|
On August 07 2014 09:32 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 08:46 bahunto28 wrote:
Palestine, if Arafat didn't launch a second intifada after turning down a final settlement at Camp David in 1999. You were doing so well until you decided to engage in a bit of historical revisionism. No government following 94 in Israel tried to stop colonization of the West Bank, the only difference was that Natanyahu accelerated the rate while Barak slowed it but year over year there has not been one year where Israel hasnt increased its settlements in the West Bank. Then Sharon -- in the face of a statement on Camp David went to the Temple Mount in a deliberate provocation. Israel's right wing politicians are perfectly fine with a semi-quiet war because it brings them more votes, the Palestinians can never seriously threaten the existence of Israel and America will always provide cover (although maybe not, every Gaza incursion leads to more photos of dead kids)
yeah, that was a bit over the top, but remember Sharon was not the government at the time. he was pretty much washed up and done politically speaking. the second intifada destroyed barak and brought likud and sharon back into power. much like the threats from hamas in gaza keep netanyahu and the right in power now. (imho).
once a peace deal is reached, armstice lines will become borders and the settlements will be a moot point?
|
On August 07 2014 09:43 bahunto28 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 09:32 Sub40APM wrote:On August 07 2014 08:46 bahunto28 wrote:
Palestine, if Arafat didn't launch a second intifada after turning down a final settlement at Camp David in 1999. You were doing so well until you decided to engage in a bit of historical revisionism. No government following 94 in Israel tried to stop colonization of the West Bank, the only difference was that Natanyahu accelerated the rate while Barak slowed it but year over year there has not been one year where Israel hasnt increased its settlements in the West Bank. Then Sharon -- in the face of a statement on Camp David went to the Temple Mount in a deliberate provocation. Israel's right wing politicians are perfectly fine with a semi-quiet war because it brings them more votes, the Palestinians can never seriously threaten the existence of Israel and America will always provide cover (although maybe not, every Gaza incursion leads to more photos of dead kids) yeah, that was a bit over the top, but remember Sharon was not the government at the time. he was pretty much washed up and done politically speaking. the second intifada destroyed barak and brought likud and sharon back into power. much like the threats from hamas in gaza keep netanyahu and the right in power now. (imho). once a peace deal is reached, armstice lines will become borders and the settlements will be a moot point?
How can settlements become a moot point? there are 500,000 Israel citizens living in the West Bank and they need 75,000 IDF troopers to keep them safe. Settlers are a powerful lobby and they have time after time scuttled the process.
|
On August 07 2014 09:50 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 09:43 bahunto28 wrote:On August 07 2014 09:32 Sub40APM wrote:On August 07 2014 08:46 bahunto28 wrote:
Palestine, if Arafat didn't launch a second intifada after turning down a final settlement at Camp David in 1999. You were doing so well until you decided to engage in a bit of historical revisionism. No government following 94 in Israel tried to stop colonization of the West Bank, the only difference was that Natanyahu accelerated the rate while Barak slowed it but year over year there has not been one year where Israel hasnt increased its settlements in the West Bank. Then Sharon -- in the face of a statement on Camp David went to the Temple Mount in a deliberate provocation. Israel's right wing politicians are perfectly fine with a semi-quiet war because it brings them more votes, the Palestinians can never seriously threaten the existence of Israel and America will always provide cover (although maybe not, every Gaza incursion leads to more photos of dead kids) yeah, that was a bit over the top, but remember Sharon was not the government at the time. he was pretty much washed up and done politically speaking. the second intifada destroyed barak and brought likud and sharon back into power. much like the threats from hamas in gaza keep netanyahu and the right in power now. (imho). once a peace deal is reached, armstice lines will become borders and the settlements will be a moot point? How can settlements become a moot point? there are 500,000 Israel citizens living in the West Bank and they need 75,000 IDF troopers to keep them safe. Settlers are a powerful lobby and they have time after time scuttled the process.
