Some joyous tidings from Israel

[tibilicus]

um, no its not. IMO, comparing the west bank to concentration camps is incedibly offensive to me and those who have lost ancestors to the nazis.

If you don't want to call it a concentration camp call it the worlds largest cesspool. What you have to remember is that most of the people in Gaza aren't originally from Gaza but more people thrown of their land and people who have been evicted from their homes all because of the influx of Israeli immigrants who needed that land.

If you look at what hamas are doing they're simply performing the basic task by any organization to have their homeland restored to them these are;

1: A war of attrition against enemy personnel based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their people at home for their withdrawal.

2: A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country.

3: To make the territories ungovernable except by military rule.

4: To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.

5:By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers

I know if I had my house taken of me by some Israeli and was thrown into this cesspool I would happily pick up an AK 47 and attack the people who took my house.

Do you honestly blame hamas for this?

[rvg]

...C. Israel is progressively being placed into a forced choice scenario by its terror-tactic opponents: Lose or butcher everybody in the opposition (and I mean everybody -- a desert called peace)...

So, they'll just butcher everyone. If Israel ever gets backed to the wall, nukes will fly (or drive, or even walk, doesn't matter), and the region will light up like a christmas tree. Jews didn't get their country through timidity, they conquered it and will fight to the last man to protect it. If that means that they'll have to kill millions to ensure their own survival as a state, so be it. Desperate times would call for desperate measures.

[Guildenstern]

but countries have a duty to protect their citizens, no?

I think it is correct to say that Hamas's failure to cause significant Israeli casualties should not be a reason against Israel's military response. Hamas's rocket attacks, however ineffectual, are not merely hypothetical or potential. No nation should be expected to wait for an enemy's attacks to pass some threshold of deadliness before a response is warranted.

That said, I do not think it is utterly senseless to speak of the "proportionality" of Israel's response. In my opinion, Israel's response is "disproportionate" because it results to be more forceful than necessary to achieve its (justifiable) goal, which here is the defense of its territory. This sense of "disproportionality", I think, remains in the criticisms of these attacks, even after we reject the argument that the attacks are disproportionate because Hamas has generally been unable to kill many Israelis. In other words, I think the subject still needs to be addressed.

I think critics against the Israeli raids here are also responding to the sense that Israel's "military necessity" here seems largely the product of a situation Israel is substantially responsible for. Israel has turned Gaza into something resembling a prison camp, so that now even the entry of humanitarian aid into the country is a newsworthy event, to say nothing of regular economic activity or the remittance of money owed to Palestinians living there. This fact may or may not justify Hamas's violent resistance, but it certainly does suggest that Israel is not without non-violent alternatives to resolving this crisis.

Another factor here that makes the Israeli attacks unseemly is that they're probably substantially the product of electoral politics in Israel. Tzipi Livni in particular has an interest in casting herself as a strong leader ready to use military force against the Palestinians, since her main rival for the PM spot is Netanyahu. Given Israeli public frustration with perceived governmental inaction against the rocket attacks, it seems a particularly difficult time for a figure like Livni to urge restraint. So in my opinion critics, in calling Israel's attacks "disproportionate", are also responding to a perception that the attacks are in some sense politically motivated, as well.

I can not accept the argument that your ineffective military campaign against me prevents me from responding in an effective away against you. But I think the argument about "proportionality" here is really about many aspects of the conflict besides that illogical and unacceptable bit of reasoning. The "wisdom" or "long-term effectiveness" of Israel's action is not just an ancillary consideration. As far as I am concerned, it really lies at the center of the criticism.

[seireikhaan]

Nah. Israel is not in the business of being "a better man". Israel is in the business of defending its citizens, since unlike Hamas, Israel actually values the lives of its people. If being a "better man" means sitting dily and letting Hamas cause trouble, then screw it. Toothless morality is worthless morality. Let Hamas cry victim and wait out the offensive in bunkers. They can have that moral high ground (if one indeed could call it that), while Israel will be satisfied with having the land and the power. The bottomline is that Hamas does not care about the lives of the people it rules over. To Hamas, the Gazan population is merely expendable cattle that can be sacrificed for perceived political gains. Israel might be the regional boogeyman, but at least it cares about its own people, something that Hamas would be wise to replicate.

