On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
Circumstances were different. Britain was broke from fighting 2 World Wars and couldn't hang on to its colonies any longer, which is why the nonviolent protests were effective. The Civil Rights movement in the US was Americans vs. Americans and the demands were simply social rights, not an independent state. Last time anyone in America demanded their own country based on ideological reasons (the confederate states) we went to war with them.
It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to expect everyone in Palestine to put their guns down and wait 20-30 years for Israel to do something when Israel's ruling party doesn't even recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist.
Yeah, because the current plan of violence and death is working out so well. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't label non-violent protesters as terrorists and you can't deal with them with machine guns.
I am not saying its a perfect solution, but anything is better than the current one where both sides mindlessly justify all this death as "we have no other option."
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
The problem is people only see Gandhi and Luther King, and forget about Malcom X, the black panthers, Chandra Bose or the various armed rebellion in India. Peaceful protest can win, in certain circumstances, but always with the help in the back ground of a possible armed revolution.
Yes, but the key is that you attempt the non-violent protest, which no one has even tried in this conflict. And all of the leaders like Malcom X said later on that violence would not have solved the problem. You don't lead in with violence, which seems to be the way in the majority of the Middle East.
You are not okay with Hamas using humans as shields but you're okay with a school full of kids being blown up.
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
Gandhi's success was the exception to the rule. Just look at Tibet. Also while India was certainly oppressed to a degree, their existence was not threatened. Palestine on the other hand faces an enemy that is currently intent on cleansing their nation out of their own homeland.
But it wasn't always like that. There was an era when both sides shared the space and were able to get along. There were issues, but the responses to those issues was violence from both sides. And violence just justifies more violence. Bus and mall bombings, leading to air strikes, leading to blockades, leading to people building walls, leading to rockets and leading to more airstrikes.
And your right, Tibet is a long struggle for those people and it has the support of the world saying it should be free. But right now, I would say they are better off than the people in Gaza.
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
On August 04 2014 22:40 DinoMight wrote:
On August 04 2014 22:26 Plansix wrote:
On August 04 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote: Guys,
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
Circumstances were different. Britain was broke from fighting 2 World Wars and couldn't hang on to its colonies any longer, which is why the nonviolent protests were effective. The Civil Rights movement in the US was Americans vs. Americans and the demands were simply social rights, not an independent state. Last time anyone in America demanded their own country based on ideological reasons (the confederate states) we went to war with them.
It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to expect everyone in Palestine to put their guns down and wait 20-30 years for Israel to do something when Israel's ruling party doesn't even recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist.
Yeah, because the current plan of violence and death is working out so well. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't label non-violent protesters as terrorists and you can't deal with them with machine guns.
I am not saying its a perfect solution, but anything is better than the current one where both sides mindlessly justify all this death as "we have no other option."
On August 04 2014 22:37 WhiteDog wrote:
On August 04 2014 22:26 Plansix wrote:
On August 04 2014 22:19 DinoMight wrote: Guys,
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
The problem is people only see Gandhi and Luther King, and forget about Malcom X, the black panthers, Chandra Bose or the various armed rebellion in India. Peaceful protest can win, in certain circumstances, but always with the help in the back ground of a possible armed revolution.
Yes, but the key is that you attempt the non-violent protest, which no one has even tried in this conflict. And all of the leaders like Malcom X said later on that violence would not have solved the problem. You don't lead in with violence, which seems to be the way in the majority of the Middle East.
You are not okay with Hamas using humans as shields but you're okay with a school full of kids being blown up.
Selective morality is hilarious.
Hamas is NOT using human shield until proven please ? Can we agree on the fact that all human right study or UN inquirry clearlty stated that there is no proof that the Hamas is using human shield, while the IDF has used human shield and still use palestinian civilians for various tasks.
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
Circumstances were different. Britain was broke from fighting 2 World Wars and couldn't hang on to its colonies any longer, which is why the nonviolent protests were effective. The Civil Rights movement in the US was Americans vs. Americans and the demands were simply social rights, not an independent state. Last time anyone in America demanded their own country based on ideological reasons (the confederate states) we went to war with them.
It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to expect everyone in Palestine to put their guns down and wait 20-30 years for Israel to do something when Israel's ruling party doesn't even recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist.