well, by definition israel would have to evacuate settlements (as was done in 1979, 2005) or swap land blocs to form borders which will likely be different than the 1967 armstice lines, or come to some kind of acceptable compensation. not saying it wouldn't be contentious or tricky, but probably easier than the other outstanding issues betwixt the two (refugees, jerusalem, etc...).
|
On August 07 2014 03:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 02:24 crazyweasel wrote:On August 06 2014 21:32 Reaper9 wrote:Good, this might slightly curb the insanity that was prevalent in this thread. The war of ideology, of who is right and wrong, was getting on my nerves. Both sides have vested interest in their cause or justification for slaughter and death, and civilians on both sides are suffering, creating more and more hatred. Living, is suffering right now in the Middle East apparently. Edit: correction, did I say right now, I should probably have said decades. It's a cycle, yes I am well aware, every country cycles between war and peace. "both sides are suffering" +1500 civilian casaulties on 1 side, very few on the other. people are also forgetting with this conflict that gaza is huge prison, no one who lives there can go freely in and out. Also isreal for years now has been expanding to the region's strategical waters point and restricting palestinians' access to water and food and supplies through "security control". Then you wonder why people pick sides. either you're on the side of the oppressor or on the side of the oppressed. . If you consider hamas terrorist, then you have to consider the state of israel the same. just like in that NK does alarmin things tread people antagonize 1 side yet the otherside has done as worse. I am all with the palestinian people, and the isrealis who denounce (yes there are alot of them too) their government. It's pretty rare to see someone with full-throated support for terrorism. Usually the people on the Palestinian side at least denounce the tactics.
people are called terrorists by dominant powers. Mandela was called a terrorist for being marxist and pro-violence to counter oppression and today he's a worldwide hero. who is supporting terrorism? let me remind you that it is the USA who armed and financed Al-quaeda. with whose money is Hamas financed? prolly not palestinian themselves but bigger powers (i do not say usa finances hamas dont get me wrong). for what we know though, USA gives billions to israel's national defense (or offense shall we say). So who is blatently supporting terrorism (because killing 1500+ civilians by bombing an area that cannot be fled is terrorism)?
AND ABOUT THE TACTICS : tell me whats left for these people to resist?
|
On August 07 2014 07:48 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 06:07 Cheerio wrote:On August 06 2014 14:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?) You do not intentionally target civilians obviously. You state your goals and use your might to achieve them. The idea that some things are worth killing/dying for is something that western society has (fortunately) mostly lost. With that loss of perspective, all the west can realistically do is stay out of it. Israel and Hamas have gone and decided that their ideologies are worth killing and dying for. Maybe what they really do need is the horrors of war to sober them on what they are willing to do as both sides seem more keen on negotiating than in 1990. So, what are you saying is worth killing/dying for? Just did a little exercise on a note pad: + Show Spoiler +Things worth killing/dying for:
Self-preservation
Family and their lives
Things in order of importance but not worth killing/dying for:
Friends and their lives.
Self improvement
Money and the freedom/security/experiences it brings.
The land under my feet
Country
Strangers and their lives.
Other people's countries and lands.
Things I have a hard time reconciling that they are willing to kill/die for:
Religion
Hatreds
Addictions
That is why that west has a incredibly difficult time dealing with the middle east. How do you negotiate with people who place religion/hatred above self and family preservation? Israel is our ally in the middle east because there values are much more closely aligned with our own.
