NationStates Jolt Archive

Israeli air strike kills five daughters from one family as Gaza death toll passes 300.

The family house was small: three rooms, a tiny kitchen and bathroom, built of poor-quality concrete bricks with a corrugated asbestos roof, in block four of Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza. There are hundreds of similar homes crammed into the overcrowded streets, filled with some of the poorest and most vulnerable families in the Gaza Strip.

But it was this house, where Anwar and Samira Balousha lived with their nine children, that had the misfortune to be built next to what became late on Sunday night another target in Israel's devastating bombing campaign of Gaza.

An Israeli bomb struck the refugee camp's Imad Aqil mosque around midnight, destroying the building and collapsing several shops and a pharmacy nearby. The force of the blast was so massive it also brought down the Balousha family's house, which yesterday lay in ruins. The seven eldest girls were asleep together on mattresses in one bedroom and they bore the brunt of the explosion. Five were killed where they lay: Tahrir, 17, Ikram 15, Samer, 13, Dina, eight and Jawahar, four.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/29/1230589957529/Palestinian-man-carries-b-001.jpg

What a tragedy. I've lost so much respect for Israel during the last few days. It's one thing to defend yourself from attacks, but this preemptive strike has hurt too many civilians. :(

Advice to everyone: if a terrorist lives next door, sell your house before his mere presence 86's the property value.

What a tragedy. I've lost so much respect for Israel during the last few days. It's one thing to defend yourself from attacks, but this preemptive strike has hurt too many civilians. :( Bombs, true non-discriminators.

Advice to everyone: if a terrorist lives next door, sell your house before his mere presence 86's the property value.

Is that supposed to be funny? =(

Is that supposed to be funny? =(

I thought it was amusing.

Is that supposed to be funny? =(I thought it was funny.

How long have they been fighting now? like 40-50 years?

Do these bombings really come as a suprise?

Is that supposed to be funny? =(

Hey, do YOU want to live next to a terrorist?

But Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorists!!!!

-cue person telling me it was five innocent girls-


Oh...But Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorist sisters!!!


Sadly enough, the above is more than likely running through some people's minds.

This is what happens when you play this particularly nasty game of brinksmanship...

Do these bombings really come as a suprise?Not at all. They've been fighting since day one. *shrug*

Not at all. They've been fighting since day one. *shrug*

I'm suprised the cease-fire lasted this long. What did it last like 6 months?

No, they've been doing a game of tit for tat long before this cease fire officially ended. They're just letting the world know it's gone for good now.

I'm suprised the cease-fire lasted this long. What did it last like 6 months?I think it actually lasted through its negotiated entirety.
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by this.

No, they've been doing a game of tit for tat long before this cease fire officially ended. They're just letting the world know it's gone for good now.

I say let em fight it out, they obviously just have nothing better to do than try and kill each other. Nothing can seem to stop them from doing it, so just let 'em.


*waits for rants*

*waits for rants*Your callous disregard for human life is abhorrent!

...
...
:p

I think it actually lasted through its negotiated entirety.
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by this.

I would have expected a thread on the "Barack the Magic Negro" controversy, before a thread about Israel and Hamas fighting again....

I would have expected a thread on the "Barack the Magic Negro" controversy, before a thread about Israel and Hamas fighting again....

There already was one, started by Lunatic Goofballs, I believe

How dares those corrupt, warmongering Israelis retaliate against constant rocket attacks! They should have just given the Palestinians more land for them to fire rockets (intentionally aimed at civilian areas) from and just run around with their tail between their legs. Or better yet, they should just lie down and stop existing. THEN Hamas would be happy and there would be peace, rainbows, and butterflies everywhere.

War is shitty and this story proves it. The problem here rests in the hands of Hamas. They continued to rocket Israel. What did they expect?

They will continue to do this for ever as long as Iran keeps funding and supplying these fundy idiots. Wondering why Iran wont just declare war on Israel and fight them directly instead of using proxy fundies. But I suspect Iran is a bunch of pussies so I'm sure they wouldn't take on Israel directly.

How dares those corrupt, warmongering Israelis retaliate against constant rocket attacks! They should have just given the Palestinians more land for them to fire rockets (intentionally aimed at civilian areas) from and just run around with their tail between their legs. Or better yet, they should just lie down and stop existing. THEN Hamas would be happy and there would be peace, rainbows, and butterflies everywhere.

:rolleyes: Keep on dreaming that Zionists are the innocents ones. IIRC, they came and stole land which was not theirs, which caused this whole mess in the first place. Let's not forget that! Let's not forget the ghettos they have created out of Gaza, refusing to allows basic needs and supplies in there. But those poor,poor innocent Israelis are never to blame. After all, think about the Holocaust, or what ever the general emotional argument is being tossed around.

How dares those corrupt, warmongering Israelis retaliate against constant rocket attacks! They should have just given the Palestinians more land for them to fire rockets (intentionally aimed at civilian areas) from and just run around with their tail between their legs. Or better yet, they should just lie down and stop existing. THEN Hamas would be happy and there would be peace, rainbows, and butterflies everywhere.

If Israel wasn't around they would just attack the Christians in Lebanon. Oh wait they already did that. Hmm they would just end up fighting amongst themselves if there was no one else.

War is shitty and this story proves it. The problem here rests in the hands of Hamas. They continued to rocket Israel. What did they expect?

They will continue to do this for ever as long as Iran keeps funding and supplying these fundy idiots. Wondering why Iran wont just declare war on Israel and fight them directly instead of using proxy fundies. But I suspect Iran is a bunch of pussies so I'm sure they wouldn't take on Israel directly.I'd rather not directly attack a country that has the US as an ally. :p
(Regardless of what shape our Army/Navy/Air Force is in. :D)

How dares those corrupt, warmongering Israelis retaliate against constant rocket attacks! They should have just given the Palestinians more land for them to fire rockets (intentionally aimed at civilian areas) from and just run around with their tail between their legs. Or better yet, they should just lie down and stop existing. THEN Hamas would be happy and there would be peace, rainbows, and butterflies everywhere.Exactly. Well said, my good man!

War is shitty and this story proves it. The problem here rests in the hands of Hamas. They continued to rocket Israel. What did they expect?

They will continue to do this for ever as long as Iran keeps funding and supplying these fundy idiots. Wondering why Iran wont just declare war on Israel and fight them directly instead of using proxy fundies. But I suspect Iran is a bunch of pussies so I'm sure they wouldn't take on Israel directly.

The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.

:rolleyes: Keep on dreaming that Zionists are the innocents ones. IIRC, they came and stole land which was not theirs, which caused this whole mess in the first place. Let's not forget that! Let's not forget the ghettos they have created out of Gaza, refusing to allows basic needs and supplies in there. But those poor,poor innocent Israelis are never to blame. After all, think about the Holocaust, or what ever the general emotional argument is being tossed around.War. It takes two to tango.
(And war is a dance in which you can have many partners!)

Where do you go when you can't stay in a refugee camp anymore? :(

How dares those corrupt, warmongering Israelis retaliate against constant rocket attacks! They should have just given the Palestinians more land for them to fire rockets (intentionally aimed at civilian areas) from and just run around with their tail between their legs. Or better yet, they should just lie down and stop existing. THEN Hamas would be happy and there would be peace, rainbows, and butterflies everywhere.

Wow that rant came faster than I thought.

If Israel wasn't around they would just attack the Christians in Lebanon. Oh wait they already did that. Hmm they would just end up fighting amongst themselves if there was no one else.

The Lebanese Maronites made the Cross famous for blood spill, and not the type of blood spill that saves sinners. The cross is largely used in Lebanon as a war sign. One could say that Maronites are responsible for war in between themselves and the Muslims.

:rolleyes: Keep on dreaming that Zionists are the innocents ones. IIRC, they came and stole land which was not theirs, which caused this whole mess in the first place. Let's not forget that! Let's not forget the ghettos they have created out of Gaza, refusing to allows basic needs and supplies in there. But those poor,poor innocent Israelis are never to blame. After all, think about the Holocaust, or what ever the general emotional argument is being tossed around.


I blame the Arabs just as much as the Jews. They are both at fault and I am in the camp that historically Israel is the Jewish homeland. I know I should be bombed for saying that as only an infadel would say that. However that's the way I look at it.

There already was one, started by Lunatic Goofballs, I believe

Of course it would be LG. :tongue:


I have been away these last few days.

Where do you go when you can't stay in a refugee camp anymore? :(

Well Jordan and Egypt could open their borders?

Where do you go when you can't stay in a refugee camp anymore? :(A refugee fortress? Let me upgrade you! /nonsense

Well Jordan and Egypt could open their borders?

Isreal wouldn't allow it.

I blame the Arabs just as much as the Jews. They are both at fault and I am in the camp that historically Israel is the Jewish homeland. I know I should be bombed for saying that as only an infadel would say that. However that's the way I look at it.

I think it should be everyone's land or no ones land. So let them sort out their arguement with nukes...

learn to share people....The Hamas and Isreal need to go back to kindergarten. :tongue:

The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.

Well I dont believe that one bit. Since when has Israel preached total extermination of Arabs? I have heard the other way around. Just playing devils advocate here.

War. It takes two to tango.
(And war is a dance in which you can have many partners!)

And the Palestinians are the only ones in the war that have an reason to fight. They have had their lands stolen, by a declaration made by a completely irrelevant nation, around 100 years ago. I want to see any citizen of any nation say they would not fight an aggressor coming and stealing their homes. If a stranger broke into your house and said it was his, what would you do? Call the police. But what if the police refused to do anything? I would hope you would stand up for your family and your home.

Where do you go when you can't stay in a refugee camp anymore? :(

The grave, evidently.

. They have had their lands stolen, by a declaration made by a completely irrelevant nation, around 100 years ago. I want to see any citizen of any nation say they would not fight an aggressor coming and stealing their homes. If a stranger broke into your house and said it was his, what would you do? Call the police. But what if the police refused to do anything? I would hope you would stand up for your family and your home.

I am all for an independent Palestinian state. Suicide bombings and rocket and mortar attacks are certainly not the way to get it. Israel gave back Gaza, only to have it taken over by Hamas.

The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.

oh come the fuck on. Where is this genocide that's supposedly happening? Where's this call for destruction of Arabs? Why are there a quarter million arabic muslims living in jersualem? Why is the population of Palestine rising? There is no push for extermination of Palestinians. There's no desire by any sector of Israel worth any political power for the wiping of Arabs from the Earth.

It doesn't exist, and your crazed, frothing at the mouth instance that it does calls into question your honesty, and your willingness to confront your own, blatantly obvious, biases.

And the Palestinians are the only ones in the war that have an reason to fight. They have had their lands stolen, by a declaration made by a completely irrelevant nation, around 100 years ago. I want to see any citizen of any nation say they would not fight an aggressor coming and stealing their homes. If a stranger broke into your house and said it was his, what would you do? Call the police. But what if the police refused to do anything? I would hope you would stand up for your family and your home. Whoa, wait, what? (Alliteration?) Er, I think you have your facts just a little wrong there, Sparky.

I sense a good old fashioned Israel v. Hamas rant fest coming on.....

Well I dont believe that one bit. Since when has Israel preached total extermination of Arabs? I have heard the other way around. Just playing devils advocate here.

Just post some quotes from the Israeli government:

We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all
fours."
Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."
David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.



"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

Look at how the Israelis treat their own Arab citizens. I had to give a presentation on Israeli Arabs, and the stigmas placed on them were next to Jim Crow laws for the Negro in America, or for the (ironically) Jew in early Nazi Germany. Its clear that the Israeli gov't only want their own kind in that area. They are among the foremost of the world's terrorists.

I sense a good old fashioned Israel v. Hamas rant fest coming on.....I just want to know where this magical 100 year thing came from. o_0;
Unless I'm off on a completely different subject. Or I'm misinformed, or something. I have no idea, but I don't know where this 100 year thing came from.

