Most people want Israel to show restraint, as the larger military and economic power.
You have to question what's the point of building such an army. I believe it is the policy of deterrence. And yet, Hamas is not deterred from chucking rockets into Israel.
So where does that leave the IDF? And btw about the post that said the military should be separated from the state, well, the state is the military essentially, since everyone able-bodied has been through it.
Like I said, all of us (or at least me) would like to see Israel show immense restraint and not retaliate against this small, starved Palestine. But I absolutely don't believe they are obligated to do so. We have been putting ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinian victims, and yes, they are the biggest victims by far, yet has any of you (people who disagree with Israel's actions) put yourselves in the shoes of the other side?
Allies declared war on Germany first in WW2, didn't give German back all their land, which leads us to think they didn't only attack for defensive purpose.
do not mean to derail this thread or lessen the impact of the loss of life in any war situation but you are wrong, like 100%.
On November 17 2012 11:56 fluidin wrote: Most people want Israel to show restraint, as the larger military and economic power.
You have to question what's the point of building such an army. I believe it is the policy of deterrence. And yet, Hamas is not deterred from chucking rockets into Israel.
So where does that leave the IDF? And btw about the post that said the military should be separated from the state, well, the state is the military essentially, since everyone able-bodied has been through it.
Like I said, all of us (or at least me) would like to see Israel show immense restraint and not retaliate against this small, starved Palestine. But I absolutely don't believe they are obligated to do so. We have been putting ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinian victims, and yes, they are the biggest victims by far, yet has any of you (people who disagree with Israel's actions) put yourselves in the shoes of the other side?
I did, and yet I can't say that Israelis suffer the same suffering as Palestinians. Moreover you can't even compare the damage on both sides. As far as I am reading as of now Israel has 3 dead a dozen or so wounded and some infrastructure damage. One the other hand you have some 20 Palestinian dead and just look at the picture someone posted before me, to see the damage. Israel has to defend itself but the way it is doing is stupid and counterproductive. By choking the Gazans and make them feel as if they were living in a big prison they push the people to vote some radicals who promise to liberate them.
Not sure how authentic this exact video is, but I think at least some of you remember reading about it during the Hezbollah - Israel war. + Show Spoiler +
On November 17 2012 14:42 Oroboros wrote: [youtube rant that you shouldn't bother watching]
free gaza from hamas
So much wrong in that video. He simply talks about the culture of Hamas. He doesn't talk about the living conditions in Gaza, doesn't talk about the death tolls, casualties, or destruction of infrastructure -- the things people are sympathizing with. He equates any sympathy towards the Palestinians - not just Hamas - to be the same as condoning the culture or politics of Hamas.
Also, the guy seems to equate Hamas with Palestinians, as if they're all one in the same, and therefore, any dead Palestinian is just a dead terrorist, a disgustingly simple and false sentiment that some others in this thread seem to share. It's just factually incorrect. Someone born in Palestine is a Palestinian, and they don't deserve to die for that simple fact.
Look at the poll at the beginning of the thread -- most people choose the "neither" option. Most people would sympathize with the death of an innocent Palestinian and innocent Israeli alike, and yet we're seeing more dead Palestinians than dead Israelis.
But none of that matters, because Hamas is evil, and if you disagree with Israel, then you support Hamas and you're a terrorist. And a racist. And a left-winger.
I'm going to need several hours to cleanse the stupidity of that video from my brain. You should do others a favor and simply erase it.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
There were a ton of massacres? Interesting. Please go on...
Deir Yassin is the most known because Israel fucked up terribly; they targetted civilians and it was really horrible. It's not an excuse but how can you cite Deir Yassin and not the literally thousands of terrorist attacks going the other way. I'm not saying they balance out but all of your posts are so one-sided it's like you blatantly ignore the other side.
Do you accept that both sides share the blame? That both sides have committed terrible acts? I just don't see that coming from your posts so please correct me if i'm wrong.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
I am not providing an opinion on the article because I have not read. But i would be incredibly sceptical of anything Illan Pappe writes; he has an extremist point of view and has been discredited many times by relying on unreliable sources. The refugees was a mix of Israeli army expelling them, leaving on their own behalf because there was a fucking war going on and there is also evidence of Arab leaders telling there community to leave and come back when Israel loses the war.
I think the focus needs to be on addressing the issue for the future rather than debating about who was responsible when the evidence is clearly inconclusive.