Yeah like saudi arabia and Jordan right? (Take a look: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_authoritarian_regimes)
|
Can't everybody get along?
|
No, only about 60% of people can get along.
|
I always find it funny Americans who denounce Palestinian 'tactics' as terrorism. Ignorant people with no clue to our own history and heritage. We did the same when we told Britain and the King to piss off. We deliberately shot officers (yeah, big no no in those times), ransacked and terrified Tories, and all sorts of other acts (Tar and Feathering, anyone?). You want to know why? Because we were out-manned, out-gunned, out-financed. We pretty much wrote the book on guerilla warfare. The Palestinians are doing today no differently than we did in the 1770s. Oppressed peoples will always fight with the meager means available to them. It's not like the Palestinian people can match Israeli military might....It's about as dumb as Washington trying to line up and fight the Reds mono e mono. Terrorism...pffft.
|
Great post Wegandi, to many americans forget about this history. The ones who fight back when they are being occupied will always be called terrorists.
|
What i find really funny and at the same time so scary
Is the notion that anyone that doesn't support Israeli politics or it's state is a anti-semitic !
|
On August 07 2014 17:55 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 07:48 Wolfstan wrote:On August 07 2014 06:07 Cheerio wrote:On August 06 2014 14:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?) You do not intentionally target civilians obviously. You state your goals and use your might to achieve them. The idea that some things are worth killing/dying for is something that western society has (fortunately) mostly lost. With that loss of perspective, all the west can realistically do is stay out of it. Israel and Hamas have gone and decided that their ideologies are worth killing and dying for. Maybe what they really do need is the horrors of war to sober them on what they are willing to do as both sides seem more keen on negotiating than in 1990. So, what are you saying is worth killing/dying for? Just did a little exercise on a note pad: + Show Spoiler +Things worth killing/dying for:
Self-preservation
Family and their lives
Things in order of importance but not worth killing/dying for:
Friends and their lives.
Self improvement
Money and the freedom/security/experiences it brings.
The land under my feet
Country
Strangers and their lives.
Other people's countries and lands.
Things I have a hard time reconciling that they are willing to kill/die for:
Religion
Hatreds
Addictions
That is why that west has a incredibly difficult time dealing with the middle east. How do you negotiate with people who place religion/hatred above self and family preservation? Israel is our ally in the middle east because there values are much more closely aligned with our own. Yeah like saudi arabia and Jordan right? (Take a look: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_authoritarian_regimes)
On August 05 2014 07:44 Wolfstan wrote:
Would kicking arabs out of Gaza/West bank really be that bad? I think it makes sense from an economic/cultural sense. Trading with Saudi Arabia/Israel and being culturally aligned with the west is whats in our best interest. Israel and Saudi Arabia are certainly the best horses to bet on in the middle east.
Economic interest is certainly a factor that might be more important than moral/cultural interest. I'm certainly consistent with that opinion.
|
On August 07 2014 07:48 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 06:07 Cheerio wrote:On August 06 2014 14:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?) You do not intentionally target civilians obviously. You state your goals and use your might to achieve them. The idea that some things are worth killing/dying for is something that western society has (fortunately) mostly lost. With that loss of perspective, all the west can realistically do is stay out of it. Israel and Hamas have gone and decided that their ideologies are worth killing and dying for. Maybe what they really do need is the horrors of war to sober them on what they are willing to do as both sides seem more keen on negotiating than in 1990. So, what are you saying is worth killing/dying for? Just did a little exercise on a note pad: + Show Spoiler +Things worth killing/dying for:
Self-preservation
Family and their lives
Things in order of importance but not worth killing/dying for:
Friends and their lives.
Self improvement
Money and the freedom/security/experiences it brings.
The land under my feet
Country
Strangers and their lives.
Other people's countries and lands.
Things I have a hard time reconciling that they are willing to kill/die for:
Religion
Hatreds
Addictions
That is why that west has a incredibly difficult time dealing with the middle east. How do you negotiate with people who place religion/hatred above self and family preservation? Israel is our ally in the middle east because there values are much more closely aligned with our own.
Please tell me which values Israel shares with (let's say...) the United States that Egypt or Turkey don't.