I just want to know where this magical 100 year thing came from. o_0;
Unless I'm off on a completely different subject. Or I'm misinformed, or something. I have no idea, but I don't know where this 100 year thing came from.

It came out of someones ass.

Whoa, wait, what? (Alliteration?) Er, I think you have your facts just a little wrong there, Sparky.

What gave Britain the right to make the Balfour Declaration? Or for the UN in 1948 to carve up the lands giving Zionists, Palestinian lands?

Edit, by 100 years ago, I was refering to Balfour. It was 1917. Maybe I worded the sentence poorly?

I like how you posts quotes from 1948, from governments that are no longer in power.

Since then Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and the West Bank. I strongly doubt they would have done this if they wanted all the land to themselves and the Arabs out.

What gave Britain the right to make the Balfour Declaration? Or for the UN in 1948 to carve up the lands giving Zionists, Palestinian lands?

Edit, by 100 years ago, I was refering to Balfour. It was 1917. Maybe I worded the sentence poorly?

Please, just end your losing argument now...

oh come the fuck on. Where is this genocide that's supposedly happening? Where's this call for destruction of Arabs? Why are there a quarter million arabic muslims living in jersualem? Why is the population of Palestine rising? There is no push for extermination of Palestinians. There's no desire by any sector of Israel worth any political power for the wiping of Arabs from the Earth.

It doesn't exist, and your crazed, frothing at the mouth instance that it does calls into question your honesty, and your willingness to confront your own, blatantly obvious, biases.

Right I am sure that attacking citizens of another people group, while sending your own people into take over their land through settlements, as well as collective punishment, and denying basic rights, doesn't count as genocide?

And watch your language when you speak with me. I don't tolerate the rudeness.

Please, just end your losing argument now...

What's there to lose? Balfour was made by the Brits promising the Jews a homeland in Palestine. The vote to create the homeland, happened in 1948.

What gave Britain the right to make the Balfour Declaration? Or for the UN in 1948 to carve up the lands giving Zionists, Palestinian lands?
:rolleyes:What gives any country or body of countries the right to do anything?

:rolleyes:What gives any country or body of countries the right to do anything?

Power. What else?

More recent quotes:

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."
-- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.


"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.


These are people who are still involved with politics in Israel.

Power. What else?

Does that make it any more or less right?

:rolleyes:What gives any country or body of countries the right to do anything?

Power. What else?

Snazzy flag design. *nod*

Okay, if you want to play that game.

* Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant states the following: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem).

Snazzy flag design. *nod*

I think of eddie izzard when you say that.

I think of eddie izzard when you say that.

So did I. :)

So did I. :)

No Flag. No Country. Can't have one.

Right I am sure that attacking citizens of another people group, while sending your own people into take over their land through settlements, as well as collective punishment, and denying basic rights, doesn't count as genocide?

No, actually, it does not. Words have meanings. The meaning of the word "genocide" is the systematic killing of a cultural or ethnic group,for the purpose of eliminating, or significantly reducing the numbers of, that group.

So no, it doesn't count as genocide. Mainly because that's not what the word means, not even in the slightest. If you wish to continue using that word, I suggest you learn what it means

And watch your language when you speak with me. I don't tolerate the rudeness.

If you feel my comments are in violation of the rules of this forum, report them. Other than that, your particular sensibilities are really not my concern.

Okay, if you want to play that game.

* Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant states the following: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem).

And I do not support Hamas. I support Palestine, as its own state, over all that territory. The only thing I have to say about Hamas is that they are the only ones with enough testicular fortitude to fight against the Israeli oppression.

My favorite Israel/Hamas moment was when Sharon ordered Helicopters to destroy a Hamas caravan of their new appointed leader in day rush-hour traffic. I will give Israel credit for having some balls to pull off a stunt like that and succeed. Kudos to them.

And I do not support Hamas. I support Palestine, as its own state, over all that territory. The only thing I have to say about Hamas is that they are the only ones with enough testicular fortitude to fight against the Israeli oppression.

Through terrorist acts?

Really, for the Palestinians, diplomacy is the best option. Otherwise they get bombed/invaded or etc.

Every time there seems to be progress, its usually thrown out the window by Hamas or the PLO.

Does that make it any more or less right?No, it doesn't. Which makes your whole point worthless. If power doesn't make it right or wrong, the Assyrians, Sassanian, Romans, Byzantine, and Muslims all have equal claim to the land. They went to war over this particular piece of land, too. Oh, and don't forget the Crusaders. Do the French, Italian, and British deserve the piece of land that they fought over, too? :rolleyes:

Snazzy flag design. *nod*Good one. :p

No, it doesn't. Which makes your whole point worthless. If power doesn't make it right or wrong, the Assyrians, Sassanian, Romans, Byzantine, and Muslims all have equal claim to the land. They went to war over this particular piece of land, too. Oh, and don't forget the Crusaders. Do the French, Italian, and British deserve the piece of land that they fought over, too? :rolleyes:




Agreed.


Hopefully this ends the arguement...

...though it most likely won't.

:rolleyes:

No, actually, it does not. Words have meanings. The meaning of the word "genocide" is the systematic killing of a cultural or ethnic group,for the purpose of eliminating, or significantly reducing the numbers of, that group.

So no, it doesn't count as genocide. Mainly because that's not what the word means, not even in the slightest. If you wish to continue using that word, I suggest you learn what it means

What in Sam-hill is happening in Palestine? Documentation of them being starved to death. Documentation of innocents dying en-masse. If the Israelis are not doing genocide, then they are at LEAST breaking Geneva, by using collective punishment. They are killing non-combatants which have no viable ties to the warring factions, such as these 5 daughers, or many of the school children killed. Israel is all about collective punishment. Check any of its wars. Look at Lebanon. They intended to give a blow to Hezbollah, but instead wreaked havoc on Lebanese citizens that had nothing to do with the Hezzies. Israel is break law after law, and you are defending them?



If you feel my comments are in violation of the rules of this forum, report them. Other than that, your particular sensibilities are really not my concern.
Some people are disrespectful. Oh well, that is your choice.

Through terrorist acts?

Really, for the Palestinians, diplomacy is the best option. Otherwise they get bombed/invaded or etc.

Every time there seems to be progress, its usually thrown out the window by Hamas or the PLO.


Terrorist acts? If lobbing a mortar into a town is considered terrorist, then so is dropping bombs on refugee camps, right? No, you all say that what Israel does is justifiable because its a military tactic. If that is the case, then what Hamas does is just as justifiable.

My favorite Israel/Hamas moment was when Sharon ordered Helicopters to destroy a Hamas caravan of their new appointed leader in day rush-hour traffic. I will give Israel credit for having some balls to pull off a stunt like that and succeed. Kudos to them.

Mine was when Israeli helicopters fired rockets to kill an eighty year old blind deaf man in a wheelchair while he was at his morning prayers. Clearly he was a very dangerous man and I am amazed that Israel took no casualties in that daring raid. *nod*

Terrorist acts? If lobbing a mortar into a town is considered terrorist, then so is dropping bombs on refugee camps, right? No, you all say that what Israel does is justifiable because its a military tactic. If that is the case, then what Hamas does is just as justifiable.

And suicide bombing is not terrorism?

Mine was when Israeli helicopters fired rockets to kill an eighty year old blind deaf man in a wheelchair while he was at his morning prayers. Clearly he was a very dangerous man and I am amazed that Israel took no casualties in that daring raid. *nod*

Was that under Sharon as well? That man had some gienorums brass balls.

And suicide bombing is not terrorism?Depends on the context, I think. Japan used it during WWII, and I'm sure those were military maneuvers.

:rolleyes: Keep on dreaming that Zionists are the innocents ones. IIRC, they came and stole land which was not theirs, which caused this whole mess in the first place.
No. When it started, the Zionists had no armed force, were purchasing land and living in the homes they built. Those who did not like the immigrants would burn them out or murder them, just like racist thugs do when blacks, or nowadays often Arabs, move into the "wrong" neighborhood. After the British took over and encouraged further Jewish immigration, the Palestinian leadership escalated to more systematic murders, including Jews who were not recent immigrants but had been there for centuries. The Palestinians allied with the losing side in World War II, and rejected the two-state solution that was offered afterwards to attempt a war of extermination, which they lost, quite deservedly, losing a lot of territory in the process. Instead of getting on with their lives like every other batch of refugees from that unfortunate time, they refused to acknowledge defeat, and have continued this fruitless war, losing more and more and more, and I don't feel very sorry for them because they have chosen this.
The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.
Extermination??? The Palestinians are multiplying faster than any other ethnic group on the planet, since they live off the charity of the world and do not bother to consider whether they can afford to have nine children: they expect someone else to feed all their kids. And why would I want to pay to expand the number of Palestinians? Have Palestinians contributed anything to the world except novel forms of destruction?
Right I am sure that attacking citizens of another people group, while sending your own people into take over their land through settlements, as well as collective punishment, and denying basic rights, doesn't count as genocide?
Of course it doesn't: words have meaning. Punching someone in the face, stealing his car, and running over his dog, although very hostile actions, do not count as "murder".
And watch your language when you speak with me. I don't tolerate the rudeness.
Then go somewhere else. No-one here is subject to your orders.

Depends on the context, I think. Japan used it during WWII, and I'm sure those were military maneuvers.

Good Point. You could even take it further back to the old suicide squads of the dark ages...going into battle they knew they could not win, just to take down as many of the enemy as they could in the process.

Terrorist acts? If lobbing a mortar into a town is considered terrorist, then so is dropping bombs on refugee camps, right? No, you all say that what Israel does is justifiable because its a military tactic. If that is the case, then what Hamas does is just as justifiable.

Those aren't refugee camps.

They're referred to as such, and they started as such. Nowadays they're just small cities.

Good Point. You could even take it further back to the old suicide squads of the dark ages...going into battle they knew they could not win, just to take down as many of the enemy as they could in the process.

Okay. I give you that. Terrorism is usually define by purposely murdering civilians and cause fear, Japanese planes were used against American warships, not civilians.

And suicide bombing is not terrorism?

You have missed the point.

Say I walk up to you and punch you. You would punch me back. Do I have any right to complain that you punched me? Does it give me any more of a right to pull out a gun and shoot you? How about shoot a person trying to stop me from killing you?

Israel pulled the first punch with their Zionist take over. Palestine punched back to defend themselves, and since then Israel has been shooting at them with a gun, and shooting anyone else who has tried to help Palestine in the fight, even peace protesters and activists.

Just as I would understand and support a person who punches someone back, I understand and support Palestine. Israel has no legitimate position.

Was that under Sharon as well? That man had some gienorums brass balls.

Yep. Here's the Wiki on the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin

Good Point. You could even take it further back to the old suicide squads of the dark ages...going into battle they knew they could not win, just to take down as many of the enemy as they could in the process.

Agreed. The only reason a suicide bombing is a terrorist act is because it is targetted at civilians and/or is not part of a recognized war.

I'm for a UN enforced complete embargo of both Israel and the Palestinan territories.

These two groups need to see that the rest of the world doesn't give a shit whether or not they kill each other over a scrap of desert. The only reason this continues is because both sides have backers who reside outside the country...eliminate that support via international consensus, and I'd bet both sides would quickly step up to the negotiating table.

Instead, it's just more proxy bullshit. Until a serious resolution comes up at the UN that equally condemns the actions of both sides, and actually DOES something about the issue, flare-ups in the conflict will continue.

Both sides have a point, unfortunately you have to pick one of the sides.

Agreed. The only reason a suicide bombing is a terrorist act is because it is targetted at civilians and/or is not part of a recognized war.

Exactly.

You have missed the point.

Say I walk up to you and punch you. You would punch me back. Do I have any right to complain that you punched me? Does it give me any more of a right to pull out a gun and shoot you? How about shoot a person trying to stop me from killing you?