Whoever said ANYTHING about morality, about rights, or any of the such? I'm talking about results. Tribes nailed the problem. What about Israel's tactics have successful in dissolving this conflict? NOT A THING. The conflict continues to spiral even further into tit-for-tat life trading despite Israeli air strikes, blockades, and property destruction. As Seamus quite accurately noted, the only alternative to a pacifist resolution to this conflict is all out ethnic cleansing of more than a million people, and maybe far more depending on what the reaction to said efforts is by the Arab/Islamic community. Tell me, which is a more appealing option to you? A few (ten?) thousand dead, or millions?

[rvg]

Whoever said ANYTHING about morality, about rights, or any of the such? I'm talking about results. Tribes nailed the problem. What about Israel's tactics have successful in dissolving this conflict? NOT A THING. The conflict continues to spiral even further into tit-for-tat life trading despite Israeli air strikes, blockades, and property destruction. As Seamus quite accurately noted, the only alternative to a pacifist resolution to this conflict is all out ethnic cleansing of more than a million people, and maybe far more depending on what the reaction to said efforts is by the Arab/Islamic community. Tell me, which is a more appealing option to you? A few (ten?) thousand dead, or millions?

The way I see it, conflict resolution would be nice, but it really is not Israel's primary goal. Survival is Israel's primary goal, and so far they've been surviving just fine. Peace *would* have made things easier, but they can live without it. Also, Palestinians have been split into Hamas and Fatah camps not only ideologically but now also geographically. Now Israel can point at the West Bank and say to the world: "Look, Fatah is staying civil, and we are staying civil in return. Hamas throws a tantrum and we get medieval on their ." If Fatah can be pacified separately, it makes things that much easier and brings peace that much closer. As for which option would *I* prefer? I'd prefer that Brits had never left the area, but that's just me.

[LeftEyeNine]

Keep on with your "they need rockets" politics and the righteousness of Israel and the very collapse of your so called "civilizations" since 9/11...

http://fotogaleri.ntvmsnbc.com/detay...3&picID=0&dp=1

...while I get disgusted as hell with your unsurpassed inhumanity.

[Fragony]

Not my world just living there and the world is a cruel place. Having a really hard time actually caring about even the children which is sick as can be but this is the moral credit crisis for the Palestinians and I don't feel responsible at all, people shouldn't cry after hitting someone, everybody should have seen this comming, if you absolutely insist on a fight you can't win, well that's gene-theory.

edit, ok that is terrible but I mean it's what they always wanted, the pity of the world, but they have gone too far and lost it. I can't sympathise with these people and their sorrow. If you burn your you have to sit on the blisters, dutch proverb.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't see why everyopne gets upset about valid comparisons to concentration camps, though the most hurtful insults are quite often the truest i guess...

Both leaders are muderous thugs and both countrys (whatever you want to call the 2 palestinian area's + israel) are filled with vengeful hateful people, there are plenty on both sides who want peace but unfortunatly extremity seems to win out in both cases, Hamas because they provide social programs for the people with money from backers against israel, so thats going to leave any populace who doesn't have anyone else to look out for them in to the hands of extremists... and don't mention the PLO, israel had years to work with them, but decided not go down thier own route, and look at result, Hamas. Israel for reasons i don't understand has also gone to extremity, though people mention coalitions causing fringe elements to have more power.... both these goverments democratically elected through the will of thier own people...

Well i think screw the free will of both people's. I don't want my goverment working with either butchers, the world in unison should cut both israel and palestine off (i would be happy to send food aid and other basic essentials to any who need it in the countrys) they not only cause huge problems to themselves but they inflict this crap on the rest of us, Iraq... 9/11... and why the middle east is filled with dictators. It isn't solely down to israel and palestine conflict but it shares a large responsibility in each case

The dictators one is arguable but it has certaintly been an obstacle to reform as dictators instead concentrate peoples mind on the enemy

Blame can be shared all round but if were going to talk about the 2 countrys making a peace themselves then thew ball is firmly in israel's court, with the continuation of israeli tactics the palestine population is only going to get more extreme, anyone somehow hoping the palestinians will suddenly accept what has happened and reject violence en masse are waiting for hell to freeze over, as a state israel has the power to stop the violence, palestine in its current state can no way stop the conflict. Hell, i don't now about you but if a foriegn state starting bombing my country because it didn't like our democratically elected leaders it would only sure up thier support, even for myself i would be more inclined to vote for them rather than agreeing with those bombing me who want a different result.