You are skeptical of Illan Pappe but not of the blatant Islamaphobe. You do know that man actually supports Michele Bachman? Possibly one of the stupidest and most Islamaphobic congressmen/women the US ever had. You asked for sources and I provided it if you really want to understand the conflict don't look at the main stream media look at the research. And Pappe has had some criticism most of it because of his criticism of Israel and his fight for academic freedom. He has been one of the leading scholars on the subject and stands up for the truth and has suffered greatly for it. I don't agree with everything he says but he is certainly a better source than that joke of a video.
Who was i suppporting? Not quite sure who the islamophobe that I am throwing my unflinching support behind is? If you are referring to the original youtube video, then I hate to ruin your tirade but I don't even know the guys name, but would challenge you to refute the key facts he raises. Go on..
Go read Benny Morris if you want any form of intelligence on the issue. Just cause Pappe footnotes an essay and PDFs it, doesn't make it academic by ANY stretch of the imagination. Benny Morris is one of, if not the most well-respected historian on the middle east and before you jump up in arms, one of the biggest critics of Israel. Benny Morris, in his own words, states Pappe "invents documentation, mistranslates, invents whole sentences in the things he supposedly quotes." Your academic source is a joke. Furthermore, if I were to only judge this issue on mainstream media you would be vehemently anti-Israel so I don't see how your point makes any sense what so ever.
This was unfathomably and unspeakably biased and was not worth the 5 minutes I spent watching it.
I've called out Israel biased people here for posting shitty claims for not backing them up with sources. I'm doing the same here, if you don't like content that is being posted by the other side, can you at least please explain why the video is bullshit and bias towards Israel?
I really do like reading threads like these because understanding both sides of a situation is something I am addicted to. Can we stop with these posts where you call someone out on posting something bad but not adding anything of substances too it to actually show why it is a bad post.... It would add so much more to the discussion rather than leaving it to hear say, he said, she said nonsense.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I'm not that educated on the subject so feel free to correct any points that may be wrongly stated.
The first parts I agree with, in the UN Partition Plan, most Muslim states openly rejected the plan. This was a huge mistake, even stated by Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President.
The Jews would get 56% of the land, of which most was in the Negev Desert; their area would contain 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs would get 43% of the land, which had a population of 725,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews.
They refused because the separation of the land was not 50/50, it was heavily in favor of the jewish population, who was a minority and still got the biggest part. There are a lot of very important event before 1948 too. Without those detail you cannot understand the conflict at all (aside from thinking muslim just hate jews).
The second part regarding the 1967 war is extremely shady. The essential question that it comes down to is that: Did Israel do a preemptive or justified assault on Palestinian lands? I feel that this was a preemptive strike by Israel (both sides had been amassing troops on borders) and that Israel should of been punished for their actions.
There is also the fact that they expanded theirself through this war, taking Egyptian land and giving it back only because of the international community, which can lead us to think they didn't only attacked for defensiv purpose.
Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of three, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the Yom Kippur War six years later.
Thanks for your input. Uhm, as for the first part about the land distribution. Please remember that out of the 57% of the land given to the Israelis, you have to factor in the Nagev desert which takes up some amount of space. I don't know how much exactly, but it should definitely factored in, and if someone could, it would be helpful to know.
As for the second part, I didn't read that. And for the claim of there were things happening before 1947, definitely. Don't remember the name, but was there not a massacre from one side to the other?
There were a tons of massacre, the most known being the Deir Yassin massacre I think. I didn't talk about the desert because it is in the quote.
There were a ton of massacres? Interesting. Please go on...
Deir Yassin is the most known because Israel fucked up terribly; they targetted civilians and it was really horrible. It's not an excuse but how can you cite Deir Yassin and not the literally thousands of terrorist attacks going the other way. I'm not saying they balance out but all of your posts are so one-sided it's like you blatantly ignore the other side.
Do you accept that both sides share the blame? That both sides have committed terrible acts? I just don't see that coming from your posts so please correct me if i'm wrong.
Both sides are wrong, but it's not relevant. There is a winner (Israel) and a loser (Palestine) and now the dominant power just bully, force a population in a high density territory, with limited ressources, completly closed borders and no infrastructure such as hospitals or school : a prison. Not to mention the massacre had a purpose which is forcing more than half of palestine into exile (sometimes with expulsions orders like in Lydda).
On November 17 2012 09:46 ZeaL. wrote: CNN interviews a guy from the Gaza strip and an Israeli living right on the other side of the border. Half-way through the interview the Palestinean guy gets cut off by an explosion.
So the talking point about the intend of Palestine rockets making them worse than Israeli strikes is not only repeated ad nauseam in this thread and the video demonstrates in it's own twisted irony why it's not a very good point. Good to hear he was alright though.