Israel pulled the first punch with their Zionist take over. Palestine punched back to defend themselves, and since then Israel has been shooting at them with a gun, and shooting anyone else who has tried to help Palestine in the fight, even peace protesters and activists.

Just as I would understand and support a person who punches someone back, I understand and support Palestine. Israel has no legitimate position.

Israel, as a state, has a legitimate position defending its citizens from attack. Whether or not that land rightfully belongs to Israel or not, hardly matters in that context.

No. When it started, the Zionists had no armed force, were purchasing land and living in the homes they built. Those who did not like the immigrants would burn them out or murder them, just like racist thugs do when blacks, or nowadays often Arabs, move into the "wrong" neighborhood. After the British took over and encouraged further Jewish immigration, the Palestinian leadership escalated to more systematic murders, including Jews who were not recent immigrants but had been there for centuries. The Palestinians allied with the losing side in World War II, and rejected the two-state solution that was offered afterwards to attempt a war of extermination, which they lost, quite deservedly, losing a lot of territory in the process. Instead of getting on with their lives like every other batch of refugees from that unfortunate time, they refused to acknowledge defeat, and have continued this fruitless war, losing more and more and more, and I don't feel very sorry for them because they have chosen this.

Extermination??? The Palestinians are multiplying faster than any other ethnic group on the planet, since they live off the charity of the world and do not bother to consider whether they can afford to have nine children: they expect someone else to feed all their kids. And why would I want to pay to expand the number of Palestinians? Have Palestinians contributed anything to the world except novel forms of destruction?

Of course it doesn't: words have meaning. Punching someone in the face, stealing his car, and running over his dog, although very hostile actions, do not count as "murder". Oh prove it. I can show you the pictures of dead civilians, and shanty towns. I want proof of Palestinians living oh so well in their luxuries. You are spewing bold-face lies and you know it.


Then go somewhere else. No-one here is subject to your orders.

You are right! No one is subject to my orders. But they must follow forum rules. PG language, I believe is supposed to be upheld on here. I don't think using the f-word is pg.

You have missed the point.

Say I walk up to you and punch you. You would punch me back. Do I have any right to complain that you punched me? Does it give me any more of a right to pull out a gun and shoot you? How about shoot a person trying to stop me from killing you?

Israel pulled the first punch with their Zionist take over. Palestine punched back to defend themselves, and since then Israel has been shooting at them with a gun, and shooting anyone else who has tried to help Palestine in the fight, even peace protesters and activists.

Just as I would understand and support a person who punches someone back, I understand and support Palestine. Israel has no legitimate position.

That was quite certainly true - in 1948.

I'm sorry, but time does change things. Israel today is the recognized nation, and Palestine isn't. Which means the Israelis have every right to continue living there, and to strike against their attackers.

Okay. I give you that. Terrorism is usually define by purposely murdering civilians and cause fear, Japanese planes were used against American warships, not civilians.

Terrorism is an entity not easily understood.

Yep. Here's the Wiki on the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin

Wow. It takes balls to blow up a guy in a wheel chair....
(actual wiki pic)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg/200px-Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg

Terrorism is an entity not easily understood.



Wow. It takes balls to blow up a guy in a wheel chair....
(actual wiki pic)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg/200px-Sheikahmedyassin300.jpg

Hey! He's probably killing a puppy under that blanket!

Hey! He's probably killing a puppy under that blanket!

or having sex with it....and then killing it.

Just as I would understand and support a person who punches someone back, I understand and support Palestine. Israel has no legitimate position. If you take it your way, the Israelis have every right. They've been repressed for centuries by invading nations. The Romans, the Sassanians, The Byzantine, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Crusaders, the Mamluk Sultanate, and the Ottoman Empire. (The Ottomans ruling from 1516 until the 20th century.)

That was quite certainly true - in 1948.

I'm sorry, but time does change things. Israel today is the recognized nation, and Palestine isn't. Which means the Israelis have every right to continue living there, and to strike against their attackers.

Going back to my example of someone taking over a persons house. If someone took over your house, had children, died, would their children have a right to the house?

Going back to my example of someone taking over a persons house. If someone took over your house, had children, died, would their children have a right to the house?

Yes since their name was on the deed.

Going back to my example of someone taking over a persons house. If someone took over your house, had children, died, would their children have a right to the house?

Yes. Common Law rights.

If you take it your way, the Israelis have every right. They've been repressed for centuries by invading nations. The Romans, the Sassanians, The Byzantine, the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Crusaders, the Mamluk Sultanate, and the Ottoman Empire. (The Ottomans ruling from 1516 until the 20th century.)

Actually the caananites would have a right to the land ;)

Actually the caananites would have a right to the land ;)

Ah, but now find some Caananites! :D

Ah, but now find some Caananites! :D

I think one tried to sell me auto insurance on the phone the other day.

Yes since their name was on the deed.

NO! My name was on the deed, and someone took over the house with out my permission, and the cops wouldn't stop them. That was the scenario. What right do their kids have?

Yes. Common Law rights.

And I have had run in with common law rights. You can go to the court system to get them evicted eventually.

But again, if no one does anything, where does that leave the person who originally owned the house? They are without home?

Okay, I am going to bed. My blood pressure is probably through the roof. :p We shall continue this in the morning!

NO! My name was on the deed, and someone took over the house with out my permission, and the cops wouldn't stop them. That was the scenario. What right do their kids have?



And I have had run in with common law rights. You can go to the court system to get them evicted eventually.

But again, if no one does anything, where does that leave the person who originally owned the house? They are without home?

If no one does something - yeah, pretty much.

It's actually happened on occasion in Britain with squatters who've stayed long enough.

Actually the Canaanites would have a right to the land ;)Thank you for proving my point. Whoever has the force to hold the land owns it.

NO! My name was on the deed, and someone took over the house with out my permission, and the cops wouldn't stop them. That was the scenario. What right do their kids have?


The right to own the house.

Thank you for proving my point. Whoever has the force to hold the land owns it.

That is the way the world has always worked.

How many more civilians must die before the west says something?

How many more civilians must die?

Casualties of war my friend.

How many more civilians must die?

None. But more will die, because war will never end.

That is the way the world has always worked.Exactly.

How many more civilians must die before the west says something?WWIII levels, maybe? I have no real idea.

Casualties of war my friend.

how is that aceptable?

how is that aceptable?It isn't, but you have seen what happens when the US, in particular, gets involved in the Middle East, right?

how is that aceptable?

Because it has always been acceptable. Do you think when the romans conquered or the Crusaders conquered that they only killed those who fought back?

how is that aceptable?

Because, no matter what we like to think, we really just don't care that much about people who are far away or not like us.

Because, no matter what we like to think, we really just don't care that much about people who are far away or not like us.

Exactly, good example is Pol Pot. The man killed millions of his own countrymen, and he died under house arrest...

Because it has always been acceptable. Do you think when the romans conquered or the Crusaders conquered that they only killed those who fought back?"Kill a Roman Citizen, and the Romans will kill your country."
Damn, I wish I could remember who said that.

Because, no matter what we like to think, we really just don't care that much about people who are far away or not like us.

we care enough to take there oil and go to war illlegally in iraq and afghanistan

"Kill a Roman Citizen, and the Romans will kill your country."
Damn, I wish I could remember who said that.

The U.S. likes to stick to the same creed.

we care enough to take there oil and go to war illlegally in iraq and afghanistan

Not illegally. No one has the power to say whether a war was legal or illegal.

Nor was it about oil, though in Iraq's case that was certainly a contributory factor.

Not illegally. No one has the power to say whether a war was legal or illegal.

Nor was it about oil, though in Iraq's case that was certainly a contributory factor.

so were all just supposed to let innocent people die?

so were all just supposed to let innocent people die?

Comes down to two questions:

1) Can we effectively stop it?

2) Should we get involved?

Since the answer to 1) is "Unlikely" and the answer to 2) is "Probably not, we'd just make the situation worse", well..?

so were all just supposed to let innocent people die?

People cannot control life, no matter how hard they try.

Comes down to two questions:

1) Can we effectively stop it?

2) Should we get involved?

Since the answer to 1) is "Unlikely" and the answer to 2) is "Probably not, we'd just make the situation worse", well..?

the government should atleast try to stop the deaths of civilians though, otherwise what right does the government have to say anything about any deaths, when the government supports civilian deaths what hope is there for democracy?

the government should atleast try to stop the deaths of civilians though, otherwise what right does the government have to say anything about any deaths, when the government supports civilian deaths what hope is there for democracy?

The deaths of thousands or millions of people outside the US has little or no effect on US democracy. The same is true for Oz, Britain, France, NZ, Germany...

Also, there is a difference between support and indifference.

The U.S. likes to stick to the same creed.Yes, I suppose we do. Japan is the glaring example.

the government should atleast try to stop the deaths of civilians though, otherwise what right does the government have to say anything about any deaths, when the government supports civilian deaths what hope is there for democracy?

Which government, and what do you propose they do?

Which government, and what do you propose they do?

the government here for a start (UK) and they should put pressure on israel to stop and support UN sanctions against them if neccessary as well as supporting a peace procces in the region

Yes, I suppose we do. Japan is the glaring example.

WWI even a bigger example. Didn't we enter that one because the germans sank the lusitania that only killed about 8 americans on board?

the government here for a start (UK) and they should put pressure on israel to stop and support UN sanctions against them if neccessary as well as supporting a peace procces in the region

Okay. Now, how do we put pressure on Hamas to stop their rockets?

No, actually, it does not. Words have meanings. The meaning of the word "genocide" is the systematic killing of a cultural or ethnic group,for the purpose of eliminating, or significantly reducing the numbers of, that group.

So no, it doesn't count as genocide. Mainly because that's not what the word means, not even in the slightest. If you wish to continue using that word, I suggest you learn what it means



If you feel my comments are in violation of the rules of this forum, report them. Other than that, your particular sensibilities are really not my concern.

By attempting to avoid the word genocide, all you're doing is attempting to avoid it's negative connotations. In reality, no one cares whether or not it fits the technical definitions of the word. It's like when people are unsure when to determine whether the economy is in a "recession" or when the US government didn't want to call the situation in Iraq a "Civil War". I understand why you're doing it and what the purpose of, but it doesn't void the fact that Israel's response to the threat Hamas presents is disproportionate. This is still something to discuss.

Hamas has killed like 1 innocent person, Israel has killed many (all referring to the current situation). Hamas has rockets and what is comparatively Stone Age technology. Israel has some of the most cutting edge military technology in the world, it has guided missiles, "smart bombs" (an oxymoron), bombers, and tanks. You would expect a military with technology to be able to do their mission with less civilian damage (than their comparatively technologically inferior foes), but the truth is completely the reverse. Israel is unable to control its force, as evident in its actions these days and in Lebanon (when they killed like twice (and a half) as many civilians/combatants than Hezbollah). It's just fucked up. Israel shows it clearly regards Palestinians as lesser beings than Israelis. People can claim that it's the state's job to protect Israeli lives, but at the point where the state makes the value of one Israeli ten times that of a Palestinian, there's something wrong.

Of course, I'm not trying to wash out the fact that what Hamas is doing is wrong as well. They are to blame to some extent for the current suffering of the Palestinian people. But what tires me is people claiming that Israel holds the "moral high ground" (not that you're necessarily doing this, I'm kind of just springing of the genocide comment).

Okay. Now, how do we put pressure on Hamas to stop their rockets?

by plugging their launchers with wet towels?

Okay. Now, how do we put pressure on Hamas to stop their rockets?

push forward with the peace procces?, we certainly cant do nothing

the government here for a start (UK) and they should put pressure on israel to stop and support UN sanctions against them if neccessary as well as supporting a peace procces in the region

So punish the Israeli's for their actions, but do nothing to the Palestinians for theirs?
Yeah, that's really going to work... :rolleyes:

WWI even a bigger example. Didn't we enter that one because the germans sank the lusitania that only killed about 8 americans on board?I meant along the culture/country destruction lines.

