|
On December 31 2008 03:16 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Haaretz has reported this operation has been planned for 6 months. You could say that those attacks spawned the start of the operation, but you can't say they caused them.
It's called a contingency plan. You need to have plans ready in case your opponent does something, because if you wait until he attacks, you will not respond quickly enough. Everyone does this; it's not proof of evil intent:
On November 19, following dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar rounds which exploded on Israeli soil, the plan was brought for Barak's final approval. Last Thursday, on December 18, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the defense minister met at IDF headquarters in central Tel Aviv to approve the operation.
However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire.
So:
- it was planned 6 months ago, just in case
- after the November attacks, it was approved, but delayed to see if Hamas would continue a ceasefire
- Hamas started attacking again, so the plan was put into motion
Besides, have these type of operations actually ever diminished the amount of rocket attacks into Israel? To say that these operations are a solution to the problem just does not hold up to fact.
Actually, yes. Here is a graph:
![[image loading]](http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/181B91B2-BDF3-4BC2-AA23-59C4D8816F87/0/wounded20017.jpg)
from: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htm
|
On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote:
First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with).
Apples and oranges. Hamas is firing rockets at civilians, so by your eye-for-an-eye logic, Israel should go kill 20 palestinian civilians. But Israel is a civilized country so they are going after Hamas military, instead of civilians.
If you're from Iran, you should know that war isn't about proportionality -- it wasn't so long ago that you were at war with Iraq. You try to wipe out the other side's military, period. You don't tell your generals, "you can't kill any more of them than they kill of us."
|
On December 31 2008 05:31 expostfacto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 03:16 TeCh)PsylO wrote:those attacks are what caused this recent operation. Haaretz has reported this operation has been planned for 6 months. You could say that those attacks spawned the start of the operation, but you can't say they caused them. It's called a contingency plan. You need to have plans ready in case your opponent does something, because if you wait until he attacks, you will not respond quickly enough. Everyone does this; it's not proof of evil intent: Show nested quote +
On November 19, following dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar rounds which exploded on Israeli soil, the plan was brought for Barak's final approval. Last Thursday, on December 18, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the defense minister met at IDF headquarters in central Tel Aviv to approve the operation.
However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire.
So: - it was planned 6 months ago, just in case - after the November attacks, it was approved, but delayed to see if Hamas would continue a ceasefire - Hamas started attacking again, so the plan was put into motion Show nested quote + Besides, have these type of operations actually ever diminished the amount of rocket attacks into Israel? To say that these operations are a solution to the problem just does not hold up to fact. Actually, yes. Here is a graph: from: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htm
I understand this, that was my point. Both sides have contingency plans and the situations is ongoing, so the recent rocket attacks into southern Israel were not the cause of the recent operations. My point was not to show evil intent, but rather to show that you can't say that event "x" was the caused of event "y". There are larger issues, and actions in from sides are done in the context of a longer history.
Your graph is misleading. It shows terrorist acts and crimes. Read through the incidents and you will see a hole lot of crimes. A woman was stabbed in her home by a palestinian, a man was shot on the street, etc... Those are not necessarily events directly related to the conflict. Your graph also does not include any Palestinian deaths as a result of IDF actions. It also starts in 2001, the start of the 2nd Palestinian Intifada, which started when Sharon visited the Temple Mount. This was essentially the peak of violence in relatively recent years, so to say that IDF actions minimized violence, but then start with it's peak is not exactly sincere.
|
I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
|
On December 31 2008 05:36 expostfacto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 02:14 Xeris wrote:
First off - if you look at international law, any retaliation with force, if it's going to be claimed to be out of self defense should hold to this principle: the response must be proportional to the offense. So, less than 20 Israelis (I think the official word is that Israel's attacks are prompted by a bombing that killed TWO people) being killed should not warrant an all out invasion of Gaza and the deaths of over 350 people (probably more by the time this is all over with). Apples and oranges. Hamas is firing rockets at civilians, so by your eye-for-an-eye logic, Israel should go kill 20 palestinian civilians. But Israel is a civilized country so they are going after Hamas military, instead of civilians. If you're from Iran, you should know that war isn't about proportionality -- it wasn't so long ago that you were at war with Iraq. You try to wipe out the other side's military, period. You don't tell your generals, "you can't kill any more of them than they kill of us."
And Israel hasn't also been firing missiles at people in Gaza? Reportedly there are over 60 civilian deaths so far at the hands of Israeli forces. My logic isn't "eye for an eye" ... it is about proportionality. You don't respond to a few deaths by invading someone. Coupled with that and the fact that military action requires approval by the UN Security council, even if it is "self defense". Arguably, Israel is acting illegally and is claiming self defense as a front to take out a regime it doesn't like.