Seriously, when you're not advocating genocide you're simply spewing bigotry.
|
On August 07 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 07:48 Wolfstan wrote:On August 07 2014 06:07 Cheerio wrote:On August 06 2014 14:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?) You do not intentionally target civilians obviously. You state your goals and use your might to achieve them. The idea that some things are worth killing/dying for is something that western society has (fortunately) mostly lost. With that loss of perspective, all the west can realistically do is stay out of it. Israel and Hamas have gone and decided that their ideologies are worth killing and dying for. Maybe what they really do need is the horrors of war to sober them on what they are willing to do as both sides seem more keen on negotiating than in 1990. So, what are you saying is worth killing/dying for? Just did a little exercise on a note pad: + Show Spoiler +Things worth killing/dying for:
Self-preservation
Family and their lives
Things in order of importance but not worth killing/dying for:
Friends and their lives.
Self improvement
Money and the freedom/security/experiences it brings.
The land under my feet
Country
Strangers and their lives.
Other people's countries and lands.
Things I have a hard time reconciling that they are willing to kill/die for:
Religion
Hatreds
Addictions
That is why that west has a incredibly difficult time dealing with the middle east. How do you negotiate with people who place religion/hatred above self and family preservation? Israel is our ally in the middle east because there values are much more closely aligned with our own. Please tell me which values Israel shares with (let's say...) the United States that Egypt or Turkey don't. Seriously, when you're not advocating genocide you're simply spewing bigotry.
They value importance of economic ties. Though not allies, we do have embassies in each other's capital.
|
On August 07 2014 20:33 Wegandi wrote:
I always find it funny Americans who denounce Palestinian 'tactics' as terrorism. Ignorant people with no clue to our own history and heritage. We did the same when we told Britain and the King to piss off. We deliberately shot officers (yeah, big no no in those times), ransacked and terrified Tories, and all sorts of other acts (Tar and Feathering, anyone?). You want to know why? Because we were out-manned, out-gunned, out-financed. We pretty much wrote the book on guerilla warfare. The Palestinians are doing today no differently than we did in the 1770s. Oppressed peoples will always fight with the meager means available to them. It's not like the Palestinian people can match Israeli military might....It's about as dumb as Washington trying to line up and fight the Reds mono e mono. Terrorism...pffft.
There is a qualitative difference between actively targeting civilians in war as a tactic of terror and confiscating property/publicly shaming of traitors. Our actions against tories parallel anything they do against Israeli spies and sympathizers in their own borders, which I'm guessing isn't the most forgiving attitude.
Terrorism is when you use intentionally committed atrocities as a way to inspire terror in the enemy population. And I'm certainly not saying the US has never done this. WWII and Vietnam both include examples. (Most countries have, at one point or another, done this kind of thing, from Vikings to the 30 years war to Napoleonic wars and so on.) But it was wrong. It will always be wrong. And guess what? It was always counterproductive. We would have had a chance in Vietnam if we had done more to get the population on our side, and history has shown that the atrocities in WWII had no ultimate effect on the outcome except a dark stain on the allies honor. (Covered over, like the atrocities committed by each side in this conflict, by saying the other side did worse. At least in WWII this was unambiguously true.)
|
On August 07 2014 23:21 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote:On August 07 2014 07:48 Wolfstan wrote:On August 07 2014 06:07 Cheerio wrote:On August 06 2014 14:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 10:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too. but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender? that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?) You do not intentionally target civilians obviously. You state your goals and use your might to achieve them. The idea that some things are worth killing/dying for is something that western society has (fortunately) mostly lost. With that loss of perspective, all the west can realistically do is stay out of it. Israel and Hamas have gone and decided that their ideologies are worth killing and dying for. Maybe what they really do need is the horrors of war to sober them on what they are willing to do as both sides seem more keen on negotiating than in 1990. So, what are you saying is worth killing/dying for? Just did a little exercise on a note pad: + Show Spoiler +Things worth killing/dying for:
Self-preservation
Family and their lives
Things in order of importance but not worth killing/dying for:
Friends and their lives.