I meant along the culture/country destruction lines.

Ah. I understand now.;)

So punish the Israeli's for their actions, but do nothing to the Palestinians for theirs?
Yeah, that's really going to work... :rolleyes:

thats not what im saying at all, i think we need to find a way to get the peace procces going and that would involve the palestinians

People cannot control life, no matter how hard they try.

True, but it doesn't justify lethargy. There's always criticism and action to be had. But I agree, we have to recognize that we can't control everything, we can't build a "perfect world". But that's not a reason not to try to make things better, even if the gesture is hopeless and doomed to failure.

push forward with the peace procces?, we certainly cant do nothing

On the contrary, that may be the best thing we can do.

I like to compare the Israel/Palestine problem of today with the Free/Slave problem of 19th Century US history. In both cases, patchwork solutions and band-aid fixes just kept the problem boiling along, getting worse and not better, for half a century or more.

And we all know how the Free/Slave probelm ended. BUT IT ENDED.

Sometimes, the hardest thing, but the RIGHT thing, to do, is to do nothing. Let the problem finally resolve one way or the other.

On the contrary, that may be the best thing we can do.

I like to compare the Israel/Palestine problem of today with the Free/Slave problem of 19th Century US history. In both cases, patchwork solutions and band-aid fixes just kept the problem boiling along, getting worse and not better, for half a century or more.

And we all know how the Free/Slave probelm ended. BUT IT ENDED.

Sometimes, the hardest thing, but the RIGHT thing, to do, is to do nothing. Let the problem finally resolve one way or the other.

and how many people have to die for your resolution? thousands? hundreds of thousands?

Say I walk up to you and punch you. You would punch me back. Do I have any right to complain that you punched me? Does it give me any more of a right to pull out a gun and shoot you? How about shoot a person trying to stop me from killing you?
Precisely. It is the Palestinians who chose the path of violence, and they have no right to complain that it has ended up badly for them.
Israel pulled the first punch with their Zionist take over.
That is the exact opposite of the truth. From the 1850's through the 1930's, the Jews were immigrating peacefully and legally, and the murders were entirely from the Palestinian side.
Going back to my example of someone taking over a persons house. If someone took over your house, had children, died, would their children have a right to the house?
And if the children die, do the grandchildren still have the right? Careful now: unless you set some statute of limitation here, you have proven the Israeli case. For there is no question that it was all the Jews' land, and that the Palestinians only got it because the Jews were forcefully dispossessed.

There is obviously nothing that can stop the Hamas from fighting Israel (or vice versa) if it was possible then something productive would have been done in the last 50 years they have been fighting.

and how many people have to die for your resolution? thousands? hundreds of thousands?

How many are dying now? How many have died over the past sixty years?

Resolution means no more will die. Continuation means that the number who will die can be near infinite.

On the contrary, that may be the best thing we can do.

I like to compare the Israel/Palestine problem of today with the Free/Slave problem of 19th Century US history. In both cases, patchwork solutions and band-aid fixes just kept the problem boiling along, getting worse and not better, for half a century or more.

And we all know how the Free/Slave probelm ended. BUT IT ENDED.

Sometimes, the hardest thing, but the RIGHT thing, to do, is to do nothing. Let the problem finally resolve one way or the other.

That's not how the problem ended. Continued attempts at moderation lead to dissatisfaction from both sides. The election of Lincoln, who promised to stop the extension of slavery to new territories, was feared by the South (unrightly, at least at the time) as the end to their beloved institution of slavery. This situation ultimately lead to a war. And if that war had not been fought, blacks would still be in chains.

Furthermore, post-Reconstruction, exactly what you ask for happened. Nothing. All the progressive laws were cut. Impositions were put on blacks, segregation and Jim Crow became the norm. And no one did anything. They let politics play out, and for almost a century, blacks were almost completely repressed like they were pre-Civil War. It took social conscience and activism in the 60s for a real change to occur.

And of course, there's still shit to do. But that just goes to show that the Israel-Palestine issue won't be having a quick resolution either.

But ultimately, inaction is the worst action (unless you intend to do something that enflames the situation, but there's been more than enough discussion on the issue to warrant a step forward).

How many are dying now? How many have died over the past sixty years?

Resolution means no more will die. Continuation means that the number who will die can be near infinite.

death does not justify death and i am not advocating things staying the same, im saying we should pursue peace

That's not how the problem ended. Continued attempts at moderation lead to dissatisfaction from both sides. The election of Lincoln, who promised to stop the extension of slavery to new territories, was feared by the South (unrightly, at least at the time) as the end to their beloved institution of slavery. This situation ultimately lead to a war. And if that war had not been fought, blacks would still be in chains.

Furthermore, post-Reconstruction, exactly what you ask for happened. Nothing. All the progressive laws were cut. Impositions were put on blacks, segregation and Jim Crow became the norm. And no one did anything. They let politics play out, and for almost a century, blacks were almost completely repressed like they were pre-Civil War. It took social conscience and activism in the 60s for a real change to occur.

And of course, there's still shit to do. But that just goes to show that the Israel-Palestine issue won't be having a quick resolution either.

But ultimately, inaction is the worst action (unless you intend to do something that enflames the situation, but there's been more than enough discussion on the issue to warrant a step forward).

Remember that reconstruction was never completed. And yes, Jim Crow was good example of when people SHOULD have acted, but didn't.

But was the 3/5ths compromise really necessary? The Mason/Dixon Act? The Pursuit Act? Or did they just wallpaper over a problem without addressing it?

Surely it's better to deal with the underlying cause than treating mere symptoms?

death does not justify death and i am not advocating things staying the same, im saying we should pursue peace

Yet, every attempt at such prior to this has produced more death.

...

That is the exact opposite of the truth. From the 1850's through the 1930's, the Jews were immigrating peacefully and legally, and the murders were entirely from the Palestinian side.

And if the children die, do the grandchildren still have the right? Careful now: unless you set some statute of limitation here, you have proven the Israeli case. For there is no question that it was all the Jews' land, and that the Palestinians only got it because the Jews were forcefully dispossessed.

Well, this is the sort of stuff that differs on both sides.

On the Jewish side, that's how the story will be told.

On the Arab side, it will be the opposite. The Jews will have come illegally, stealing land and resources, displacing Arabs, etc.

There's no way to really prove who started all this shit, why bother?

Remember that reconstruction was never completed. And yes, Jim Crow was good example of when people SHOULD have acted, but didn't.

But was the 3/5ths compromise really necessary? The Mason/Dixon Act? The Pursuit Act? Or did they just wallpaper over a problem without addressing it?

Surely it's better to deal with the underlying cause than treating mere symptoms?

Oh indeed. I addressed that. At the very end of my post I said that inaction is only preferrable when the solution worsens the situation. These are the sort of solutions that Congressmen come up with in a couple weeks/months in an attempt to avoid war and save their political power. But the conflict has been raging for 50 years, and their has been discourse aimed at finding a solution for as long.

And what is the underlying cause here? And how will it be treated by not acting?

death does not justify death and i am not advocating things staying the same, im saying we should pursue peace

But how? All you have suggested in concrete terms is UN sanctions against Israel, which no matter how much you try to deny it is punishing Israel for their actions and doing nothing to the Palestinians for theirs.

But how? All you have suggested in concrete terms is UN sanctions against Israel, which no matter how much you try to deny it is punishing Israel for their actions and doing nothing to the Palestinians for theirs.

any peace procces probably will envolve action against the palestinians, i would have thought that was obvious, a proper peace procces would take action against both sides and for both sides in order to find a peacefull resolution to the conflict between them

Surely it's better to deal with the underlying cause than treating mere symptoms?

Maybe, but there are several causes here. Both want land. Both (at least the one's in power) don't want to share. Both are all too happy to keep hitting each other, but one is disproportionately weaker than the other.

The solution is to make the other side strong enough that the very onset of conflict will result in the utter and complete ruin of both sides, no matter what happens.

Either they all learn to get along, or they all die, no exceptions, no survivors. Fear of extinction should have them moving along swimmingly soon enough (at least openly).

Whatever happens, there will be peace of a sorts, the only difference is whether all those holy sites so important to the Jews/Muslims/Christians become irradiated wastelands or not.

Oh indeed. I addressed that. At the very end of my post I said that inaction is only preferrable when the solution worsens the situation. These are the sort of solutions that Congressmen come up with in a couple weeks/months in an attempt to avoid war and save their political power. But the conflict has been raging for 50 years, and their has been discourse aimed at finding a solution for as long.

And what is the underlying cause here? And how will it be treated by not acting?

The way I see it, the underlying problem here is two armed forces willing to kill the other. The reasons for the conflict no longer matter, even to them.

Let them destroy each other. If HAMAS loses, indisputably and totally, then perhaps the Palestinians will honestly seek peace. If the Israeli military is indisputably defeated, Palestine will become a sovereign state, and Israel will have to seek peace with it's new neighbour.

At the very least, it will end the current situation. Given the current situation is a no-win scenario for EVERYBODY, I can't see that as a bad thing.

There's no way to really prove who started all this shit, why bother?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Germany bombed Poland first; Poland did not bomb Germany first; Japan bombed America first; America did not bomb Japan first.
It was in 1937 that radicals on the Jewish side (at first called "Lehi" or "Irgun", morphing into the "Likud" party after independence) started "retaliatory" (read: "terrorist") attacks against Arab civilians. But Palestinian killings of Jewish civilians had been going on, completely one-sidedly, for decades before that.
I don't think "who started it?" is the best question to be asking ("where do we go from here?" is more useful), but for those who do ask it: THE PALESTINIANS STARTED IT, and that is a matter of fact, not opinion. I never let the pro-Palestinian side get away with pretending otherwise. The occupation started in response to terrorist attacks, and not the reverse.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Germany bombed Poland first; Poland did not bomb Germany first; Japan bombed America first; America did not bomb Japan first.
It was in 1937 that radicals on the Jewish side (at first called "Lehi" or "Irgun", morphing into the "Likud" party after independence) started "retaliatory" (read: "terrorist") attacks against Arab civilians. But Palestinian killings of Jewish civilians had been going on, completely one-sidedly, for decades before that.
I don't think "who started it?" is the best question to be asking ("where do we go from here?" is more useful), but for those who do ask it: THE PALESTINIANS STARTED IT, and that is a matter of fact, not opinion. I never let the pro-Palestinian side get away with pretending otherwise. The occupation started in response to terrorist attacks, and not the reverse.

Prove it. Just because your grandmother says so doesn't make it so. How do you know the first killing, the first theft, the first conflict was started by a Palestinian? You don't. It's not something that can be conclusively proved, unless you have some killer evidence/study on the subject.

And even then, it's all irrelevent. As long as both sides believe their own truth, the reality doesn't matter one bit.

So again, it's pointless.

Okay. Now, how do we put pressure on Hamas to stop their rockets?

It's not going to be easy after the last 50 years, but the best plan would be integration. A combined nation not separated into jew sections and arab sections with one government and one security force. Not only would it make it impossible for organizations like Hamas to target jews without killing palestinians alike, but it would allow for the criminalization of terrorism. Instead of being assassinated in assaults that kill suspected and innocent alike, militants would be arrested, tried and if guilty, convicted. That's what civilized nations do.

The way I see it, the underlying problem here is two armed forces willing to kill the other. The reasons for the conflict no longer matter, even to them.

Let them destroy each other. If HAMAS loses, indisputably and totally, then perhaps the Palestinians will honestly seek peace. If the Israeli military is indisputably defeated, Palestine will become a sovereign state, and Israel will have to seek peace with it's new neighbour.

At the very least, it will end the current situation. Given the current situation is a no-win scenario for EVERYBODY, I can't see that as a bad thing.

And how will Hamas be destroyed indisputably? The death of every Palestinian?

And how will Hamas be destroyed indisputably? The death of every Palestinian?