Of course there is 1 other option, mass murder, but unless israel want to be become mass murderers they're going to have to go for peace.... although i guess status qou could be seen as another option....

people shouldn't cry after hitting someone

So you will feel equally unfeeling to israelis crying about thier losses in the latest retaliation ?

As far as im concerned they are both equally undeserving of death, it is why i tend to end up on the palestinian side (even they they are wrong as well) as they have far worse casulties for thier eqaul wrongness...

[Jolt]

how could it be joint-arab jew if a bit before that there were riots on both sides against the other? the people at the UN recognized this. it wasnt as if they were living in peace only until Israel was created. the result was that former Palestine was split up into two, and jordan was given as a whole to the palestinians.

What did you expect? Arabs dominated and populated Palestine for more than 1000 years, and the jewish population in Palestine was minimal and suddenly in five decades (1950), the jewish population grows something like starts swelling like crazy, and were there were a few dozen thousand jewish, a very clear minority in Palestine, more than half a million jewish immigrants migrated to Palestine. Obviously the Arabs, who weren't even in control didn't like the jewish invasion and arabs and jews started to clash. In five decades, the Arab majority now had to deal with an increasingly radical jewish community, who because of their recent numbers now had the distinct nerve of asking for a nation of their own, on a ground which was ruled by arab kin for millenia. It is obvious that with the growth of Jewish migrants, so grew their boldness and their confrontation of the Arab population.

[rvg]

...In five decades, the Arab majority now had to deal with an increasingly radical jewish community, who because of their recent numbers now had the distinct nerve of asking for a nation of their own, on a ground which was ruled by arab kin for millenia...

If we start taking the route of historical claims, the Jews still win out since before Israel, British madate, Ottoman Empire, The Mamluks, The Crusaders, The Romans, The Macedonians, The Persians, The Chaldeans and The Assyrians, that land belonged to the Jews. Well, there were Canaanites before that, but they are all dead and cannot claim that land.

[LittleGrizzly]

If we start taking the route of historical claims, the Jews still win out since before Israel, British madate, Ottoman Empire, The Mamluks, The Crusaders, The Romans, The Macedonians, The Persians, The Chaldeans and The Assyrians, that land belonged to the Jews.

You don't notice a slight difference in people still living there now and people who are still alive having lived there and historical claims going back is it a 1000 years ?

Because one claim has a lot of sense to it... the other is quite frankly laughable...

[Fragony]

So you will feel equally unfeeling to israelis crying about thier losses in the latest retaliation ?

I really don't understand that part of the world it is way beyond of what I am capable of understanding and I like to keep it that way. But, yes, I will be more sympathetic towards them.

[LittleGrizzly]

I really don't understand that part of the world it is way beyond of what I am capable of understanding and I like to keep it that way. But, yes, I will be more sympathetic towards them.

Why ?

Sticking to the hitting analogy, palestine gets a few jabs in and then israel jumps on top of him and smashes his face in for half hour...

The innocent civilians on both sides deserve equal sympathy, even if large sections of these innocent civilians have been turned into vengeful horrible people by the other side....

[rvg]

Sticking to the hitting analogy, palestine gets a few jabs in and then israel jumps on top of him and smashes his face in for half hour...

I don't see anything wrong with this. If Hamas wants to pee against the wind, they have to deal with the consequences. I mean heck, it's not like the Israeli reaction is completely unpredictable: you take out their tooth, they take out your jaw. Don't wanna lose the jaw? Don't hit them. Action, reaction. Israel always went bananas on them when given a casus belli and always will go bananas.

[Watchman]

And those rocket attacks have killed how many people exactly, compared to the ghastly bodycounts the IDF reprisals tend to be accompanied by...?