Self improvement
Money and the freedom/security/experiences it brings.
The land under my feet
Country
Strangers and their lives.
Other people's countries and lands.
Things I have a hard time reconciling that they are willing to kill/die for:
Religion
Hatreds
Addictions
That is why that west has a incredibly difficult time dealing with the middle east. How do you negotiate with people who place religion/hatred above self and family preservation? Israel is our ally in the middle east because there values are much more closely aligned with our own. Please tell me which values Israel shares with (let's say...) the United States that Egypt or Turkey don't. Seriously, when you're not advocating genocide you're simply spewing bigotry. They value importance of economic ties. Though not allies, we do have embassies in each other's capital.
You're full of shit and here's proof.
Egyptian embassy in Ottawa: http://www.mfa.gov.eg/english/embassies/Egyptian_Embassy_Ottawa/Pages/default.aspx
Egyptian trade and relations with canada: http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/egypt-egypte/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng
Turkish embassy in Ottawa: http://ottava.be.mfa.gov.tr/
Turkish trade with canada: http://www.economy.gov.tr/index.cfm?sayfa=countriesandregions&country=CA®ion=1
Israel: http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/israel/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng
Canada maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem
While Israel designates Jerusalem as its capital, Canada believes that the final status of the city needs to be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians. At present, Canada maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv.
|
On August 07 2014 06:46 Noam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 06:39 TheFish7 wrote:
In 1948 when Israel declared Independence and rejected the UN's proposal for partitioning the area it's population was about 800,000. Today it is about 8,000,000. In the same time, over 1,300,000 Palestinians were displaced and Israel has annexed large areas of land. In the face of overwhelming military force, is it any wonder so many have resorted to terrorism? Can you come up with any source for the following statement: "Israel rejected the UN's proposal for partitioning the area" ?
Correction: The Israelis rejected the British plans for partition, several years earlier, not the UN plan. The UN plan was only rejected by the Palestinians, and the Israelis actually pushed several governments to have the UN resolution passed. It's all moot however since war broke out before any plan could be enacted.
On August 07 2014 09:01 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 08:46 bahunto28 wrote:On August 07 2014 06:39 TheFish7 wrote:
In 1948 when Israel declared Independence and rejected the UN's proposal for partitioning the area it's population was about 800,000. Today it is about 8,000,000. In the same time, over 1,300,000 Palestinians were displaced and Israel has annexed large areas of land. In the face of overwhelming military force, is it any wonder so many have resorted to terrorism? for funsies, i rewrote the above from a different narrative... In 1948, when Israel declared Independence and the surrounding Arab states rejected the UN's proposal for partitioning the area and the Arab states launched a war of annihilaation on Israel, the population of Israel was about 800,000 (82% jewish, 18% arab). Today it is about 8,000,000 (~75%jewish, 25% arab). In the same time, over 800,000 jews were displaced from the rest of the arab world and integrated into israeli society instead of being left to fester in perpetual misery in hereditary refugee camps. In the face of overwhelming hostility from her neighbours, is it any wonder israel makes peace including land transfers with whomever offers their hand in sincerity (Egypt, Jordan, and in an alternate history - Palestine, if Arafat didn't launch a second intifada after turning down a final settlement at Camp David in 1999). so yeah i agree, it is a wonder why some people resort to terrorism and genocidal pursuits to destroy others when instead they could have built their state for the benefit of their own people.... anywho, i hope this ceasefire holds and the gazans begin to rebuild houses and hospitals, not tunnels and rockets. Hope is a wonderful thing, but remember that these are the same people who celebrated the 9/11 attack on U.S.