Every single Arab Muslim is genetically programmed to be a fanatical terrorist and only by eradicating each and every one of them will there be any real hope of peace in the Middle East...

... or so the most extreme of Israeli supporters would have you believe.

That's what civilized nations do.

Here's your problem.

How do you know the first killing, the first theft, the first conflict was started by a Palestinian? You don't.
Yes I do. Just because you are ignorant of the history doesn't mean that everybody is.
It's not something that can be conclusively proved, unless you have some killer evidence/study on the subject.
There is plenty of historical literature. I will point to you to some, if you actually care, but you might try just Googling "Nebi Musa" or "Hebron" for some of the one-sided violence in the 20's.
As long as both sides believe their own truth, the reality doesn't matter one bit.

I am perfectly aware that lies will continue to be told and believed. And I agree with you that "who started it?" is rather a pointless question now anyway. I still don't leave the lie unanswered, however.

Here's your problem.

Yep. :(

I blame the disturbing lack of tacos.

Let's kill 'em all and let Imaginary Friend(s) sort 'em out.

Let's kill 'em all and let Imaginary Friend(s) sort 'em out.

That really isn't fair to Imaginary Friend(s) is it? He/They had nothing to do with this.

That really isn't fair to Imaginary Friend(s) is it? He/They had nothing to do with this.
Well, IMO the whole conflict originates from two Imaginary Friends having differing opinions on who the land belongs to in the first place...

Well, IMO the whole conflict originates from two Imaginary Friends having differing opinions on who the land belongs to in the first place...

Actually, it originates with their fan clubs. The Imaginary Friends were probably out having a couple beers together. *nod*

Let's kill 'em all and let Imaginary Friend(s) sort 'em out.

That really isn't fair to Imaginary Friend(s) is it? He/They had nothing to do with this.

Well, IMO the whole conflict originates from two Imaginary Friends having differing opinions on who the land belongs to in the first place...

Actually, it originates with their fan clubs. The Imaginary Friends were probably out having a couple beers together. *nod*

It's all One Imaginary Friend.

Basically they can't decide if Cloister wore a Blue Hat or a Red one.

It's all One Imaginary Friend.

How do we know?

Basically they can't decide if Cloister wore a Blue Hat or a Red one.

It was purple. *nod*

Actually, it originates with their fan clubs. The Imaginary Friends were probably out having a couple beers together. *nod*
One has to consider the fact that, in that case, the question whether the imaginary beer was ale or lager would lead to a major schism and result in a bloodshed few centuries later.

Imaginary Friend Fan clubs take their Imaginary Friends too seriously :(

One has to consider the fact that, in that case, the question whether the imaginary beer was ale or lager would lead to a major schism and result in a bloodshed few centuries later.

Imaginary Friend Fan clubs take their Imaginary Friends too seriously :(

It's dick insecurity. Each fan club has to be assured that their Imaginary Friend has the bigger dick. So when another fan club comes along talking about their Imaginary Friend's humongous dick, the fan clubs clearly can't let the implied suggestion that one Imaginary Friend's dick is bigger go unchallenged. So they throw dick-shaped projectiles at eachother.

Then along came Jesus who preached that it wasn't the size of your dick that mattered, it was how you use it and after His death, His fan club bragged how that was proof that He had the biggest dick of all and Jesus has been banging His head against a wall in Heaven ever since. :tongue:

I say we just let them kill each other off, it's not like it will have any major impact on the world..

Both Hamas and Israel are quite happily killing civilians while pursuing strategies of mind-numbing stupidity. The big Hamas idea that randomly firing rockets is going to achieve anything is ridiculous - all it achieves is that it alienates those countries that could put pressure on Israel. The Israeli approach will do nothing, even if they manage to kill every member of Hamas, except create a large number of external supporters for Hamas (who will be a lot harder to bomb because they won't be gathered together in Gaza City).

The only solution (other than a never ending conflict) is for both sides to be brought into discussions. It was a monumental mistake not to include Hamas in talks. Diplomacy only works if all sides are involved (no matter what repugnant acts they have carried out) setting conditions that lead to non involvement achieves nothing.

Both sides need to be forced into discusions by denying them both any external economic support.

They will continue to do this for ever as long as Iran keeps funding and supplying these fundy idiots. Wondering why Iran wont just declare war on Israel and fight them directly instead of using proxy fundies. But I suspect Iran is a bunch of pussies so I'm sure they wouldn't take on Israel directly.

Actually they'll do it as long as theres Israeli troops and colonies in the OT, I'd say.


Since then Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and the West Bank.

Maybe in your dimension.


Really, for the Palestinians, diplomacy is the best option..

The US blocks a fair process and the use of sanctions against Israel.


they refused to acknowledge defeat, and have continued this fruitless war, losing more and more and more..

Leaving out the colonisation of the West Bak, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan and the failed effort in Gaza, aren't we...?


Extermination??? The (....)truction?..

Ja!!! Zey are breeding like ze vermin!!!!

I hope you had the froth guard up typing that. You'll ruin the keyboard otherwise.


For there is no question that it was all the Jews' land, and that the Palestinians only got it because the Jews were forcefully dispossessed.?..

There was never an entirely homogenous "Jewish" state.

The occupation started in response to terrorist attacks, .?..

Emm..its started because somebody decided to let the extremists colonise land that was militarily occupied. It doesn't matter the proverbial flying fuck at a rolling donut why that land was so occupied, because the use of force to obtain territory is utterly outlawed, as is allowing, moving or encouraging civillians from the occupying state to move on to it. Were Israeli not a US ally they'd have been put out of there decades ago.

Here's your problem.Yep. Palestine is no nation, and Israel is not civilized (after all their role models are people like Hoshea/Joshua and Elijah).

Advice to everyone: if a terrorist lives next door, sell your house before his mere presence 86's the property value.

Winner.

The only solution (other than a never ending conflict) is for both sides to be brought into discussions. It was a monumental mistake not to include Hamas in talks. Diplomacy only works if all sides are involved (no matter what repugnant acts they have carried out) setting conditions that lead to non involvement achieves nothing.

The other solution (other than a never ending conflict, or nuking the area into plate glass, that is) is for the whole world to build a wall and a fence around Near East, and let them kill off each other. Not very humanitarian, though.

More seriously, what I can't understand is why Israel refuses to have peace talks with Hamas. It's our enemy, the Israeli government usually answers. Then again, I think, with whom should one have PEACE talks? With countries one is already in peace with? Or with ENEMIES?

The other solution (other than a never ending conflict, or nuking the area into plate glass, that is) is for the whole world to build a wall and a fence around Near East, and let them kill off each other. Not very humanitarian, though.

More seriously, what I can't understand is why Israel refuses to have peace talks with Hamas. It's our enemy, the Israeli government usually answers. Then again, I think, with whom should one have PEACE talks? With countries one is already in peace with? Or with ENEMIES?Israel is ALREADY building wall and fence. Complete political bankruptcy.

Unfortunate part of any war is that people get killed.

Unfortunate part of any war is that people get killed.
What an arrogant thing to say.

Advice to everyone: if a terrorist lives next door, sell your house before his mere presence 86's the property value.
Problem is, they don't even have to be a terrorist in Gaza. And besides, move to where?

War is shitty and this story proves it. The problem here rests in the hands of Hamas. They continued to rocket Israel. What did they expect?
The problem rests in the hands of Zionists, who continue to push for the extermination of the Palestinians, and all Arabs.
You're both right and wrong at the same time. The problem rests in the hands of both Hamas and Israel, and on both sides it's due to their unwillingness to actually come to an agreement. And the continuation of violence, of course.

My favorite Israel/Hamas moment was when Sharon ordered Helicopters to destroy a Hamas caravan of their new appointed leader in day rush-hour traffic. I will give Israel credit for having some balls to pull off a stunt like that and succeed. Kudos to them.
My "favorite" Israel/Hamas moment was when Israel ordered Helicopters to destroy a Hamas car during rush hour, only to miss the intended targets and kill one random bystander while injuring 20.

And suicide bombing is not terrorism?
Not necessarily

Both sides have a point, unfortunately you have to pick one of the sides.
No, you really don't. I know I haven't.

Israel just tend to get more attention because it's the stronger party, and it's supposed to be a western-style democracy governed by rule of law and respect for human rights.
It isn't, but you have seen what happens when the US, in particular, gets involved in the Middle East, right?
I have seen what happens when the US doesn't get involved in the Israel/Palestine situation, like during most of the last 8 years with Bush.

Not illegally. No one has the power to say whether a war was legal or illegal.
Under international law it was illegal. And there are entities that have been granted that power you know...

Nor was it about oil
Debatable.

There is obviously nothing that can stop the Hamas from fighting Israel (or vice versa) if it was possible then something productive would have been done in the last 50 years they have been fighting.
It's not obvious to me. I think there are sacrifices that can be made, and compromises that could be reached. Even Hamas can be turned around.

It's not going to be easy after the last 50 years, but the best plan would be integration. A combined nation not separated into jew sections and arab sections with one government and one security force. Not only would it make it impossible for organizations like Hamas to target jews without killing palestinians alike, but it would allow for the criminalization of terrorism. Instead of being assassinated in assaults that kill suspected and innocent alike, militants would be arrested, tried and if guilty, convicted. That's what civilized nations do.
Would you support a one-state solution even if it meant that the demographics in Israel changed dramatically and it meant the end of the jewish state?

I know I would, if there were guarantees to safeguard what would be the non-muslim minority.

Zohan Hezbollah Customer Service Line (http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=l1bZWuwnPG0)

The end of the clip was prophecy.

Would you support a one-state solution even if it meant that the demographics in Israel changed dramatically and it meant the end of the jewish state?Is that a valid concern? Why would anyone have a state based on religion? Wanna create a "Southern Baptist state" as well?
The one-state solution would finally make Israelis realize what democracy really is.

Israel pulled the first punch with their Zionist take over.

And here I thought the world began prior to 1948. Guess i was wrong. I mean, if I was right, that would mean that the area would have a complex and bloody history of wars, aggression, conquering armies, claimed, reclaimed, and claimed again, shifting boundaries, shifting demographics, and competing claims involving christians, jews, muslims, Turkey, Syria, Great Britain, Italy, Vatican, not to mention the various cultural and ethnic groups that were not necessarily tied to any nation, going back THOUSANDS of years.

Guess I was wrong. All started in 1948. Yup yup.

Hey, do YOU want to live next to a terrorist?
How do you know a terrorist lived there? Obviously your house needs to be bombed for being a terrorist conspirator.

Unfortunate part of any one sided bombing campaign by a better equipped military is that people get killed.

Fixed it for you

And here I thought the world began prior to 1948. Guess i was wrong. I mean, if I was right, that would mean that the area would have a complex and bloody history of wars, aggression, conquering armies, claimed, reclaimed, and claimed again, shifting boundaries, shifting demographics, and competing claims involving christians, jews, muslims, Turkey, Syria, Great Britain, Italy, Vatican, not to mention the various cultural and ethnic groups that were not necessarily tied to any nation, going back THOUSANDS of years.

Guess I was wrong. All started in 1948. Yup yup.
Never mind the fact that that is the history for the entirety of Europe, Asia, and Africa.

If you want to be a wise ass, you are going to get it thrown in your face.

And here I thought the world began prior to 1948. Guess i was wrong. I mean, if I was right, that would mean that the area would have a complex and bloody history of wars, aggression, conquering armies, claimed, reclaimed, and claimed again, shifting boundaries, shifting demographics, and competing claims involving christians, jews, muslims, Turkey, Syria, Great Britain, Italy, Vatican, not to mention the various cultural and ethnic groups that were not necessarily tied to any nation, going back THOUSANDS of years.

Guess I was wrong. All started in 1948. Yup yup.Nope. It all started in 1917 when a certain British butthole named Balfour promised Arabian land to Jews without ever asking the Arabs, especially not those living in the land in question. Which btw was a breach of promise to the Arabs of giving them self rule for aiding the British bringing down the Ottoman Empire.