I'm well aware of the Iran-Iraq war - my grandparents home was bombed during the war. The point is though, that Israel is acting very disproportionally to what was done to them, not to mention that both sides are equally guilty of bombing/harassing one another. The invasion of Gaza is unwarranted.
|
On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote:
I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force.
that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times).
the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
|
So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no?
2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force?
2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't.
|
On December 30 2008 21:48 Sk0 wrote:
israel will regret what it's doing to muslims, I hate israel and all their allies, they will regret all!
silent baneling.
|
On December 31 2008 06:21 Savio wrote:
So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no?
2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force?
2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't.
Proportionality doesn't mean an exact eye for an eye thing. It's not as if they're saying "Ok Hamas fired four missiles at us, so we can fire four back." - Responding to missile fire with an outright invasion is NOT proportional, I don't see how you can really argue that. That's basically using pre-emption as an excuse to invade another's territory. Preemption is a really murky and ambiguous concept in international law and there are two schools of thought on the legality and legitimacy of preemptive measures. I personally believe that preemption is bad UNLESS you can really prove intent....
For example... If Israel could factually state: We believe that Hamas intends to destroy us, they're building up a military and weapons and planning an invasion of Israel. In order to stop this, we're going to attack them NOW. Then perhaps a preemptive measure is necessary.
BUT, this is not the case. This is just saying "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW."
Anyone who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone is actually going to go invade Israel and try to destroy them is delusional. Not even Iran would do that, and they're infinitely stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah.
|
Palestine and Israel killing each other will amount to nothing. The way they're fighting now, the conflict will just continue, people will continue to suffer, and life there will suck.
One way to end it is to have a definite winner on one side. Who will it be? To me, they're both in the wrong, so I wouldn't care atm. If one side is to be totally destroyed though, what result will increase the general welfare of the world? I don't know enough to say...
I guess since there are many people from both sides who aren't extremists or just want to kill the other side and want to negotiate, would it be best, then, to just eliminate all of those who do want to destroy their opponents? That would lead to negotiations - but will that even work? The fighting stems from their ideological differences - who gets Jerusalem. There doesn't seem to be a solution that would be satisfactory to both sides as long as their religion remains the impediment. The only way it could truly work out is if one side, or both, changes their beliefs.
Fuck, shit can't be done. But the way it's going right now, suffering will just continue. I think the right thing to do in the situation would be something that would ensure that future generations would not have such conflicts. Even if ending the conflict means completely wiping out Israel, if it ends the stalemate and allows for a better life for future generations, it should be considered. Looking at the long term, this would be better for the general welfare of the world even if it does mean death for many at the present.
|
I don't get what the hell you're saying. You want them to sit idle then? A government that isn't going to put a missile up the ass of the scumbags who kill its countrymen isn't doing its job of protecting its inhabitants.
Of course they aren't going to invade Israel—they'll just win the war of attrition by blowing up civilians. That sure doesn't merit any kind of response!
And this thing doesn't end until they blow each other up, or until both become secular nations. But then they'll still probably bitch.
|
On December 31 2008 04:19 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
Locke., essentially you think Israel has not been aggressive enough and that has left Israel vulnerable? What do you think would be enough? What do think should be the balance between being aggressive against Hamas, while not collectively punishing the entire population? (these are honest questions)
Essentially yes, though it's not only that, our leaders have constantly done things that made the Palestinians become much stronger and much more dangerous to Israel. Our tax money directly funded a lot of the huge terror infrastructures we are now facing.
Around a year ago there was a poll in Gaza which showed that over 70% of Palestinians in Gaza want to leave Gaza and live in a different country. So many want to leave that the Hamas made a law forbidding people to leave using its brute force.
A small positive step would be to let anyone who wants to leave to just go (a right people should have in every place in the world). The Egyptians and all the other 57 Arab countries say they are their brothers, help them find a better place and escape the horrible Hamas regime along with Israel's inevitable attacks. IMO Israel should also give financial aid to people in Gaza who wants to leave.
Don't forget the Hamas rose to power in a democratic election. The majority of the population supported it and now after 3 years of totalitarian brain washing I am sure even more of the population fully supports them. A real attack to destroy Hamas will cause harm to many civilians no doubt about that. The main point to remember is that this situation is not symmetrical, if Israel manages to return to a situation similar to how things were before Oslo there will be very little violence in our area. On the other hand the stronger the Hamas becomes and the stronger the Palestinian army (it's called police but it's an army) becomes the more violence and bloodshed will follow in the future.
|
On December 31 2008 06:42 Hawk wrote:
And this thing doesn't end until they blow each other up, or until both become secular nations. But then they'll still probably bitch.
I agree with this. Both becoming secular nations would be the best thing that could happen imo, but that's never gonna happen 
About blowing each other up - yeah, it won't end until this happens. One side has to have a definite winner for it to end, since the root of the problem can't be changed. The thing is, is it better for this to happen as soon as possible? Or later? Or just keep the fighting going?