They ARE worse than IDF strikes. Hamas rockets are specifically targeting civilians to instill fear / gain political leverage (terrorism). Every state has the right and the obligation to its citizens to respond to attacks on them. The fact that Hamas intentionally locates its rocket launch sites and all other armaments and terrorists in civilian areas means any response will create collateral damage in dead civilians. Hamas, in using civilians as human shields, is legally and morally responsible for those deaths, not the IDF. (so long as the IDF is targeting terrorist/military targets and actively minimizes collateral damage)
polls of gaza/west bank; ~50% support indoctrinating their children with anti-semitism >60% support attacks on Israeli civilians Of those supporting a 2 state solution, ~60% support it only as a step towards a 1-state final solution.
As long as this holds true, I don't see anyone for the Israelis to make peace with.
I propose a different thought experiment than Elegy: Lets give the Hamas the "surgical" weapon technology of Israel, every month they get some high precision rockets and whatnot but only under the condition they use them in the same restrained way as Israel (that would include hundreds of people in collateral damage next to political and military targets) and stop any other attacks. For some reason I think Hamas would be in for the deal but Israel and you would be not... Then after a while we could allow them military expeditions into Israel, where they may shoot kids playing soccer... The polls are interesting (not what you cite but the somewhat more differentiated version on Wikipedia) and I will admit that I did not know that before. But so what if most Palestinians want a two-state solution only as a step towards a one-state solution? At any point in time if the Palestinians "misbehave" Israel can bomb them back into the current status quo. So the onus for starting to give trust is on Israel (if Hamas trusts Israel and they get fucked as they have in the past they can do more or less nothing).
On November 17 2012 10:53 EmperorKira wrote: Bah, both sides commit atrocities. However Israel is a modern state, with some of the highest tech, and is democratically elected by (hopefully) educated electorate so they're held to a higher standard. Plus, people like to side with the underdog.
Democratic, savage and usually governed by criminals.
The government recognized internationally as Palestine (also known as the Palestine Liberation Organization) is not an aggressor. Palestine and Israel have a pact of non-aggression and both condemn the use of military action. Palestine governs over the area known as the "West Bank" (the area between Israel and Jordan).
The Palestinian people live all over Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. They do not have a unified representation. Most of them are simply civilians.
The organization Israel currently has conflict with is known as Hamas. They are a violent and small pseudo-government that controls the Gaza strip (a small coastline between Israel and Egypt). They disagreed with Palestine's pact of non-aggression.
Supporting Palestine has nothing to do with this conflict. Palestine and Israel both support peaceful coexistence. The poll should have been between Israel and Hamas.
Other brief background information on players in the region.
Of course all surrounding Arab countries support the Palestinian people and hold a grudge against Israel's creation and expansion (Israel grabbed land from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan all within a week back in the 60s). Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. Jordan has a strong relationship with the United States. Syria has resisted peace agreements centered on the return of sovereign Syrian land.
On November 17 2012 10:53 EmperorKira wrote: Bah, both sides commit atrocities. However Israel is a modern state, with some of the highest tech, and is democratically elected by (hopefully) educated electorate so they're held to a higher standard. Plus, people like to side with the underdog.
Democratic, savage and usually governed by criminals.
Savage? Please. Usually governed by criminials? Hardly. Katzav was indeed convicted of rape but held no ruling or governing job. The former Israeli President did not ever rule Israel though. The job of a president in Israel is similar to the Queen in England, i.e. holds no real power and definitely doesn't rule the country, lol.
Olmert, the previous Prime Minister was indeed convicted of minor issues, and received a very light sentence, accordingly.
However, 2 examples doesn't indicate "usually", and also, corruption in high levels is common all across the world, so is hardly a point specifically against Israel. Therefore, your points are not strong and are also pretty off-topic.
A few hours ago, Israeli IDF planes launched a strike on the Gaza strip in attempt to assassinate a Hamas leader, Ahmed al-Jabari. They succeeded, obliterating his car with him inside.
At this point it was well over 12 hours ago. But whatever that doesn't matter I'm just being lame.
I am confident that this will result in open war. I can't say Israel was unwarranted in their response to the continued attacks on her soil but this will result in war and more deaths. Is there really no diplomatic end? War will only strengthen the resolve of those that will harm Israeli civilians to further their goals. In the end it is a choice of who loses more civilians.
It is one of the great tragedies of my lifetime.
So much death it sucks that they just keep feeding the hate
Israel is a cancer, it was a big mistake forcefully annexing existing lands for creating of a jewish state in the middle of peoples hostile to the idea.I just hope this doesn't kick off world war 3.
On November 17 2012 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Israel is a cancer, it was a big mistake forcefully annexing existing lands for creating of a jewish state in the middle of peoples hostile to the idea.I just hope this doesn't kick off world war 3.