Nope. It all started in 1917 when a certain British butthole named Balfour promised Arabian land to Jews without ever asking the Arabs, especially not those living in the land in question. Which btw was a breach of promise to the Arabs of giving them self rule for aiding the British bringing down the Ottoman Empire.:rolleyes: Completely disregarding everything I posted in the thread earlier, huh? This little land war has been going on for centuries. (Oh, and don't forget, the Canaanites want their land back!)

:rolleyes: Completely disregarding everything I posted in the thread earlier, huh? This little land war has been going on for centuries. (Oh, and don't forget, the Canaanites want their land back!)That is just not true. Arabs had no problem with Jews living in Palestine (the ruling Turks however had a problem with them). Only when Jews started to come to Palestine in large numbers after a dude named Herzl startled their nationalism (-> Zionism), the became a problem for the resident Arabs.

That is just not true. Arabs had no problem with Jews living in Palestine (the ruling Turks however had a problem with them). Only when Jews started to come to Palestine in large numbers after a dude named Herzl startled their nationalism (-> Zionism), the became a problem for the resident Arabs....Right, because the Ottoman Empire didn't go to war over this area, either. Or the Romans, Or the Sassanians. And I must be mistaken about the Crusades.

Advice to everyone: if a terrorist lives next door, sell your house before his mere presence 86's the property value.

This also goes if a mere suspected terrorist lives next door... or anywhere in the neighborhood... or, you know, the country.

How dares those corrupt, warmongering Israelis retaliate against constant rocket attacks!

Ooh I get it! That's sarcasm!

What you mean is: "They started it FIRST." As you can see not many people here are compelled by schoolyard ethics, no matter how much sarcasm you drench them in.

They should have just given the Palestinians more land for them to fire rockets (intentionally aimed at civilian areas) from and just run around with their tail between their legs.

I'm getting two messages here:

1. Those Palestinians are cowards! Therefore bombing them is justified!

2. Palestinians kill civilians! Therefore killing Palestinian civilians is right!

Or better yet, they should just lie down and stop existing.

Ooh, a false dichotomy! Either Israel bombs civilians, or they all have to die! There are no other options, graaawr, cowards must die, grawrrr!

Sorry, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

THEN Hamas would be happy and there would be peace, rainbows, and butterflies everywhere.

And lastly a strawman. But its not worth pointing out as you don't actually have an argument per se.

I blame the Arabs just as much as the Jews.

Am I wrong for not blaming either "the Arabs" or "the Jews?"

...Right, because the Ottoman Empire didn't go to war over this area, either. Or the Romans, Or the Sassanians. And I must be mistaken about the Crusades.
I will tell you like I told Neo Art, that is the history of the entirety of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Ancient history != modern history. If you want to be a wise ass, expect it to get thrown in your face.

I will tell you like I told Neo Art, that is the history of the entirety of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Ancient history != modern history. If you want to be a wise ass, expect it to get thrown in your face.I'm not being a wise ass about it. I'm saying that the Arabic people went to war to get the land that they now claim is theirs They took it from someone else. It's rather simple, really.

Eh, as this conflict continues I get more and more convinced that all this international attention and attempts for meditation etc. is a total waste of effort due idiocy from both sides. I have feeling that all this international effort could have better use in "less popular"(that means less media attention) conflicts in Sri Lanka, Colombia, Kurdistan, various places of Africa etc.

If you want to be a wise ass, you are going to get it thrown in your face.

It's cute that you think you've managed to "throw" anything back at me.

Ancient history != modern history.

ohh, I see, there's a cut off date! So the argument of "it was our land, you stole it for us" only applies up to a certain point! How utterly convenient that this point just so very happens to fall on this side of 1948.

ohh, I see, there's a cut off date! So the argument of "it was our land, you stole it for us" only applies up to a certain point! How utterly convenient that this point just so very happens to fall on this side of 1948.This ^.

I wonder how boring NSG would get if peace did breakout in the region.

*ponders*

What in Sam-hill is happening in Palestine? Documentation of them being starved to death. Documentation of innocents dying en-masse. If the Israelis are not doing genocide, then they are at LEAST breaking Geneva, by using collective punishment. They are killing non-combatants which have no viable ties to the warring factions, such as these 5 daughers, or many of the school children killed. Israel is all about collective punishment.


Oh for christs sakes, what country bent on genocide CALLS targets ahead of time on the phone and tells them if they are harboring weapons in their home or near their home they should leave cause an attack is incoming? Israel called thousands of Palestinians warning them of the attacks in concern for the safety of innocents.

Israel is break law after law, and you are defending them?


Pointing out that you made a bad argument can not, and should not, be read as implying that I hold the direct opposite belief. The fact you made a poor argument doesn't speak to what I believe. It just means you made a poor argument.

I'm not being a wise ass about it. I'm saying that the Arabic people went to war to get the land that they now claim is theirs They took it from someone else. It's rather simple, really.

Oversimplified by the act of mixing ancient and modern history. Turning a possibly valid argument into a logical fallacy.

Oversimplified by the act of mixing ancient and modern history.
history of course qualifying as "ancient", and thus irrelevant, if it happened to run counter to your proposition.

How utterly fucking convenient.

Turning a possibly valid argument into a logical fallacy.

The only fallacy here is your attempt to qualify anything happened pre, say, 1920 as "ancient history". Speaking of which, by the way, the term "ancient history" refers to the era pre middle ages, so pre 500 AD. This isn't "ancient history". Most of it isn't even "middle ages" history, which ended in 1500. Most of it is actually early modern history.

Oversimplified by the act of mixing ancient and modern history. Turning a possibly valid argument into a logical fallacy.history of course qualifying as "ancient", and thus irrelevant, if it happened to run counter to your proposition.

How utterly fucking convenient.

The only fallacy here is your attempt to qualify anything happened pre, say, 1920 as "ancient history". Speaking of which, by the way, the term "ancient history" refers to the era pre middle ages, so pre 500 AD. This isn't "ancient history". Most of it isn't even "middle ages" history, which ended in 1500. Most of it is actually early modern history.Neo has made my point for me.

...Right, because the Ottoman Empire didn't go to war over this area, either.What? What was this little Lawrence-of-Arabia-episode all about then?? Right: it was about the liberation of Arabs from Turkish rule and the pursuit of Arab self-determination. Self-determination was then withheld from the Arabs and the land was divided into spheres of colonial interest and subsequently into petty states. And then the British let (mostly European) Jews into Palestine in uncontrolled numbers to deliberately assail its Arab inhabitants.

Oh for christs sakes, what country bent on genocide CALLS targets ahead of time on the phone and tells them if they are harboring weapons in their home or near their home they should leave cause an attack is incoming? Israel called thousands of Palestinians warning them of the attacks in concern for the safety of innocents.
You have evidence of that?

You have evidence of that?

Of course. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5416012.ece

"Such phone calls have become common across the Gaza Strip"

Actually they'll do it as long as theres Israeli troops and colonies in the OT, I'd say.
Why would it stop if Israelis left the OT? Restoring the situation of May 1967 would mean restoring the hundreds of daily missile launches in May 1967.
Leaving out the colonisation of the West Bak, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan and the failed effort in Gaza, aren't we...?
Not at all. That is what I meant by "losing more and more and more". If you start a war and lose it, you are likely to lose territory, and if you insist on fighting long after you're beaten, you are going to keep losing.
Ja!!! Zey are breeding like ze vermin!!!!
It is utterly unacceptable in this period for ANY ethnic group to be doubling every 25 years. I only know of one case in history of a faster growth rate: the Horn of Africa briefly had a doubling time of 22 years, but this was followed of course by the Four Horsemen (war, famine, plague, and despair) decimating the population. The Palestinian population explosion is prevented from turning into a population crash only by the shipments of food, etc. through Israel, which is insane. If Gaza had to live in isolation, strictly on the products of its own territory, of course much of the population would have to die quickly; Gaza can maybe support its current population (no way can it support another doubling) by joining the modern economy, but that would require being on friendly terms with the neighbors, and the Palestinians would rather die than do that.
I have no problem with a Palestinian couple having nine children-- if they can support them. Just don't ask me to feed them.
There was never an entirely homogenous "Jewish" state.
Completely Jewish-ruled, though.
Emm..its started because somebody decided to let the extremists colonise land
No, it started because those lands were used as bases for repeated attacks. It will end only if there is some assurance that they will not be so used again.

Of course. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5416012.ece

"Such phone calls have become common across the Gaza Strip"

...that only slightly supports your argument that it's done out of concern for the safety of innocents. Seems like that's not the primary objective of most of those calls, and that they actually could cause more harm than good.

Seems to be just another way to mess with the minds of civilians, to terrorize them. My respect for Israel (which I, for the record, still maintain) inched just a little bit lower. :(

I only wish the population would rise and overturn the extremist elements there that cause them to be killed in the crossfire.

Oh, and before anyone asks, this goes for BOTH SIDES.

...that only slightly supports your argument that it's done out of concern for the safety of innocents. Seems like that's not the primary objective of most of those calls, and that they actually could cause more harm than good.


Yes im sure it would have been better for the family had they not gotten the call first, and stayed in the house and got blown to smithereens.

"One family received a telephone message that their house was about to be bombed and fled without informing their neighbours, Ms Bashi said. When the house was attacked..."

Yes im sure it would have been better for the family had they not gotten the call first, and stayed in the house and got blown to smithereens.

"One family received a telephone message that their house was about to be bombed and fled without informing their neighbours, Ms Bashi said. When the house was attacked..."

No, but it would have been better if it was information that you could trust.

“We don’t know if it’s true or not, if they’ll bomb us or not. Everyone is very frightened.”

And during this campaign, it hasn't been safe to be out on the streets. So if the phone calls doesn't provide correct information...

When the enemy is willing to use their own family and neighbors as a human shield, there is no good way to choose. And the extremist militant factions of Islam who use it to their advantage know this well. They effectively create a win/win situation for themselves - either the strike doesn't get conducted and their operation continues, or the strike goes through and they look like martyrs to those who are sympathetic. There is no effective, clean, or humane way to fight this kind of war. The only options are either don't fight back and let them win, or do the damage and get the job done and mourn the losses later.

Innocence is the first casualty of war.

Innocence is the first casualty of war.
Isn't that truth? Or is that the second?

Yes im sure it would have been better for the family had they not gotten the call first, and stayed in the house and got blown to smithereens.

"One family received a telephone message that their house was about to be bombed and fled without informing their neighbours, Ms Bashi said. When the house was attacked..."

Of course it could also be a trick to get people out of cover and into the open where fragmentation from nearby bombs can do the job rather than just only those in the targeted building.

It's a slight variation of an IRA trick when they wanted maximum bodycount. Call in false bomb locations, get them to panic and head to supposed "safe" zones and when they're all clustered up, you blow them to bits.

Of course it could also be a trick to get people out of cover and into the open where fragmentation from nearby bombs can do the job rather than just only those in the targeted building.


Thats inconsistent with the facts on the ground. Less then 20% of the dead seem to be civilian which seems to jive with the fact that militants hide in civilian areas. Certianly if the intention was genocide or indiscriminate targeting the numbers would be 95% civilians and 5% militants.

And think about this: who does the enemy target? They intentionally and indiscriminately target civilians! Israel at least TRIES to minimize civilian casualties and attack targets of military value.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/sabo954/hezlove003.jpg

When the enemy is willing to use their own family and neighbors as a human shield, there is no good way to choose. And the extremist militant factions of Islam who use it to their advantage know this well. They effectively create a win/win situation for themselves - either the strike doesn't get conducted and their operation continues, or the strike goes through and they look like martyrs to those who are sympathetic. There is no effective, clean, or humane way to fight this kind of war. The only options are either don't fight back and let them win, or do the damage and get the job done and mourn the losses later.