You know, not all Arabs are bloodthirsty killers, and perpetuating this idea is not doing anyone any favors.
|
The US's embassy is in Tel-Aviv as well lol.
|
On August 07 2014 10:12 crazyweasel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 03:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On August 07 2014 02:24 crazyweasel wrote:On August 06 2014 21:32 Reaper9 wrote:Good, this might slightly curb the insanity that was prevalent in this thread. The war of ideology, of who is right and wrong, was getting on my nerves. Both sides have vested interest in their cause or justification for slaughter and death, and civilians on both sides are suffering, creating more and more hatred. Living, is suffering right now in the Middle East apparently. Edit: correction, did I say right now, I should probably have said decades. It's a cycle, yes I am well aware, every country cycles between war and peace. "both sides are suffering" +1500 civilian casaulties on 1 side, very few on the other. people are also forgetting with this conflict that gaza is huge prison, no one who lives there can go freely in and out. Also isreal for years now has been expanding to the region's strategical waters point and restricting palestinians' access to water and food and supplies through "security control". Then you wonder why people pick sides. either you're on the side of the oppressor or on the side of the oppressed. . If you consider hamas terrorist, then you have to consider the state of israel the same. just like in that NK does alarmin things tread people antagonize 1 side yet the otherside has done as worse. I am all with the palestinian people, and the isrealis who denounce (yes there are alot of them too) their government. It's pretty rare to see someone with full-throated support for terrorism. Usually the people on the Palestinian side at least denounce the tactics. people are called terrorists by dominant powers. Mandela was called a terrorist for being marxist and pro-violence to counter oppression and today he's a worldwide hero. who is supporting terrorism? let me remind you that it is the USA who armed and financed Al-quaeda. with whose money is Hamas financed? prolly not palestinian themselves but bigger powers (i do not say usa finances hamas dont get me wrong). for what we know though, USA gives billions to israel's national defense (or offense shall we say). So who is blatently supporting terrorism (because killing 1500+ civilians by bombing an area that cannot be fled is terrorism)? AND ABOUT THE TACTICS : tell me whats left for these people to resist?
Asked and answered several pages ago. Even if you are amenable to natural right violent revolution you should concede that it's stupid for Palestinians to do it. The military mismatch is so great, and the land they are inhabiting so small and easy to occupy that it doesn't make sense to fight occupation with violence. The latest round ended with a death ratio of ~30:1. The Palestinians do not outnumber Israelis 30:1. The only way it would make logical sense, and here I'm ignoring the moral force of arguably more effective non-violent resistance, is if the military situation on the ground were completely upended. For example, if Iran developed nuclear weapons and delivered them to Hamas.
|
On August 07 2014 23:38 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 10:12 crazyweasel wrote:On August 07 2014 03:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On August 07 2014 02:24 crazyweasel wrote:On August 06 2014 21:32 Reaper9 wrote:Good, this might slightly curb the insanity that was prevalent in this thread. The war of ideology, of who is right and wrong, was getting on my nerves. Both sides have vested interest in their cause or justification for slaughter and death, and civilians on both sides are suffering, creating more and more hatred. Living, is suffering right now in the Middle East apparently. Edit: correction, did I say right now, I should probably have said decades. It's a cycle, yes I am well aware, every country cycles between war and peace. "both sides are suffering" +1500 civilian casaulties on 1 side, very few on the other. people are also forgetting with this conflict that gaza is huge prison, no one who lives there can go freely in and out. Also isreal for years now has been expanding to the region's strategical waters point and restricting palestinians' access to water and food and supplies through "security control". Then you wonder why people pick sides. either you're on the side of the oppressor or on the side of the oppressed. . If you consider hamas terrorist, then you have to consider the state of israel the same. just like in that NK does alarmin things tread people antagonize 1 side yet the otherside has done as worse. I am all with the palestinian people, and the isrealis who denounce (yes there are alot of them too) their government. It's pretty rare to see someone with full-throated support for terrorism. Usually the people on the Palestinian side at least denounce the tactics. people are called terrorists by dominant powers. Mandela was called a terrorist for being marxist and pro-violence to counter oppression and today he's a worldwide hero. who is supporting terrorism? let me remind you that it is the USA who armed and financed Al-quaeda. with whose money is Hamas financed? prolly not palestinian themselves but bigger powers (i do not say usa finances hamas dont get me wrong). for what we know though, USA gives billions to israel's national defense (or offense shall we say). So who is blatently supporting terrorism (because killing 1500+ civilians by bombing an area that cannot be fled is terrorism)? AND ABOUT THE TACTICS : tell me whats left for these people to resist? Asked and answered several pages ago. Even if you are amenable to natural right violent revolution you should concede that it's stupid for Palestinians to do it. The military mismatch is so great, and the land they are inhabiting so small and easy to occupy that it doesn't make sense to fight occupation with violence. The latest round ended with a death ratio of ~30:1. The Palestinians do not outnumber Israelis 30:1. The only way it would make logical sense, and here I'm ignoring the moral force of arguably more effective non-violent resistance, is if the military situation on the ground were completely upended. For example, if Iran developed nuclear weapons and delivered them to Hamas.
