|
On November 16 2012 01:47 floor exercise wrote:
Today I learned it is sensational to call a bombing a bombing.
Since bombings are typically associated as dropping numerous munitions over a wide area, it is slightly sensational yes. If this was a precise bomb on one car, then it should at least be called a precision strike rather than a bombing, as the latter implies that Israel had no concern whatsoever for civilian casualties. At least in this case they tried to limit the scope to just the car, rather than the local neighbourhood he was driving in.
After listening to Israel's PM speak at the UN, I've been a pretty strong supporter of him  . But I know I need to listen to this other side, haven't gotten around to it yet. But apparently Israel tried giving Palestine a huge chunk of land as a conciliatory effort to promote peace talks, as everyone was pressuring Israel to do. But it ended up with Palestine being even more belligerent. If this story is at all true, I have a lot of sympathy for Israel. They seem to want to have peace talks, they even give land to the Palestinians, but in response they get more rocket fire.
Maybe the amount of land they gave was a joke? Not sure, but I feel like you can't hold on to ancient rights to land...at some point you have to recognize that borders have changed and its time to move on. From that perspective Israel has my sympathy more than Palestine. And yes the attack was worth it...years worth of rocket attacks that kill innocent civilians vs. the potential end to Hamas, with some immediate collateral damage? I think its a good trade.
And if it does provoke war...was there really any alternative? Is it reasonable for Israel to just continuously accept that rockets will fly into their neighbourhood? Its just so silly.
|
On November 16 2012 01:54 ThomasjServo wrote:
I don't imagine this will win many friends for Israel with the way the Middle East is shaping up politically. The ice is thin enough, this is just adding weight on top of it.
It will make 0 difference, and also as a Israeli i wouldn't want my government to put the safety of its citizens second to international opinion.
|
On November 16 2012 01:53 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:46 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:On November 16 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 00:37 Zandar wrote:
There is a thing I don't understand, I guess I should add that I'm someone who thinks both parties are equally wrong.
Why is there mass media attention when Israel fires a rocket, while there are often rockets going from gaza towards Israel. This attitude of both parties being equally wrong doesn't hold for me, when the people on one side suffer incomparably more (not only number of killed persons but in every way imaginable) and lack the capacity of changing their situation (again look at the events of 2008, the same holds for you Finrod1), while the other side can at least try to change the situation. But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing? Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL. I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh. I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no. But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel Would be great if Israel could make peace with the PLO, maybe just for the west-bank part. This will show Israel's commitment to peace, and might lead Hamas to also re-think their strategy once lives start to improve on the West-Bank This is a very, very complex issue and i prefer that this topic stays on topic instead of what usually happens in these threads.
This line seems to come up in every attack from/against Israel. It is a complex issue, and yet every attack, both sides claim it's just a simple matter of self-defense against a recent attack. The idea that this topic is isolated in this week's events is its own form of bias. You can't ignore the settlement-encroachments, just as you can't ignore the constant rocket attacks from Gaza. All these things matter, and neither side can really claim a clear moral right to its use of violence.
|
Islamic Jihad just took responsibility for Tel Aviv's rocket, looks like Hamas isn't the only player.
|
On November 16 2012 01:55 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:47 floor exercise wrote:
Today I learned it is sensational to call a bombing a bombing. Since bombings are typically associated as dropping numerous munitions over a wide area, it is slightly sensational yes. If this was a precise bomb on one car, then it should at least be called a precision strike rather than a bombing, as the latter implies that Israel had no concern whatsoever for civilian casualties. At least in this case they tried to limit the scope to just the car, rather than the local neighbourhood he was driving in. After listening to Israel's PM speak at the UN, I've been a pretty strong supporter of him . But I know I need to listen to this other side, haven't gotten around to it yet. But apparently Israel tried giving Palestine a huge chunk of land as a conciliatory effort to promote peace talks, as everyone was pressuring Israel to do. But it ended up with Palestine being even more belligerent. If this story is at all true, I have a lot of sympathy for Israel. They seem to want to have peace talks, they even give land to the Palestinians, but in response they get more rocket fire. Maybe the amount of land they gave was a joke? Not sure, but I feel like you can't hold on to ancient rights to land...at some point you have to recognize that borders have changed and its time to move on. From that perspective Israel has my sympathy more than Palestine. And yes the attack was worth it...years worth of rocket attacks that kill innocent civilians vs. the potential end to Hamas, with some immediate collateral damage? I think its a good trade. And if it does provoke war...was there really any alternative? Is it reasonable for Israel to just continuously accept that rockets will fly into their neighbourhood? Its just so silly.