IF you grant that the rocket attacks are "war." I specify that, like most terrorist acts, they do not amount to anything more than crime, and are best fought by building a strong government, a working economy, and a system of law which most citizens respect.

I.e., just the way we fight crime in any civilized country. Carrots and sticks, and accepting that some level of suffering and loss is unavoidable, as long as we allow the presumption of innocence and a right to a fair trial.

Slaughtering innocents to get the alleged bad guys (in the absence of a trial, I do not accept that any individual targeted by Israel is perforce guilty of firing rockets or some other "terrorist" act) is traditionally accepted as part of war. In fact, burning cities full of innocents to the ground is part of war.

So we really need to stop calling police actions "war." We should expect of Israel what we expect of our own countries: to only use deadly force when there is no alternative. To only endanger civilians in real war, where the very existence of the state is threatened.

That is not the case in Gaza. The Palestinians are not going to destroy the state of Israel. The only backing which would make that even remotely possible, well-armed Arab states, have lost the taste for such sacrifices. The only actual state which blows that hot air now is Iran ... which is geographically incapable of invading Israel.

Innocence is the first casualty of war.

"Truth is the first casualty of war" is the adage. Your version is no improvement, since "innocence" is an emotionally loaded word with no clear meaning in the abstract. Whose innocence?

Rather smacks of Warhammer, if you don't mind me saying so.

And think about this: who does the enemy target? They intentionally and indiscriminately target civilians! Israel at least TRIES to minimize civilian casualties and attack targets of military value.

Having the vastly superior forces, though, the innocents killed by Israel greatly outnumber the innocents killed by rocket-firing guerillas. That's what bugs people -- it's that with all the advantages they have in the fight, that these good intentions of Israel aren't actually reflected in the bottom line of how many innocents are killed.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/sabo954/hezlove003.jpg

False parallel. The two types of fighter are NOT the same, nor are they armed the same.

If we're going to invoke chivalry, in the form of Israeli troops "protecting innocents" perhaps we could ask of Israel a little more sacrifice. The exact point of modern weaponry (in particular, air forces) is to kill or injure "enemies" with as little risk to the military's own troops as possible.

That makes sense in a real war, between well matched state armed forces. It's just cowardice, in a situation like this where Israel has the troops and the air support to actually capture and put on trial the alleged terrorists.

If there is a real distinction between innocents and soldiers then surely risking innocent lives to save soldier's lives is wrong?

You have missed the point.

Say I walk up to you and punch you. You would punch me back. Do I have any right to complain that you punched me? Does it give me any more of a right to pull out a gun and shoot you? How about shoot a person trying to stop me from killing you?

Israel pulled the first punch with their Zionist take over. Palestine punched back to defend themselves, and since then Israel has been shooting at them with a gun, and shooting anyone else who has tried to help Palestine in the fight, even peace protesters and activists.

Just as I would understand and support a person who punches someone back, I understand and support Palestine. Israel has no legitimate position.

I see where you are coming from on this. However I wonder what the US would be like if the Indian wars never ended. At some point enough is enough.

As for Israel's legitimate position I say they made it in '48 when Arab countries immediately attacked. The second more punctuating one was in '67. As you know todays borders around the world are mostly drawn by wars. No different than in the Middle East.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/sabo954/hezlove003.jpg

Replace the Israeli soldier with a plane. With bombs. Then it doesn't matter where the Palestinian is in relation to the cradle does it?

Replace the Israeli soldier with a plane. With bombs. Then it doesn't matter where the Palestinian is in relation to the cradle does it?

Ippon!

Thats inconsistent with the facts on the ground. Less then 20% of the dead seem to be civilian which seems to jive with the fact that militants hide in civilian areas.

Source for this? The 20% bit that is.


Certianly if the intention was genocide or indiscriminate targeting the numbers would be 95% civilians and 5% militants.

I find that sort of percentage to be unlikely. It's true that militants are fairly scattered around, but it's logical to conclude that they have a higher concentration around security compounds like police stations. Herding them and the local civilian populace out into the open with fake scares before the bombs fall will result in different percentages of casualties than the one you specified.

Of course if that is the reasoning, it's hardly any different than rounding up all 500 people in a village, executing them all with a bullet to their head regardless of affiliation or guilt and excusing the act as a hunt for enemy militants. I believe the last people who did that as official practice of their respective armies were all hanged for war crimes.

And think about this: who does the enemy target? They intentionally and indiscriminately target civilians! Israel at least TRIES to minimize civilian casualties and attack targets of military value.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/sabo954/hezlove003.jpg

...except when they don't.

Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups have regularly complained that Israel uses human shields to stop youths from throwing stones at them, but there has often been no proof.

In March, Israeli human rights group accused Israel's army of using two young Palestinians as human shields during an operation in the West Bank.

The B'Tselem group said it had testimony from a 15-year-old boy, his 24-year-old cousin and also an 11-year-old girl.

From their testimonies, B'Tselem says it believes the Israeli soldiers knowingly exposed the three to danger as they expected to find armed men in the houses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6554487.stm

The method is the same each time: soldiers pick a civilian at random and force him to protect them by doing dangerous tasks that put his life at risk. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:
enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants
remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army
stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers
walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders.


The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials.

Despite the High Court’s decision and army orders preceding and following it, security forces continue to use Palestinians as human shields. In 2007, for example, B'Tselem documented twelve such cases.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_Shields/Index.asp

For example, the whole matter of the `human shield,' which was denied many times and which the High Court forbade. I can attest that dozens of times after the High Court decision, we still used Palestinians as human shields, out of habit."

How is that done?

"Using a `human shield' means grabbing some fellow and sending him to open the door to a suspect's house, so if he shoots, this guy will take the bullets and not us. A `human shield' is when there's a suspicious object on the road and you grab a Palestinian and send him to pick it up. It's done a lot - let it explode on him and not on me."

Did you ever see anyone get killed in such circumstances?

"No, but it's completely a matter of luck."
http://www.shovrimshtika.org/press_item_e.asp?id=99

There are no "good guys" in this conflict.

Source for this? The 20% bit that is.

Palestinians say more than 360 people have died in Israeli air strikes since Saturday.

The UN says at least 62 civilians have died since Saturday;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7805386.stm

Of the between 700 and 1600 injured people an estimated 60% are civilians.

"Civilians" here seem to mean "Not members of Hamas".

Also, an interesting viewpoint/summation:

Has Israel Revived Hamas? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122901901.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

You can't help creating casualties in overcrowded urban areas. The "precision targetting" of Hamas centres is bound to cause terrible causalties like the five little girls.

Here is a letter that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (I'm in this group):

Bloody cost of Israel repeating past mistakes
Israelis want their government to take action against the rocket attacks from Gaza. But it is exacting an enormous price from the Palestinians in the blood of many innocent bystanders.

Unless international action prevents it, there will be a new cycle of violence. Israel has chosen a bloody and dangerous path, the outcome of which may well be to its political and security detriment, just as happened two years ago with its incursion into Lebanon.

It has been so inevitable, and so pointless. Israel has virtually imprisoned more than a million Palestinians in Gaza under conditions that have created immense deprivation and desperation. It refuses to negotiate with their leaders, although it did manage to get a ceasefire some six months ago, which was needlessly broken by Israel.

We don't have a simple solution. The road back to sanity will be a long one. But every time Israel demonstrates its overwhelming military superiority, every time Israel pulls the noose around Gaza tighter, the problem becomes even more intractable.

Steve Brook Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Melbourne

It has been so inevitable, and so pointless. Israel has virtually imprisoned more than a million Palestinians in Gaza under conditions that have created immense deprivation and desperation. It refuses to negotiate with their leaders, although it did manage to get a ceasefire some six months ago, which was needlessly broken by Israel.


Virtually imprisoned the Gaza strip? You mean Israel has closed its borders to self proclaimed terrorists exactly like Egypt has? If thats a rationale to launch rockets why isnt Hamas terrorizing Egypt as well ? Because thats a BS excuse, thats why.

Virtually imprisoned the Gaza strip? You mean Israel has closed its borders to self proclaimed terrorists exactly like Egypt has? If thats a rationale to launch rockets why isnt Hamas terrorizing Egypt as well ? Because thats a BS excuse, thats why.

Because Egypt doesn't poke the bear?

Because Egypt doesn't poke the bear?

According to Collectivity, Egypt must also responsible for "immense deprivation and desperation" in the exact same way Israel is. Let the bombings begin.

Virtually imprisoned the Gaza strip? You mean Israel has closed its borders to self proclaimed terrorists exactly like Egypt has? If thats a rationale to launch rockets why isnt Hamas terrorizing Egypt as well ?

Erm. Maybe because it's Israel that controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters, offshore access, and the inflow/outflow of food and other resources?

and not Egypt?

Virtually imprisoned the Gaza strip? You mean Israel has closed its borders to self proclaimed terrorists exactly like Egypt has? If thats a rationale to launch rockets why isnt Hamas terrorizing Egypt as well ? Because thats a BS excuse, thats why.

You've yet to source your 20% claim. Much less effectively dispute the idea that the current tactic of phone scares is meant to increase the bodycount.

Erm. Maybe because it's Israel that controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters, offshore access, and the inflow/outflow of food and other resources?

and not Egypt?

Really? The news that Israel controls the border between Gaza and Egypt will come as a great surprise to the Egyptians.

Really? The news that Israel controls the border between Gaza and Egypt will come as a great surprise to the Egyptians.

I didn't say they controlled the border between Gaza and Egypt. If you're not going to actually read what I write please don't bother pretending to reply to it.

You've yet to source your 20% claim. Much less effectively dispute the idea that the current tactic of phone scares is meant to increase the bodycount.

Gravlen did it for me at the very top of this page. Learn to read :P

Apparently 3,050 Qassam rockets have been fired into Israel since 2001. They have killed 15 (FIFTEEN!) Israelis.

Fuck, why don't they go back to throwing rocks?

I didn't say they controlled the border between Gaza and Egypt. If you're not going to actually read what I write please don't bother pretending to reply to it.

So how exactly could Israel control the inflow of food and other resources if Egypt choose to give the Palestinians said supplies? Instead their gates are closed just as tightly as Israels are.

Egypt has locked the doors and said essentially we dont want to have anything to do with this whole mess. Nothing like help from your fellow Arabs.

I say let em fight it out, they obviously just have nothing better to do than try and kill each other. Nothing can seem to stop them from doing it, so just let 'em.


*waits for rants*

^^This^^

So how exactly could Israel control the inflow of food and other resources if Egypt choose to give the Palestinians said supplies?

Egypt doesn't have any demonstrated ambition to control Gaza. Israel clearly does maintain an interest in the situation. Israel's border is considerably larger than that with Egypt.

Egypt doesn't have any demonstrated ambition to control Gaza. Israel clearly does maintain an interest in the situation. Israel's border is considerably larger than that with Egypt.

Are you making excuses for Egypt now? They are clearly evil Palestinian haters who are allowing them to starve and suffer enmass while Egypt hides behind their locked gates doing nothing. What Arab country would do that to another fellow Arab country right? Isnt that a violation of some page of Islam somewhere? Let the rockets fly!

And if you recall Israel didnt WANT Gaza and gave it back!

Are you making excuses for Egypt now?

I don't have to, since they aren't the subject of discussion. It's not the Egypt-Palestine Conflict, after all. This all seems like a tu quoque fallacy on your part - Israel isn't bad, because Egypt is [supposedly] just as bad.

The facts remain, it wasn't Egypt who's killing Palestinians, it isn't Egypt even attempting to control things in Palestine, and it isn't Egypt that Palestine mostly borders and has the most interrelations with.

They are clearly evil Palestinian haters who are allowing them to starve and suffer enmass while Egypt hides behind their locked gates doing nothing.

Let the rockets fly!

Also, remember when the state of Egypt was carved out of Palestine?

Me neither.