[Fragony]

Sticking to the hitting analogy, palestine gets a few jabs in and then israel jumps on top of him and smashes his face in for half hour...

Just because they are so blinded by hate that their attacks makes them serial faillures doesn't mean they won't keep trying, if someone hits you once, not nice, if someone hits you twice, even less nice, if someone just keeps comming at you there is a time where it is just enough and you smack him hard. If BNP members would make a habit out of squeezing every immigrant they see in the butt and run of giggling would you be all to surprised when an immigrant gives one of them a proper beatup when it has been going on for decades? You would probably be cheering.

[rvg]

And those rocket attacks have killed how many people exactly, compared to the ghastly bodycounts the IDF reprisals tend to be accompanied by...?

Doesn't matter. The list of casualties is currently under 10 people, but even if it were zero, it would not matter.

[Watchman]

Why not ?

[rvg]

Why not ?

Because it shouldn't. Casualties or no casualties, it's still an act of war. Any self-respecting nation when confronted by an act of war will put the fear of God into the perpetrator. Provided that they have the means to do it.

[rory_20_uk]

So, missile attacks against sovereign nations are acts of war? But not when America is doing them???

[rvg]

So, missile attacks against sovereign nations are acts of war? But not when America is doing them???

Sure it is. They are welcome to retaliate. *If* they can. You don't see us bombing China or Russia. Gotta know how to pick your fights.

[rory_20_uk]

Therefore America deserved 9/11 - they could retaliate.

[rvg]

Therefore America deserved 9/11 - they could retaliate.

And retaliate we did. You think the Israelis are crazy.... they are pretty tame compared to us. Moral of the story: do not mess with those who can kill you. They might do just that.

[LittleGrizzly]

Therefore America deserved 9/11

That is the logical conclusion i am drawing from most pro israel posts....

I don't see anything wrong with this.

I do, btw at the very least the analogy start with both sides starting the fight, so there is no he hit me first argument applicible, does you goverment agree with this view ?

can you have a bar fight (which you both start) the guy gives you a bruise you leave him crippled for life, who gets the harsher punishment ?

And retaliate we did. You think the Israelis are crazy.... they are pretty tame compared to us. Moral of the story: do not mess with those who can kill you. They might do just that.

so why is nobody following the morals, every side is dicing with death for thier own civilians in an effort to kill thier enemy, the only difference is we praise one side and criticise the other...

[rory_20_uk]

Funny thing is most of the perps were Saudis and the USA did nothing against them.

[rvg]

Funny thing is most of the perps were Saudis and the USA did nothing against them.

Individual nationality doesn't matter, the country harboring Al-Qaeda was Afghanistan, so off we went. Iraq was just an afterthought to underline the notion that Uncle Sam is not to be messed with.

[rvg]

can you have a bar fight (which you both start) the guy gives you a bruise you leave him crippled for life, who gets the harsher punishment ?

The best analogy I can think of would be a bar fight between a villain and a fool. Villain is big, strong and , well, villainous. However, you can reason with a villain. Reasoning with a fool is much more tricky.

[Watchman]

That's pretty nihilistic, you know.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, that's one take on it.

Another would be that a terrorist organisation has managed to get the USA embroiled in a seemingly endless war in a place that has chewed up and spat out both Britain and the USSR. America's forces are wasting manpower and vast sums of money fighting in an unimportant backwater; for the mere cost of light armaments, hostile countries can ensure that the mission continues almost indefinitely.

Stretched supply lines mean that thousands of their troops are dependent on the goodwill of Russia or Pakistan!

America's forces are not infinite, and when so much is in the centre of Asia it will limit what it can achieve elsewhere in more important places... which is almost anywhere else.

Looks more like America is more like an inebriated thug who can be tricked into head butting a wall down, convinced that the wall said something about his girl...

[rvg]

That's pretty nihilistic, you know.

Perhaps, but that's world politics for you. The only cure is to have half a dozen empires ruling the planet instead of the current 200+ states. Empires are far too big, far too rich, have too much to lose and too little to gain to risk wars. These days the epitome of conflict betwen the big boys is their respective ambassadors expressing "concern" or "dismay" at one another....

Ahh, Napoleon III was right when he said: "Empire equals peace"