Yeah, because the current plan of violence and death is working out so well. The simple fact of the matter is that you can't label non-violent protesters as terrorists and you can't deal with them with machine guns.
I am not saying its a perfect solution, but anything is better than the current one where both sides mindlessly justify all this death as "we have no other option."
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
The problem is people only see Gandhi and Luther King, and forget about Malcom X, the black panthers, Chandra Bose or the various armed rebellion in India. Peaceful protest can win, in certain circumstances, but always with the help in the back ground of a possible armed revolution.
Yes, but the key is that you attempt the non-violent protest, which no one has even tried in this conflict. And all of the leaders like Malcom X said later on that violence would not have solved the problem. You don't lead in with violence, which seems to be the way in the majority of the Middle East.
Why does everyone think that if the Palestinians put their weapons down Israel would suddenly want to make peace and have meaningful discussions with them?
After all, this is a country that since it was established (through Terrorism) has not shown that it is ready to make any concessions at all with regard to a free Palestinian state.
One needs to look no further than the ruling Likud party's own charter to see that a Palestinian state is not something in mind, and that they will not stop until Gaza is fully under their control.
The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform rejects a Palestinian state.
"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."[27]
In fact, why don't we look at what's going on in the West Bank?
Where is the progress on removing the illegal settlements? When is a Palestinian State going to be created? When will the apartheid the Palestinians are living under end? It's clear that Israel has no interest in this.
Nothing I've written condones the action of Hamas... I think firing rockets at Israel is despicable. But Israel continues to use this as an excuse to make no progress towards peace and a Palestinian state even in the West Bank (and in Gaza where 60% of the population opposes Hamas).
That is why people are saying that non-violent protest takes years and years. It look years in the US civil rights movement and years in India. And yes, the other side will do bad stuff while it is going on, but the difference is that non-violent protest cannot be responded to with military forces without the entire world freaking out. Israel would have zero support and you can't call non-violent protester terrorists.
Unlike the current route, which is doomed to fail and just get tons of innocent people killed.
Gandhi's success was the exception to the rule. Just look at Tibet. Also while India was certainly oppressed to a degree, their existence was not threatened. Palestine on the other hand faces an enemy that is currently intent on cleansing their nation out of their own homeland.
But it wasn't always like that. There was an era when both sides shared the space and were able to get along.
And then Zionists showed up with guns and drove the Arabs off their land to create an exclusive Jewish state. Let's not forget that this is how the conflict started. The only reason Israel won out was because they were on the US side throughout the Cold War. They still rely on us for a lot of their military resources (we just gave them another $XXX million worth of bombs).
Given their history there's no reason to believe that peace will just magically happen when the Palestinians put their guns down. Just like Hamas has said they want to destroy Israel, there are many members of the Israeli government whose parties don't recognize a Palestinian State's right to exist. Why would this change? Less resistance will only make them easier to conquer.
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."
I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
On August 04 2014 18:32 DrCooper wrote: [quote] When this all blows over, I actually think the Hamas is going to be stronger than ever. Sadly. Violence breeds more violence.
That's why what Israel's doing is so stupid (unless they plan to wipe out every single Palestinian). The remnants of families shattered by this violence in Gaza are going to be prime recruits for terrorist organizations. Who wouldn't want a chance to avenge the death of a daughter/wife/mother if given the chance?
A civilzed human being wouldnt seek for revenge but would try to stop the circlejerk of murdering and avenging. It doesnt speak for the Palestinian society either if their reaction to violence is even more bloody violence. (Same as for Israel)
Bullshit. You're barely surviving because of Israeli blockades and infrastructure damage. Then someone shells your daughter in a school. It's easy to post about stopping the cyclical violence on a forum but when Palestinians living in Israeli-imposed poverty are losing family members by the hundreds and thousands you can't expect a civilized response. Israel has a far better shot at showing how civilized it is considering it's only had a handful of civilian deaths and lives in the first world. If Israel can't be civilized/restrained how do you expect the poor bastards living in Gaza to behave?
A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
they're labeled terrorists because they are terrorists (hamas). If they went full Gandhi active non-violent resistance they'd win in 10 years.
yup, I agree with that. If they'd not shoot a single rocket on Israel or send a single suicide bomber for some time (and continue to do so), the international pressure (if even needed) on Israel would open the borders.
Funny considering Israel still occupies the West Bank.