If I were you, instead of listening to what either side has to say, try and find an unbiased source of information (its very hard i know, especially on the internet). Anything any political leader has to say about the situation will of course be twisted, tilted, or spun in their favor.
|
On November 16 2012 00:01 Zocat wrote:
There are certain points which you can argue that Gaza is indeed like a concentration camp.
There is no point at all in which you can honestly argue that Gaza is like a concentration camp. Did at any point the Jews in concentration camps launched thousands of rockets on cities? On civilians?
Did at any point the Jews had malls, hotels, restaurants, zoo, water parks, luxury cars in the concentration camps? Did they have imports and exports like Gaza? Did they have hundreds of millions of $ aid money every year like the Gazans? You realize that the level of living in Gaza is higher than in Egypt, for example?
You were fed tremendous amounts of lies that you took them in without thinking.
|
On November 16 2012 01:58 Novalisk wrote:
Islamic Jihad just took responsibility for Tel Aviv's rocket, looks like Hamas isn't the only player.
Bee's nest.
|
On November 16 2012 01:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:53 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:46 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:On November 16 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 00:37 Zandar wrote:
There is a thing I don't understand, I guess I should add that I'm someone who thinks both parties are equally wrong.
Why is there mass media attention when Israel fires a rocket, while there are often rockets going from gaza towards Israel. This attitude of both parties being equally wrong doesn't hold for me, when the people on one side suffer incomparably more (not only number of killed persons but in every way imaginable) and lack the capacity of changing their situation (again look at the events of 2008, the same holds for you Finrod1), while the other side can at least try to change the situation. But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing? Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL. I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh. I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no. But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel Would be great if Israel could make peace with the PLO, maybe just for the west-bank part. This will show Israel's commitment to peace, and might lead Hamas to also re-think their strategy once lives start to improve on the West-Bank This is a very, very complex issue and i prefer that this topic stays on topic instead of what usually happens in these threads. This line seems to come up in every attack from/against Israel. It is a complex issue, and yet every attack, both sides claim it's just a simple matter of self-defense against a recent attack. The idea that this topic is isolated in this week's events is its own form of bias. You can't ignore the settlement-encroachments, just as you can't ignore the constant rocket attacks from Gaza. All these things matter, and neither side can really claim a clear moral right to its use of violence.
its a micro/macro thing, there is obviously a link but you need to separate the 2 things as sometimes you discuss the micro without the macro. However i think that the bombing of the ammunition depots is a clear moral right.
|
On November 16 2012 01:58 Novalisk wrote:
Islamic Jihad just took responsibility for Tel Aviv's rocket, looks like Hamas isn't the only player.
I am surprised to see this from a Israeli, Islamic jihad have always been a factor however other then a few very short range rockets/rpg's attacks all their other ones have been green-lit by Hamas.
|
On November 16 2012 01:57 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:54 ThomasjServo wrote:
I don't imagine this will win many friends for Israel with the way the Middle East is shaping up politically. The ice is thin enough, this is just adding weight on top of it. It will make 0 difference, and also as a Israeli i wouldn't want my government to put the safety of its citizens second to international opinion.
I agree, regardless of my opinion it is the imperative of the Israeli Government to first protect its people when it feels it is justified. Personally I happen to disagree with the actions in this particular case, but as the legitimate representative of the Israeli people the government was within its rights in this case.
|
On November 16 2012 02:01 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:57 Leporello wrote:On November 16 2012 01:53 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:46 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:On November 16 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:
[quote]
This attitude of both parties being equally wrong doesn't hold for me, when the people on one side suffer incomparably more (not only number of killed persons but in every way imaginable) and lack the capacity of changing their situation (again look at the events of 2008, the same holds for you Finrod1), while the other side can at least try to change the situation. But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing? Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL. I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh. I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no. But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel Would be great if Israel could make peace with the PLO, maybe just for the west-bank part. This will show Israel's commitment to peace, and might lead Hamas to also re-think their strategy once lives start to improve on the West-Bank This is a very, very complex issue and i prefer that this topic stays on topic instead of what usually happens in these threads. This line seems to come up in every attack from/against Israel. It is a complex issue, and yet every attack, both sides claim it's just a simple matter of self-defense against a recent attack. The idea that this topic is isolated in this week's events is its own form of bias. You can't ignore the settlement-encroachments, just as you can't ignore the constant rocket attacks from Gaza. All these things matter, and neither side can really claim a clear moral right to its use of violence. its a micro/macro thing, there is obviously a link but you need to separate the 2 things as sometimes you discuss the micro without the macro. However i think that the bombing of the ammunition depots is a clear moral right.
