible and would take away many of Israel's concerns about safety and security.
It would not. Israel is more than a little twitchy when it comes to security and will remain so for the foreseeable future: certainly longer than than anyone can keep the entirety of the Palestinian population away from a shovel.

The tunnels are a little more sophisticated than a shovel. There may be other groups operating in Gaza that could build them, but they're not that trivial. The tunnels into Egypt will get built. They're necessary as long as the blockade remains. The ones into Israel, less so.

And Hamas, as I said above, had been doing a decent job of keeping the other groups inline, to the best of it's abilities, given the loose central control in Gaza.

In fact, there's cause to suspect one of the motivations behind the current lawn mowing was to break the attempt of Hamas to reconcile with Fatah and form a unity government. From the right point of view, any practical moderation of Hamas, even if they don't change their rhetoric, is a bad thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

...and it starts to emerge that Israel was looking for a fight, probably to break up any possibility of a unity government between Hamas and Fatah.

A number of things stand out for me here. For starters using this as a pretext to launch such a bloody attack is pretty far beyond the pale.

Secondly it stands out that Israel has repeatedly condemned Hamas as an evil terrorist organization but then decides to launch a brutal attack against it when there seems to be some chance that it might come under less radical leadership. Strikes me that the governing body, especially the current right wing governing body, wants there to be an angry radicalized terrorist organization on the border. Helps so much with domestic politics if their is an Enemy at the Gates.

As to the tunnels - the back up apparent explanation for all this bloodshed. Have they ever been used to attack civilians? I can't find anything except attacks of Israeli soldiers. Furthermore is this really the most effective solution? Invade Gaza to find the tunnels? I mean if the problem is tunnels that come out on the Israeli side of the fence why go to Gaza to find them when one could spend their time rather peacefully looking for them on the Israeli side?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

Again. Can you show me I'm wrong or can you just insult me with some passive aggressive pseudo wisdom? If you demand that I count a 5 pound home made rocket the same as a thousand pound high explosive rocket, AND I don't count any of the other forms of ordinance Israel might use then you're obviously biasing the question, on purpose.

I don't have numbers for how many rockets israel has fired (thats probably classified) What I do have are the casualty figures that show Israel Is killing a heck of a lot more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis.

Are you some how less dead if you die to a 5 pound missile than a thousand pound one? Do your loved ones grieve less? Would you be ok with someone shooting 5 pound missiles at your house? Or at your family perhaps? How big does a missile have to be that you wouldn't want it shot at you?

And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

Again. Can you show me I'm wrong or can you just insult me with some passive aggressive pseudo wisdom? If you demand that I count a 5 pound home made rocket the same as a thousand pound high explosive rocket, AND I don't count any of the other forms of ordinance Israel might use then you're obviously biasing the question, on purpose.

I don't have numbers for how many rockets israel has fired (thats probably classified) What I do have are the casualty figures that show Israel Is killing a heck of a lot more Palestinians than the Palestinians are killing Israelis.

Are you some how less dead if you die to a 5 pound missile than a thousand pound one? Do your loved ones grieve less? Would you be ok with someone shooting 5 pound missiles at your house? Or at your family perhaps? How big does a missile have to be that you wouldn't want it shot at you?

And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

Obviously you're not less dead if you die. The bigger ones are just more likely to kill you and a bunch of your family too.

You're also no less dead if you're blown up when the IDF misses a Hamas agent passing by.

While I wouldn't want to live anywhere people are shooting missiles, I'd far rather live in Israel, even under the current bombardment than in Gaza, even when it isn't actually being mowed by the IDF.


ShadowcatX wrote:
And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

This should be interesting:

Turkey to send another Freedom Flotilla to Gaza

The Exchange

I think they might be on to something, here.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

This should be interesting:

Turkey to send another Freedom Flotilla to Gaza

I have absolutely zero percent problem with humanitarian aid going to Gaza. I don't wish the Palestenians ill, but I certainly wouldn't want people firing rockets at me or my country, and I think the expectation that Israel should be ok with any non zero number of rocket attacks laughable.


ShadowcatX wrote:


Are you some how less dead if you die to a 5 pound missile than a thousand pound one? Do your loved ones grieve less? Would you be ok with someone shooting 5 pound missiles at your house? Or at your family perhaps? How big does a missile have to be that you wouldn't want it shot at you?

And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

Your argument is either narrowly framed because its the only way you can possibly support Israel or just incredibly random.

Either way its not good enough to warrant insulting me.

Dark Archive

BigNorseWolf wrote:


If Hamas as an organization died tomorrow, someone else would set up shop , put up a sign that says "under new management" and then it would continue unabated. You cannot treat "the palastinians" as a single entity. What central control over the area that exists is loose to non existant. Your expectation and experience that a government has effective control over its territory and people does not apply here.

Actually is that not what kind of happend to the big group before Hamas


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't wish the Isreali's ill, but I certainly wouldn't want people firing missiles at me or my country, and I think the expectation that the Palastinians should be ok with any non zero number of Helicopter attacks, living in destitution, virtually imprisoned, arrested for protesting, laughable.

This is the difference.

I find "I need to maintain a country where my race is in control" to be a bad argument for picking up heavy ordinance and firing it at people.

I find "I am tired of being a virtual prisoner denied my right to life, liberty, speech, and self determination" to be a pretty good argument for picking up heavy ordinance and firing it at people.


Kevin Mack wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


If Hamas as an organization died tomorrow, someone else would set up shop , put up a sign that says "under new management" and then it would continue unabated. You cannot treat "the palastinians" as a single entity. What central control over the area that exists is loose to non existant. Your expectation and experience that a government has effective control over its territory and people does not apply here.

Actually is that not what kind of happend to the big group before Hamas

Eyup.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
And as to who is killing more, so what? You want to live don't pick a fight you can't win.

This should be interesting:

Turkey to send another Freedom Flotilla to Gaza

I have absolutely zero percent problem with humanitarian aid going to Gaza. I don't wish the Palestenians ill, but I certainly wouldn't want people firing rockets at me or my country, and I think the expectation that Israel should be ok with any non zero number of rocket attacks laughable.

Don't worry. The Israelis will stop it. On the grounds that it's not humanitarian aid. There will be something there that's not vetted as unusable by the military.

Bandages or something.

401 to 450 of 1,056 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.