It look years of non-violent protest for India to gain independence and the full support of the population. That is not the situation right now and has not been for as long as anyone can remember.
The point is that it is largely Israel's fault that the situation has not been moving forward, not the Palestinians.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends?
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends?
I consider most dominant country to be more or less uninterested with palestine and deeply linked with Israel, both from an historical standpoint and from an economical standpoint. Palestine is a nonstate, no (or almost no) country care about it - unlike public opinion. Much like south africa before the apartheid actually : the US was backing them, most country didn't care, but the public opinion deeply cared.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
Why the Palestinians have to disarm first? Those people have been without a homeland for almost 70 years now. Why do they have to prove anything? Shouldn't Israel disarm then as well? Why is it so impossible for Israel to elect a government that recognises those people's right to exist as a state or at least equals that they themselves have invaded and forced into apartheid? When will Israel apologise? Or stop repeating that they are the victims when in reality they are the perpetrators?
Palestine stood united just a few months ago, despite the efforts to cut off Gaza from the West Bank. You bet Abbas wasn't going to lead the united government into a war. Israel does not want to negotiate, the easiest way to achieve this is when you can complain that there's noone to negotiate with.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
Israel does not have international support. Israel has American support. And support of the media.
If you look at UN security council resolutions (of which Israel has broken 77) many of the ones that fail to pass are agreed upon unanimously except for a US veto.
In fact, if you look at the trend of UN security council resolutions that are voted down, the United States consistently votes against the rest of the world and in favor of Israel.
France and Germany have a bit of guilt about them from the Holocaust and so it's a sensitive topic for them but many other countries have come forward and clearly expressed their views on the situation. Pretty much every South American country has condemned Israel with Bolivia going as far as to call it a terrorist state.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends?
I consider most dominant country to be more or less uninterested with palestine and deeply linked with Israel, both from an historical standpoint and from an economical standpoint. Palestine is a nonstate, no (or almost no) country care about it - unlike public opinion. Much like south africa before the apartheid actually : the US was backing them, most country didn't care, but the public opinion deeply cared.
I think the protests against the war and Israel we have in countries like Germany proves you wrong. indicates the opposite. Edit: Sorry, shouldn't use that saying.
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."
I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind.
My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail.
As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime.
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."
I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind.
My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively.
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail.
As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime.
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."
I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind.
My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively.
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians.
You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ?
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
So you consider everybody in the world to be an enemy of Palestine and on the same page demand that they should treat them as friends?
I consider most dominant country to be more or less uninterested with palestine and deeply linked with Israel, both from an historical standpoint and from an economical standpoint. Palestine is a nonstate, no (or almost no) country care about it - unlike public opinion. Much like south africa before the apartheid actually : the US was backing them, most country didn't care, but the public opinion deeply cared.
I think the protests against the war and Israel we have in countries like Germany proves you wrong. indicates the opposite. Edit: Sorry, shouldn't use that saying.
You understand the difference between public opinion and the opinion of the state right ? Most people were not okay with apartheid, even in the US, but the US president backed them up until the end.
On August 04 2014 21:30 Big J wrote: A poor bastard as you call it has as much claim to killing someone else as a rich bastard. Hamas killing has no moral highground over Israel killing.
It's true their rockets aren't doing them any good - as in helping them win the war. But can you then suggest what they should be trying? Because after 60 years they ran out of options, their enemies are still funded by some of the world's richest countries and they are still labeled as terrorists by the mainstream media.
They are labeled as terrorists because ten years ago, they were quite busy staging suicide bombings everywhere in Israel, suicide bombings that specifically targeted civilians in buses, theatres, restaurants... There were around 800 fatalities, and thousands of injured people. They are labeled as terrorists because during the last few years, their main activity has been the embezzlement of donation money into the digging of tunnels meant to kidnap Israeli civilians and into the manufacturing of thousands of unguided rockets dedicated to the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli urban areas. They are labeled as terrorists because, as soon as they won the 2006 legislative elections, they went on murdering as much Fatah members in the Gaza strip as they could. And that's for the last 15 years alone. Don't you agree that Hamas quite qualify for the terrorist label?