As an israeli who is defending the actions of his government, you should not talk about moral rights, mate.
Edit: there's nothing wrong in taking out ammo-depots, not even morally. But if you need to do it because you actually forced these things to be built in the first place, you should reconsider.
|
...Just as an aside. Does anyone else think that Islamic Jihad is a really stupid name? Like, were they worried that there would be a Taoist Jihad and they had to emphasize their own brand of Jihad?
|
On November 16 2012 01:53 Op wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:On November 16 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 00:37 Zandar wrote:
There is a thing I don't understand, I guess I should add that I'm someone who thinks both parties are equally wrong.
Why is there mass media attention when Israel fires a rocket, while there are often rockets going from gaza towards Israel. This attitude of both parties being equally wrong doesn't hold for me, when the people on one side suffer incomparably more (not only number of killed persons but in every way imaginable) and lack the capacity of changing their situation (again look at the events of 2008, the same holds for you Finrod1), while the other side can at least try to change the situation. But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing? Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL. I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh. I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no. But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel They dont care about your life. they care about you living on there land. And ofc Hamas hasn't talked about peace. You don't ask an invader to please leave, you do everything in your power to make him leave / kill him. If you woke up tomorrow to find your government replaced by that of Palestine, your people evicted from there homes to make room for Palestinian families while your left to fend for yourself hoping that they give you power and water would you want to sit at a table talking about peace or would you want your house back. The cause is just from the Hamas viewpoint (and from anybody who would be in their situation), but they have to realize that they will never manage to get what they want (get all the israeli's out), so it is time to have a look at things again and see what is the best they can do for their people (how bad and unfair that may sound).
This, my viewpoint has been in line with Op all along, that Hamas should look for an alternative, because things as they stand aren't going to work out at all. Try and find an alternative, one that won't devalue their own civilians' lives.
Unfairness shouldn't come into play here, just save your own people first.
|
On November 16 2012 02:04 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:01 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:57 Leporello wrote:On November 16 2012 01:53 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:46 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:
[quote]
But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing?
Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL.
I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh.
I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no.
But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel Would be great if Israel could make peace with the PLO, maybe just for the west-bank part. This will show Israel's commitment to peace, and might lead Hamas to also re-think their strategy once lives start to improve on the West-Bank This is a very, very complex issue and i prefer that this topic stays on topic instead of what usually happens in these threads. This line seems to come up in every attack from/against Israel. It is a complex issue, and yet every attack, both sides claim it's just a simple matter of self-defense against a recent attack. The idea that this topic is isolated in this week's events is its own form of bias. You can't ignore the settlement-encroachments, just as you can't ignore the constant rocket attacks from Gaza. All these things matter, and neither side can really claim a clear moral right to its use of violence. its a micro/macro thing, there is obviously a link but you need to separate the 2 things as sometimes you discuss the micro without the macro. However i think that the bombing of the ammunition depots is a clear moral right. As an israeli who is defending the actions of his government, you should not talk about moral rights, mate.
So it a black/white thing then? i cant say that attacking weapon depots is moral without saying everything they do is?
This whole issue is far from black/white and its foolish to try and make it so.
|
On November 16 2012 02:05 Sub40APM wrote:
...Just as an aside. Does anyone else think that Islamic Jihad is a really stupid name? Like, were they worried that there would be a Taoist Jihad and they had to emphasize their own brand of Jihad?
AFAIK Jihad is an arabic word roughly meaning "Struggle", that doesn't automatically make it an Islamic Struggle, it could be a Socialist Struggle or what have you.