I don't think any war without US and China being on opposite sides would constitute a world war.
But yes, a war between Israel/US/EU allies and the Middle-east is very possible, I hope that doesn't happen either.
On November 17 2012 10:53 EmperorKira wrote: Bah, both sides commit atrocities. However Israel is a modern state, with some of the highest tech, and is democratically elected by (hopefully) educated electorate so they're held to a higher standard. Plus, people like to side with the underdog.
Democratic, savage and usually governed by criminals.
Savage? Please. Usually governed by criminials? Hardly. Katzav was indeed convicted of rape but held no ruling or governing job. The former Israeli President did not ever rule Israel though. The job of a president in Israel is similar to the Queen in England, i.e. holds no real power and definitely doesn't rule the country, lol.
Olmert, the previous Prime Minister was indeed convicted of minor issues, and received a very light sentence, accordingly.
However, 2 examples doesn't indicate "usually", and also, corruption in high levels is common all across the world, so is hardly a point specifically against Israel. Therefore, your points are not strong and are also pretty off-topic.
The President of Israel is not a part of the government. Correct. Still it's the head of state. They might appear to be apolitical, but are very important.
The President signs every law (except those that pertain to the President's powers) and international or bilateral treaties approved by the Knesset.[2] In addition, the President endorses the credentials of ambassadors and receives the credentials of foreign diplomats, appoints the Governor of the Bank of Israel, the State Comptroller upon recommendation of the Knesset House Committee, ... The President also has the power to pardon or commute the sentences of both soldiers and civilians, and ceremonially appoints judges to courts, including the Supreme Court, after appointment by the Judicial Selection Committee.
Sounds to me, like he has a lot of discrete influence.
Not everyone was convicted, still there remains a bitter taste.
On November 17 2012 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Israel is a cancer, it was a big mistake forcefully annexing existing lands for creating of a jewish state in the middle of peoples hostile to the idea.I just hope this doesn't kick off world war 3.
I don't think any war without US and China being on opposite sides would constitute a world war.
But yes, a war between Israel/US/EU allies and the Middle-east is very possible, I hope that doesn't happen either.
1) The US power declines over the decades. 2) They decide that babysitting Isreal is no longer a priority. 3) Israel becomes more or less isolated. 4) The arabs see their chance and another region wide war against Isreal happens. 5) Then Isreal does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Not extremely likely, but as far as nuclear war goes this seems like the most dangerous possibility.
On November 17 2012 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Israel is a cancer, it was a big mistake forcefully annexing existing lands for creating of a jewish state in the middle of peoples hostile to the idea.I just hope this doesn't kick off world war 3.
I don't think any war without US and China being on opposite sides would constitute a world war.
But yes, a war between Israel/US/EU allies and the Middle-east is very possible, I hope that doesn't happen either.
1) The US power declines over the decades. 2) They decide that babysitting Isreal is no longer a priority. 3) Israel becomes more or less isolated. 4) The arabs see their chance and another region wide war against Isreal happens. 5) Then Isreal does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Not extremely likely, but as far as nuclear war goes this seems like the most dangerous possibility.
The whole region is just a cancer to the world.
This is exactly how I see it happening eventually. But first, US will have to decline more, Egypt/Syria need to get their house in order and consolidate in order for it to happen and that could take some time. Israel will probably be more or less alone when this all happens.
On November 17 2012 11:56 fluidin wrote: Most people want Israel to show restraint, as the larger military and economic power.
You have to question what's the point of building such an army. I believe it is the policy of deterrence. And yet, Hamas is not deterred from chucking rockets into Israel.
So where does that leave the IDF? And btw about the post that said the military should be separated from the state, well, the state is the military essentially, since everyone able-bodied has been through it.
Like I said, all of us (or at least me) would like to see Israel show immense restraint and not retaliate against this small, starved Palestine. But I absolutely don't believe they are obligated to do so. We have been putting ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinian victims, and yes, they are the biggest victims by far, yet has any of you (people who disagree with Israel's actions) put yourselves in the shoes of the other side?
Just because everyone has served in the military does not mean everyone should perceive criticism of the military as anti-Israel.
A state is not its military. A people is not its military. The IDF could dissolve today and Israel as a nation would still exist provided it was protected through other means. And the people that take it a step further and equate criticizing the methods and actions of the IDF as anti-Semitic boggle my mind even more...
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
"Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow—it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"
Ron Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust" Israel's surviving Dolphin-class nuclear missile submarines would retaliate not only against Israel's attackers, but "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option.
EPT
.