And lets be clear, if the conflict goes nuclear, no one wins. Literally no one. Its like a fist fight was hand grenades.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On August 07 2014 23:38 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 10:12 crazyweasel wrote:On August 07 2014 03:35 NovaTheFeared wrote:On August 07 2014 02:24 crazyweasel wrote:On August 06 2014 21:32 Reaper9 wrote:Good, this might slightly curb the insanity that was prevalent in this thread. The war of ideology, of who is right and wrong, was getting on my nerves. Both sides have vested interest in their cause or justification for slaughter and death, and civilians on both sides are suffering, creating more and more hatred. Living, is suffering right now in the Middle East apparently. Edit: correction, did I say right now, I should probably have said decades. It's a cycle, yes I am well aware, every country cycles between war and peace. "both sides are suffering" +1500 civilian casaulties on 1 side, very few on the other. people are also forgetting with this conflict that gaza is huge prison, no one who lives there can go freely in and out. Also isreal for years now has been expanding to the region's strategical waters point and restricting palestinians' access to water and food and supplies through "security control". Then you wonder why people pick sides. either you're on the side of the oppressor or on the side of the oppressed. . If you consider hamas terrorist, then you have to consider the state of israel the same. just like in that NK does alarmin things tread people antagonize 1 side yet the otherside has done as worse. I am all with the palestinian people, and the isrealis who denounce (yes there are alot of them too) their government. It's pretty rare to see someone with full-throated support for terrorism. Usually the people on the Palestinian side at least denounce the tactics. people are called terrorists by dominant powers. Mandela was called a terrorist for being marxist and pro-violence to counter oppression and today he's a worldwide hero. who is supporting terrorism? let me remind you that it is the USA who armed and financed Al-quaeda. with whose money is Hamas financed? prolly not palestinian themselves but bigger powers (i do not say usa finances hamas dont get me wrong). for what we know though, USA gives billions to israel's national defense (or offense shall we say). So who is blatently supporting terrorism (because killing 1500+ civilians by bombing an area that cannot be fled is terrorism)? AND ABOUT THE TACTICS : tell me whats left for these people to resist? Asked and answered several pages ago. Even if you are amenable to natural right violent revolution you should concede that it's stupid for Palestinians to do it. The military mismatch is so great, and the land they are inhabiting so small and easy to occupy that it doesn't make sense to fight occupation with violence. The latest round ended with a death ratio of ~30:1. The Palestinians do not outnumber Israelis 30:1. The only way it would make logical sense, and here I'm ignoring the moral force of arguably more effective non-violent resistance, is if the military situation on the ground were completely upended. For example, if Iran developed nuclear weapons and delivered them to Hamas.
Kinda misses the point, surely, that as far as they're concerned they can either fight, or be continuously rolled and pushed back by Israel. The fact that it's extremely stupid for the Palestinians to do it and yet they still do is testament to how few options and how cornered they are, or they feel they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