|
On November 16 2012 02:01 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:57 Leporello wrote:On November 16 2012 01:53 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:46 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:On November 16 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:
[quote]
This attitude of both parties being equally wrong doesn't hold for me, when the people on one side suffer incomparably more (not only number of killed persons but in every way imaginable) and lack the capacity of changing their situation (again look at the events of 2008, the same holds for you Finrod1), while the other side can at least try to change the situation. But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing? Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL. I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh. I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no. But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel Would be great if Israel could make peace with the PLO, maybe just for the west-bank part. This will show Israel's commitment to peace, and might lead Hamas to also re-think their strategy once lives start to improve on the West-Bank This is a very, very complex issue and i prefer that this topic stays on topic instead of what usually happens in these threads. This line seems to come up in every attack from/against Israel. It is a complex issue, and yet every attack, both sides claim it's just a simple matter of self-defense against a recent attack. The idea that this topic is isolated in this week's events is its own form of bias. You can't ignore the settlement-encroachments, just as you can't ignore the constant rocket attacks from Gaza. All these things matter, and neither side can really claim a clear moral right to its use of violence. its a micro/macro thing, there is obviously a link but you need to separate the 2 things as sometimes you discuss the micro without the macro. However i think that the bombing of the ammunition depots is a clear moral right.
The look at only micro results in vendetta: he killed a member of my family, so now i need to kill a member of his family, .. If you don't stop this you will never arrive at a solution, everybody can morally justify their act at each killing.
|
On November 16 2012 02:05 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:53 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:45 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:18 fluidin wrote:On November 16 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 00:37 Zandar wrote:
There is a thing I don't understand, I guess I should add that I'm someone who thinks both parties are equally wrong.
Why is there mass media attention when Israel fires a rocket, while there are often rockets going from gaza towards Israel. This attitude of both parties being equally wrong doesn't hold for me, when the people on one side suffer incomparably more (not only number of killed persons but in every way imaginable) and lack the capacity of changing their situation (again look at the events of 2008, the same holds for you Finrod1), while the other side can at least try to change the situation. But it's not going to change in the short-term evidently, so if Hamas really wants the best for its people, why is it not trying to come to a compromise, or at the very least STOP ISRAELI RETALIATION STRIKES by not firing those damned rockets that aren't even hitting a thing? Like I said, the incomparable suffering is TO THE CREDIT of Israel whom manages to protect its civilians with superior technology, while the continued suffering of civilians is in fact DUE TO THE ACTIONS of Hamas militants. (Note: I'm keeping the settlement issue separate, I do not agree with that at all). Think about it this way, if Israel did not have the required technology, and there were EQUAL casualties and suffering on both sides, is that not an even higher toll of human lives? I would rather the situation remain right now as it is than for there to be more human lives lost. This is being unfair to the Palestinians, but STILL. I fault the militants as much as Israel, if not more, for the suffering of Palestinian civilians. If they had just a little bit of foresight, they would know to cut their damned losses before it gets even worse. What's worse is that they use human shields, taking cover in densely populated areas. At least the Vietcong guerrilla tactics were deployed in inhabited jungles. When they devalue their own civilians' lives like that, I find it really hard to side with them. At least I respect how much the Israelis value their own people, like Gilad Shalit. If you're already being oppressed and yet still can't stand up for your own people, using them as shields or to generate propaganda.... sigh. I don't believe that Israel should keep quiet even if rockets are raining down, even if most are being intercepted. It's still detrimental to their daily lives, the constant scurrying for bomb shelters and lack of rest. It isn't about being the bigger man when you can't just shrug off the attacks. Sure, Israel could do it. But are they obligated, even morally obligated to? I would think that's a resounding no. But then again, the Palestinian people themselves seem to be in support of Hamas strikes. UGH. Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things. Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own. First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel They dont care about your life. they care about you living on there land. And ofc Hamas hasn't talked about peace. You don't ask an invader to please leave, you do everything in your power to make him leave / kill him. If you woke up tomorrow to find your government replaced by that of Palestine, your people evicted from there homes to make room for Palestinian families while your left to fend for yourself hoping that they give you power and water would you want to sit at a table talking about peace or would you want your house back. The cause is just from the Hamas viewpoint (and from anybody who would be in their situation), but they have to realize that they will never manage to get what they want (get all the israeli's out), so it is time to have a look at things again and see what is the best they can do for their people (how bad and unfair that may sound). This, my viewpoint has been in line with Op all along, that Hamas should look for an alternative, because things as they stand aren't going to work out at all. Try and find an alternative, one that won't devalue their own civilians' lives. Unfairness shouldn't come into play here, just save your own people first.
The thing is Hamas is funded by Iran (see the fagar 5 rockets of joint north Korean/Iranian build) and their Gaza leadership is split with the Damascus branch, the deeper you go the more complex it gets. This means that they dont act only in interests of the population.
|
On November 16 2012 02:07 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:04 m4inbrain wrote:On November 16 2012 02:01 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:57 Leporello wrote:On November 16 2012 01:53 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:46 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 01:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2012 01:32 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 01:24 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its easy to say that Hamas should stop so that the Palestinian people can get on with there lives but when your living in a land under foreign occupation it really changes how you look at things.