Looking in the long run, having one side destroy the other as soon as possible would potentially yield the most beneficial results. If it's gonna happen anyway, having it happen sooner will prevent future suffering and deaths.
|
On December 31 2008 06:19 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote:
I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force. that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times). the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East.
You can say it even a 100 times it's still wrong. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
Israel bombs Hezbollah and Hamas to protect its civilians, they fire at us to destroy us and are openly stating that for years. They are ruthless and violent dictatorships (to their own people) and we are a democracy. They despise life and worship death, they send their children to explode. They teach their children to hate Jews and Israelis, the Palestinian text books even from Arafat's time are full with antisemitism, their official maps don't have Israel on them.
|
There are tons of nutjobs on both sides of the conflict. It's very plain, even from just reading some of the biased posts in this thread.
The problem is, I don't really see that there is a permanent, feasible solution to this problem in the near future, unless the Israelis and the Palestinians can get over their hatred for one another. Of course, that's not going to happen for a long time, so my advice is to get used to all this fighting.
The problem with compromises is that it leaves both sides unsatisfied, and therefore won't hold.
|
On December 31 2008 06:36 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 06:21 Savio wrote:
So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no?
2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force?
2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't. Proportionality doesn't mean an exact eye for an eye thing. It's not as if they're saying "Ok Hamas fired four missiles at us, so we can fire four back." - Responding to missile fire with an outright invasion is NOT proportional, I don't see how you can really argue that. That's basically using pre-emption as an excuse to invade another's territory. Preemption is a really murky and ambiguous concept in international law and there are two schools of thought on the legality and legitimacy of preemptive measures. I personally believe that preemption is bad UNLESS you can really prove intent.... For example... If Israel could factually state: We believe that Hamas intends to destroy us, they're building up a military and weapons and planning an invasion of Israel. In order to stop this, we're going to attack them NOW. Then perhaps a preemptive measure is necessary. BUT, this is not the case. This is just saying "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW." Anyone who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone is actually going to go invade Israel and try to destroy them is delusional. Not even Iran would do that, and they're infinitely stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah.
I just explained that proportionality is irrelevant and you responded saying that what Israel is doing is not proportional. uhh....of course not. There is no reason why it should be.
Also, Israel is not doing a preemptive strike. They are trying to stop ongoing aggressions that Hamas started and has continued to do.
Proportionality is completely irrelevant. Accomplishing the needed change is what matters. Israel has to decide:
1. Whether or not to use for (which they already decided)
2. How much force is needed to stop the rockets.
Proportionality has nothing to do with anything in this situation.
|
On December 31 2008 06:36 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 06:21 Savio wrote:
So Xeris, after Pearl Harbor, the US should have just bombed one Japanese port, then it could be over and done with--keeping it all proportional.
Proportionality is retarded because it ignores the purpose of military force. It makes the goal revenge rather than to effect a change.
2 decisions have to be made regarding any military action:
1. Do we use force or no?
2. How much force do we use to FIX THE PROBLEM.
You would prefer it to be:
1. Do we use force?
2. How many rockets did they fire at us? So we can fire that many back at them.
With no regard to effectiveness. That is not a smart way to think. Force, if used, should be done to make the change needed...that is the only goal. Whether that be the surrender of another nation, or just stopping rocket attacks, the ONLY consideration after deciding to use force should be how much is needed to make the change. Proportionality doesn't even come into the debate and it shouldn't. Proportionality doesn't mean an exact eye for an eye thing. It's not as if they're saying "Ok Hamas fired four missiles at us, so we can fire four back." - Responding to missile fire with an outright invasion is NOT proportional, I don't see how you can really argue that. That's basically using pre-emption as an excuse to invade another's territory. Preemption is a really murky and ambiguous concept in international law and there are two schools of thought on the legality and legitimacy of preemptive measures. I personally believe that preemption is bad UNLESS you can really prove intent.... For example... If Israel could factually state: We believe that Hamas intends to destroy us, they're building up a military and weapons and planning an invasion of Israel. In order to stop this, we're going to attack them NOW. Then perhaps a preemptive measure is necessary. BUT, this is not the case. This is just saying "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW." Anyone who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone is actually going to go invade Israel and try to destroy them is delusional. Not even Iran would do that, and they're infinitely stronger than Hamas and Hezbollah.
"really prove intent"??? did you ever hear a Hamas speaker in your life? each and every one of them says they will not stop until Israel is completely destroyed using brute force. Honestly please try to keep the level of discussion in here.
"they're building up a military and weapons"
Yes they are building a big army and are gathering a lot of weapons. When you say your main (and only) goal is the destruction of Israel and you are gathering huge amount of weapons it means something.
btw they are currently bombing the southern half of Israel to remind you, perhaps the USA shouldn't have attacked Japan, they only bombed pearl harbor they didn't invade the USA right?