As to what the Palestinians could and should try, well they could start to completely and irrevocably renounce violence, which include disarming Hamas and disbanding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and remove all mentions of the destruction of the state of Israel and the extermination of the jews in the Hamas charter. Once this is done and enforced, then the Likud and its far-right cronies are cornered. They can't lift one finger against peaceful Palestinians without pissing off their western support for good. Just think for one second what the international outrage against Israel would have been if in the middle of the current conflict, Hamas had completely stopped shooting rockets and trying to abduct Israelis... The IDF would have been compelled to stop its strikes in no time.
Soon enough, Likud would lose elections, and Netanyahu would give way to a more moderate leader, someone along the lines of Yesh Atid, simply because the Israeli would come to the conclusion that the Likud has no answer to this new paradigm of peaceful Palestinian resistance. That would be the time to start the negociation for a Palestinian state, once the new Israeli governement has lifted the siege and the naval blockade, and has put an end to the settlement in the west bank. Obviously, the Palestinians would have to surrender the right to return, which is anathema to the Israelis, and have to settle with a compensation fund financed by Israel. They would also have to recognize Israel as a predominantly jewish state, provided that the citizenship of Israeli arabs and non-jews Israelis are guaranteed. As to the borders, well they should be along the lines of the 2008 draft I suppose. Something close to the 1967 borders minus the major settlement blocs in the west bank and plus new Palestinians areas to make up the settlements, and some sort of corridor between Gaza and the west bank.
This is what the Palestinians should strive to achieve, rather than resorting to brute force, which has proven to be so detrimental to them since 1948.
The IDF, known as the Haganah before the creation of the Israeli state, did the same, and worse. Terrorism on one side is accepted, not on the other ?
No, people wouldn't accept violence from one side if the other was non-violent. Israel wouldn't have the international support it currently has if they were attacking non-violent protesters. The only reason they have support from anyone is due the fact that Hamas is violent as well.
That's bullshit. Palestine was a colonized state since a hundred years or more when the israeli came in, they have no power, no leverage in the international community. Do you really think the international community would back them up just because they are non violent ? Israel is a dominant state, with vast help from the US and Europe. Asking them to lay down their weapon is like saying : "just shut up and let this continue while we are not forced to look at you slowly dying".
Well the current solution of violence is only making them die faster. There is no getting around the argument that violence will fail. It was doomed to fail.
As least with the non-violent route people might be able to make normal lives. The current route is just pure failure on all front. It will accomplish nothing but wasting a lot of lives and assuring that there will be no peace in that land in our lifetime.
On August 04 2014 23:21 DinoMight wrote:
On August 04 2014 23:00 Plansix wrote:
On August 04 2014 22:57 DinoMight wrote:
On August 04 2014 22:40 Plansix wrote: Its been well documented that Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations to prevent long range strikes from being used against them. They hope that Israel will send ground troops to stop the missile/mortar attacks. At that time, when the troops are most exposed, Hamas will be able to attack, kill and capture soldiers.
The difference is the Israel is shooting back with long range strikes rather than expose their troops to risk. I could blame Israel, but I choose to blame Hamas because they have chosen not to value their own people’s lives.
The problem is that everyone is looking for a verdict, not a solution.
First off, "Hamas conducts attacks near civilian populations" ... have you seen how small Gaza is? It has the population density of New York city. There is nowhere they could fire from that ISNT near a civilian population.
But more importantly, this doesn't change my argument. So Hamas are terrorists and they're holding the civilians of Gaza hostage while they indiscriminately attack Israel. Is the correct response to punish everyone collectively? To blow up the whole bank rather than negotiate with the bank robber?
Let me refer you to this (now famous) quote from Bill Clinton:
"Osama Bin Laden -- he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him -- and I nearly got him once," Clinton says on a never-before-released audio recording of his remarks. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him."
I agree and I would like it if Israel could be more accurate with their responses to the missile and mortar attacks. But lets be clear, Hamas want's Israel to hit these sites because it strengthens their hand in their mind.
My point is that to any intelligent, educated person it IS clear that Hamas's military wing (the brigade) is a Terrorist organization. But one cannot let a terrorist organization hold an entire people hostage. Again if you're looking for a verdict, Hamas is guilty of everything it's accused of. But Israel's disproportionate response punishes all Palestinians collectively.
It has been confirmed that both sides suck, yes. Both sides are guilty of targeting civilians.
You're calling life in gaza in peace "normal lives" ?
Depends, are we talking about Gaza in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s or now? There were pretty normal at one point, yes.
EPT