Just look at Europe in the second world war. A lot of people were trying to get on with there lives but a good part also did everything they could to stop/disrupt the German occupation and that was with an invader who didnt seek to replace your own population with there own.
First of all, since the Israeli withdrawal there is no occupation of land around Gaza. Secondly, firing rockets in to a civilian populace wont accomplish "disruption" only terrorizing the population. You realize that the very house your sitting in can technically be considered Palestinian land right? Not saying the resolution of this conflict lies in that but that is the way it is seen by a lot of Palestinians. And me living is also a offence to people who believe that, but that is irrelevant for this discussion as Hamas have never talked to Israel about peace (we only recognize the PLO) but the rockets Hamas fired would gain them nothing, Its also kind of a dumb mover when Gaza gets their water and electric supply from Israel Would be great if Israel could make peace with the PLO, maybe just for the west-bank part. This will show Israel's commitment to peace, and might lead Hamas to also re-think their strategy once lives start to improve on the West-Bank This is a very, very complex issue and i prefer that this topic stays on topic instead of what usually happens in these threads. This line seems to come up in every attack from/against Israel. It is a complex issue, and yet every attack, both sides claim it's just a simple matter of self-defense against a recent attack. The idea that this topic is isolated in this week's events is its own form of bias. You can't ignore the settlement-encroachments, just as you can't ignore the constant rocket attacks from Gaza. All these things matter, and neither side can really claim a clear moral right to its use of violence. its a micro/macro thing, there is obviously a link but you need to separate the 2 things as sometimes you discuss the micro without the macro. However i think that the bombing of the ammunition depots is a clear moral right. As an israeli who is defending the actions of his government, you should not talk about moral rights, mate. So it a black/white thing then? i cant say that attacking weapon depots is moral without saying everything they do is? This whole issue is far from black/white and its foolish to try and make it so.
I thought about adding my personal opinion to my posting, should've done it.
Of course im not fine with these ammo-depots or shooting rockets at civilians. But then again, feel free to explain to me reasonable (and ffs, unbiased) why they do that. Maybe i miss something.
And yeah, its not black and white. It's red in all it's tones, from all the innocent blood that is on the hands of your government and the hamas etc. So don't act like you're on a moral high ground, because you are not. Israel is not.
|
On November 16 2012 01:57 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 01:54 ThomasjServo wrote:
I don't imagine this will win many friends for Israel with the way the Middle East is shaping up politically. The ice is thin enough, this is just adding weight on top of it. It will make 0 difference, and also as a Israeli i wouldn't want my government to put the safety of its citizens second to international opinion.
Again, they're not exclusive of each other. I'm not saying you should go "Gandhi" with Hamas, but to a certain degree, the safety of your citizens and the region as a whole comes from international opinion.
If one side of this strife showed genuine prolonged restrain, what would happen? Would they just lose their land and lives while the world watched? Or would their earnest efforts toward peace -- even in the face of violence -- warrant intervention on their behalf?
Granted, Israel hasn't needed intervention or world-acceptance, as they have a stark military advantage. But eventually it might be to Israel's benefit to show Hamas' violence would still exist without provocation -- if that is indeed the case. Retaliating at every opportunity has simply not made the situation any more peaceful, and has not made the Israeli position diplomatically appealing or morally clear.
If you think Hamas would simply always be your violent enemy, I can't help but wonder how things would be now if you guys never retaliated, and never encroached on Palestinian settlements. Your moral high-ground against continued Hamas violence would be clear. America and Europe would have clear reason to decisively end the situation on Israel's behalf -- and by not retaliating and showing the world the violence you're forced to deal with, you'd be saving lives in the long run. But as it is, there is so much innocent Palestinian suffering, that I, for one, and many others, can not clearly back either side in this conflict. And it just continues.
|
On November 16 2012 02:04 m4inbrain wrote:
Edit: there's nothing wrong in taking out ammo-depots, not even morally. But if you need to do it because you actually forced these things to be built in the first place, you should reconsider.
It's not Israel that "forced" Hams build ammo-depots. You have to be really stupid to believe that. It's Iran that's financing it, it's the Muslim Brotherhood ideology that motivates it. It's the intesive hate propaganda that fills up the arab media that make the people support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