Egypt doesn't have any demonstrated ambition to control Gaza. Israel clearly does maintain an interest in the situation. Israel's border is considerably larger than that with Egypt.

Which doesn't change the fact that Egypt has gone out of their way to make sure that no aid supplies get to Gaza from their side of the border, even going so far as to close down border stations when things got out of control.

Also, throughout the thread there have been people refering to the sides as Jews and Arabs. I politely ask you to refrain from doing so; at least be consistant and say Jews and Muslims or Israelis and Arabs, as Israeli Jews are not representative of the entire religion just as Palestinian Arabs are not representative of Muslims as a whole.

Also, remember when the state of Egypt was carved out of Palestine?

Me neither.

Hey, remember when Egypt controlled Gaza? And tried to conquer the rest of Palestine?

Also, throughout the thread there have been people refering to the sides as Jews and Arabs. I politely ask you to refrain from doing so

I haven't! In fact I even pointed out in post 179 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14349079#post14349079) that I don't blame "the Jews" etc.

I haven't! In fact I even pointed out in post 179 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14349079#post14349079) that I don't blame "the Jews" etc.

Oh, I know. Sorry for the ambigous nature of that, but I meant as a whole, not you specifically.

The facts remain, it wasn't Egypt who's killing Palestinians, it isn't Egypt even attempting to control things in Palestine, and it isn't Egypt that Palestine mostly borders and has the most interrelations with.

So Egypt forbidding any aid to go into Gaza isnt responsible for starvation and deaths due to lack of food and medical supplies in any way? Its just all on the Israelis and the Palestinians should just forget that Egypts policy chokes Gaza and causes suffering and death exactly the same way Israels does? And that if Egypt wanted to they could dramatically reduce such suffering and Israel could do very little about it but they instead choose to do absolutely nothing?

Where is the Palestinian anger for not getting support from its other neighbors like Syria and Jordan? The simple fact is that Palestinians are considered scumbags by the rest of their Arab neighbors and beyond making loud noises at the UN are universally unwilling to actually do anything for their fellow Arabs.

When the Nazis attempted to liquidate the Warsaw Ghetto, some of its heroic defenders rose up and fought back. I salute their memory.

General von Stroop overseeing the "Grossaktion" denounced them as terrorists and bandits.
What is a terrorist? Someone who doen't wear a uniform and fights back? The Warsaw Ghaetto even had its suicide bombers.
Admittedly the parallels are not exact. Israel is not sending Palestians off to death camps. However, by maintaining a blockade around Gaza, Israel was depriving them of resources like food and oil.
Could Israel and Hamas have avoided some of the things that let to this bloodshed? Like clamping down harder on those Fascist settlers when the settlers launched their pogrom? If that had been Palestinians doing those dreadful things to innocent civillians, the IDF would have had no hesitation in launching a full scale and deadly military operation against them.

Gravlen did it for me at the very top of this page. Learn to read :P

All it says is that 360 people have died from one source, and another says at least 62 civilians. It doesn't necessarily mean that those were the only ones. Just those that have been accounted for.

You would have to provide a source showing that at least 288 of the 360 people dead are militants.

All it says is that 360 people have died from one source, and another says at least 62 civilians. It doesn't necessarily mean that those were the only ones. Just those that have been accounted for.

You would have to provide a source showing that at least 288 of the 360 people dead are militants.

Easily done. Almost any article about casualties in the conflict read like this but give more details but im lazy "Most of the Palestinians killed since Saturday were members of Hamas security forces but the number included at least 64 civilians, according to U.N. figures."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/30/world/main4691655.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4691655

Short of me sending you their names and tax forms listing occupations, youll have to accept the general truth of the matter.

Why don't we just give both side nukes, and tell them to just nuke each other. If they don't do it, then we sit both sides down for peace talk, because apparently they don't hate each other enough to go through with total destruction.

Maybe if Palestinians stopped electing HAMAS leaders into their government...

Why don't we just give both side nukes, and tell them to just nuke each other. If they don't do it, then we sit both sides down for peace talk, because apparently they don't hate each other enough to go through with total destruction.

The difference is Israel already has nukes and have been responsible wardens of that technology for many years. You give Hamas a nuke and they will strap it on a 15 year old girl and have her run at a checkpoint.

So Egypt forbidding any aid to go into Gaza

is a non-issue in light of my post which you are completely ignoring.

Its just all on the Israelis and the Palestinians should just forget

I don't believe I ever mentioned that anyone "should" do anything at all. You are awfully fond of responding to comments no one has made and ignoring the comments that exist in this universe.

that Egypts policy chokes Gaza and causes suffering and death exactly the same way Israels does?

See, now I know you didn't read my post.

And that if Egypt wanted to they could dramatically reduce such suffering and Israel could do very little about it

And if shit had wings my ass would fly. We could make a huge list of countries that could help this situation but aren't. That's not the fucking point.

Where is the Palestinian anger for not getting support from its other neighbors like Syria and Jordan?

I guess it's just more convenient for people to get angry at the ones dropping bombs on you and killing you and your family and stuff.

People are strange like that!

The simple fact is that Palestinians are considered scumbags by the rest of their Arab neighbors and beyond making loud noises at the UN are universally unwilling to actually do anything for their fellow Arabs.

Yes, I've heard this opinion before, but before you go spouting off about "facts" why don't you start by addressing some of the relevant ones, instead of ignoring them.

Hey, do YOU want to live next to a terrorist?

My neighbors eat hummus.

Yes, you are not allowed to defend your life and property, shame on you Israel.

Apparently 3,050 Qassam rockets have been fired into Israel since 2001. They have killed 15 (FIFTEEN!) Israelis.

Fuck, why don't they go back to throwing rocks?

Because even throwing rocks, they still get the shit blown out of them by Israeli bullets, bombs and missiles in retaliation.

The difference is Israel already has nukes and have been responsible wardens of that technology for many years. You give Hamas a nuke and they will strap it on a 15 year old girl and have her run at a checkpoint.

Israel is not a responsible warden if it is using it's nuclear supremacy to conduct acts of war against other nations with impunity while using it's stockpile as a guarantee against retaliation. It's bombing raids on various sovereign countries is proof of this, especially when you consider it in the light that it is attempting to guarantee it's nuclear supremacy.

Arm the Palestinians with nuclear weapons, and Israeli and Palestinian policy will change for the better.

Or they will all die.

An all or nothing approach to the matter will deliver peace to the Middle East, because they will finally learn to get along, or they will no longer be anyone left to fight.

Either conclusion is quite acceptable, compared to an eternity of senseless fighting.

Yes, you are not allowed to defend your life and property, shame on you Israel.

No no no, Israel has every right to defend themselves. It's the damn Palestinians' fault for not shutting the fuck up, bending over and taking it up the ass like good little kaffirs.

So how exactly could Israel control the inflow of food and other resources if Egypt choose to give the Palestinians said supplies? Instead their gates are closed just as tightly as Israels are.

Egypt has locked the doors and said essentially we dont want to have anything to do with this whole mess. Nothing like help from your fellow Arabs.

HAHAHAHA. Of course! It's all Egypt's fault! Egypt, who has a GDP per capita of $5000, compared to Israel's $26000. What makes you think Egypt is in any condition to give aid or support to Palestine when their own population needs aid and support for their dire poverty? But it doesn't matter, I've heard this same stupid Israeli excuse before, that in the wake of four decades of intense bombing, settling, discrimination, and general assholery, the blame for the shit lives enjoyed by the majority of Palestinians falls squarely on the shoulders of Palestine's impoverished neighbors, for having the audacity not to clean up after Israel's mess.

Nothing says human rights quite like an Israeli rocket in a Palestinian apartment complex.

Because even throwing rocks, they still get the shit blown out of them by Israeli bullets, bombs and missiles in retaliation.

Well, to be fair, if someone was throwing a rock at ME and I had an assault rifle, I'd shoot them too.

I've seen a thrown rock smash a person's jaw and ocular orbit. He damn near lost an eye.

Egypt,Syria and Iran does give support to Hammas. Where do you think they get the rockets from?
As long as those nations give support to Hammas and others there will never be peace read any newspaper for their thoughts on an Israeli state.

Arm the Palestinians with nuclear weapons, and Israeli and Palestinian policy will change for the better.

Or they will all die.

People keep saying this. Ignoring anything else, Palestinian government isn't exactly what you can call stable. Do the people espousing this foolish view not see the idiocy inherent in giving extremely unstable government nuclear weapons? Would you give nuclear weapons to Somalia? I'd certainly hope not. There are very few times where you'll find me say something is just down right fucking stupid, the whole "let 'em both have nukes for the lulz" is, most definitely, fucking stupid.

Perhaps, rather, we should try to support a moderate government, improve infrastructure and encourage the growth of markets because, and this may be a huge fucking shocker to some, a populace tends to become more moderate and less bellicose the better off they are economically.

People keep saying this. Ignoring anything else, Palestinian government isn't exactly what you can call stable. Do the people espousing this foolish view not see the idiocy inherent in giving extremely unstable government nuclear weapons? Would you give nuclear weapons to Somalia? I'd certainly hope not. There are very few times where you'll find me say something is just down right fucking stupid, the whole "let 'em both have nukes for the lulz" is, most definitely, fucking stupid.

It's rather simple. Even in Palestine, there are the expendables who shoot rockets, strap on belt bombs or what have you, and get themselves killed. High ranked people on the pecking order on the other hand, tend to stay far away from the incoming fire.

A stable government of Palestine is all well and good, almost a prerequisite for them to responsibly handle anything more than a wet tissue paper really. But Israel does not want to see a stable government of Palestine. It's actions these past few decades are anything but supportive of a stable Palestinian governing authority. Of course it doesn't really help that what tatters of authority there is there from time to time tends to either lack the means, or the will to govern properly.

You might get someone who may take it in his head that maybe peace would work, but the extremist elements would oust him sooner or later, and since Israel's only involvement seems to be either at the table or from the barrel of a gun, they're not likely to help said person stay alive long enough to make peace work.

Giving nuclear weapons to the biggest (and sanest of course), bully boy in Palestine means that it instantly becomes in Israel's best interest that said bully boy not only remains in power, but that he continues to retain his nuclear weapons under lock and key and that they dicker out a peace. It's all moot if Isreal blows up said nuclear weapons, they're preferred choice really, but that only works if the Palestinians don't get delivery systems equal to Israels.

And of course, nuclear weapons means that Israel would not hesitate to utterly destroy Palestine, as well as the neighboring states, maybe even Europe (dependent on the range of their delivery systems), since they have espoused the Samson option, in the event of nuclear weapons use. That means it also becomes in the best interests of the various neighboring states that Palestine and Israel come to terms, rather than sitting around making empty threats or quietly funneling weapons and arms to their favorite bully.

In either case, it would be a nervous peace, but far stronger than any peace built on goodwill and trust.


Perhaps, rather, we should try to support a moderate government, improve infrastructure and encourage the growth of markets because, and this may be a huge fucking shocker to some, a populace tends to become more moderate and less bellicose the better off they are economically.

A moderate government is impossible in times of near constant conflict and harshness. Neither side trusts the other to become more moderate, much less fair in their dealings with each other. In fact, there is plentiful evidence not to. The only way to get what you advocate would be to move in several hundred thousand peacekeepers from a neutral third party to patrol the border between the two while conducting extraterritoriality protected police raids on anyone threatening the peace. And that's just the start. Schools and infrastructure would have to be set up, maybe to the tune of several billion dollars, all the while ensuring that reactionary nuts from either side don't attempt to blow it up.

How do you suppose that is going to happen, and more importantly, who would be willing to pay the bill? There is simply no motivation to do so, and humanitarian reasons will at best only get you a few pennies.

Fear of extinction and power is a much stronger currency to trade in.

An alternative scenario - Israel preemptively nukes out Palestine before the nukes come on-line, reasoning that the biggest bully boy (HAMAS) is serious about their promise to destroy Israel "by any means necessary".