And another btw your phrase "FUCK THEY BOMBED US GONNA GO INVADE THEM NOW" while phrased ignorantly is basically correct and any other country would have done exactly that when faced with tens of thousands of rockets on its civilians.
|
On December 31 2008 07:03 Locke. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 06:19 Xeris wrote:On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote:
I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force. that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times). the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel.
Well put. This does seem to be the difference between the 2 sides.
|
On December 30 2008 22:31 n.DieJokes wrote:
1. Israel is a western nation, their primary industry is high tech, and they don't try and massacre their enemies out of blind hatred.
2. The united states feeds Egypt an equal amount of dough (the 50billion)
3. Israel was bombarded by rockets (and still is, something like a dozen were shot yesterday), breaking the peace treaty, not the other way around, and if I recall in exchange for that peace thousands of Israeli settlers were ripped from their homes, Gaza used to be a nice place I visited it during my trip thru Israel and now its a fucking ghetto.
4. Israel nuke someone?!? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, they're not you guys, they don't gang up and wages wars with the expressed intent to push those bastards into the sea; I know, radical ideology.
5. Foaming at the mouth anger?!? The US was attacked once and waged two fucking wars on the platform of eradicating terror, Israels been dealing with it in one form or another for half a century, what did you expect, Israel to roll over and die forever. Israel is a fraction of what it was (size), I never seen a country so bent on its own destruction.
6. What this is deceitful bullshit, trying to play the victim, they say in their press conferences(the ones on youtube) that they refuse to bend in their ideology, if they're not going to make any concessions what do they expect to happen? I think the real fucked up thing is that they refuse to acknowledge Israels right to exist! As if they're less than human, trespassers, whose swift death is the divine will. Someday, when the all the smoke and mirrors fall down, the world will see the backwards arab world for what it is.
But that's my view of it, please don't ban me from Tl, I'm trying to find to boundaries here, a lot of forums are as*holes about free thought. And I fairly biased as well, both my brother and sister live in Israel along with my 2 nieces.
This.
On December 31 2008 01:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
How many people have been killed by rocket fire into Israel? I am having trouble finding a good link right now, but I know I have read that in the past 8 years the number is somewhere around 20. In just the past few days the Gaza death toll is over 350, not including injuries.
Dude. There's been peace treaties and Hamas breaks them. "Well the rockets have only killed 20 people so far!" Are you kidding?
|
On December 31 2008 07:21 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 07:03 Locke. wrote:On December 31 2008 06:19 Xeris wrote:On December 31 2008 06:13 Savio wrote:
I don't think a shared capital is an option. There is too much trouble between jews and palestinians. The Israelis should have all of Jerusalem for their capital. The Muslims will object because it is a holy city, but heck, they a couple of others and Jersusalem is sacred to the Jews as well.
On a side note: Great OP. Very few people can explain the situation without trying to make one side look bad.
Another note: It annoys me greatly when the rest of world is completely fine with Hamas, Hezbollah, or whatever killing Israelis and launching rockets at them...it doesn't even make the news (I didn't know Hamas was attacking Israel until Israel hit back--killing Israelis is not newsworthy apparently). But anytime Israel hits back, the world gets all up in arms and tries to pass UN resolutions against Israel and there are protests. Its retarded.
You might think that it is because the Israeli counterattack is much bigger and ends up killing more people but what do you expect? Should Israel just launch a FEW missles at Gaza? That would accomplish a lot. The point of force is for it to change something. If Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, I light military response in pointless. Israel has to decide to either do nothing militarily or to do a strong counterattack because any other choice is pointless.
So saying that Israel's counterattack was "disproportionate" is stupid. There IS a valid argument that perhaps Israel should not have counterattacked at all, but to say that they should have responded in "proportion" to the attacks against them is...well it's dumb.
Saying they should keep their attack proportionate means that they purpose of the attack is just revenge--an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket--when in reality the purpose should be to effect a change. When force is used to cause a change (and it doesn't always have to be), strong force is by far more effective than weak force. that's totally wrong - everyone is fine with Hezbollah and Hamas? that's a joke... it's not just Hamas and Hezbollah bombing Israel, Israeli forces and Israeli sponsored groups have been bombing Hezbollah and Hamas just as much. Both sides are equally guilty (as I've said about 3 times). the only reason some people have a positive view of Hezbollah is because they were wrongly attacked by Israel and actually emerged victorious in the conflict, which served as an inspiration to all who disagree with Western-backed Israeli policies in the Middle East. If the Arabs would lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the Jews would lay down their weapons there would be no Israel. Well put. This does seem to be the difference between the 2 sides.
That's just a complete and lie and fabrication
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
