bombus Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) That's fine, it seems to me that your history is a bit misrepresented, as I said before. I don't try to represent Israel as a perfectly peaceful country; this conflict has 2 sides to it. It seems to me, however, that you're doing the extreme opposite of what you're claiming we're doing and claim the Palestinians to be the innocent "little fella" that has every right to kill as many civilians as they want. Your history is innacurate, bombus, as I've said before, the two nations lived on this land for much longer (MUUCH longer) than the past 60 years, and in relative peace. No they have not. They were not two nations then. They were two religions living within one nation. It is your history that is innaccurate, not mine. Have you have had a lifetime of indoctrination about it? Historically, Israel has the same right to exist than the Palestinian nation. The difference is that when Israel was declared the Arab nations immediately declared war (1948). However, Israel declared many many times (and acted on it, by leaving Gaza in 2005, by signing the Oslo accords, by appealing to the international community, by offering half of Jerusalem to Arafat, etc etc) that it is interested in a 2 state solution. No-one had a right to create a Jewish homeland on land that belonged to everyone that lived there - apart from the right of might, which is indeed what prevailed. If this discussion is to go anywhere, we need to stop with extreme remarks, and try to see where the facts lie - on both sides. OK, Agreed. But our standpoints on the historical background are opposite, so we may have the same facts, but interpret them in different ways. But that's just it, bombus - whenever anyone other than you "bets" or "guesses" you make a (just!) remark that it's lacking proof. But you seem to keep doing it yourself. Be consistent with what you're asking others to do, and supply the proof you expect others to supply as well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't mind people making bets or guesses etc., it's when they don't think through the logic of what they are syaing. Making guesses is fine, but make them educated ones! I'm not that sure the rockets are going to stop, but Israel declared it's going to leave Gaza anyways. Actually they didn't. I don't think anyone thought they could stop *ALL* rockets with any sort of action short of a massive carpet-bombing of gaza (which, as you know, was not done). What *was* achieved is a severe blow to Hamas smuggling infrastructure and their tunnels. What about arms trading to Israel, is that going to stop ?- or can they keep re-arming themselves? A little one-sided isn't it? This is far from returning to 'square one'; now in a cease fire the chances of them smuggling weapons and explosives in, and the chances of having actual talks is higher. I think they have never been further away. So many people have lost loved ones, the Palestinians will be even more militant - which was probably Israel's objective. Yeah, well, we can all make extreme-remarks that drive people into a disgust-emotional state (did you read the article I posted a few posts ago?). That doesn't mean it's valid, or historically true, or getting the discussion anywhere other than the emotional gutter. If you're on about Dresden, it WAS a disgusting event - a war crime in my opinion. The British should be ashamed of Dresden. Politics is hard to be objective in, but there *are* ways to try. Historical honesty is one. Avoiding low-blows is another. I think my take on history is honest. Extreme tactics can be done in both sides of the discussion. And yet, what good will this do to this discussion..? I often find myself at odds with forum members. I am often accused of being extreme. The truth is, I just question received opinion - these unshakeable myths that people seem to accept and then base their perceptions on. I am actually not particularly extreme - I just say what I feel needs to be said. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe thing with a war that has been going on for SOOO long is - that there is no simple peaceful solution that will please both sides. It's very sad. Some people will take the Israeli side and others the Arabs. It is very difficault to discuss without arguing. If it was that simple then I guess it wouldn't have turned into a nasty war in the first place. Well, I think a one-state solution would go a long way! It would be a win-win solution for everyone, Jew and Palestinian alike, united in a single all-inclusive, non-secular state. Edited January 18, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
iNow Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Here's my interpretation of your posts, Bombus. It's okay if American Indians/Native Americans fire rockets into the United States since the US took their land. The US has no right to protect its citizens since they stole the land to begin with. There comes a time when you have to stop fighting on old angers based on decades past events, and accept what has been done as an unfortunate history in the interests of progress and forward movement.
bombus Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Here's my interpretation of your posts, Bombus. It's okay if American Indians/Native Americans fire rockets into the United States since the US took their land. The US has no right to protect its citizens since they stole the land to begin with. There comes a time when you have to stop fighting on old angers based on decades past events, and accept what has been done in the interests of progress and forward movement. Well you'd be wrong. Native Americans are not excluded from the USA and *are* US citizens. Also, as said before, the crimes that stole their land were done when no-one considered the rights of indiginous people, and the colonists did think the Native Americans as somewhat sub-human. This was not the case in 1948, and certainly is not now. Similarly, I would not support the Welsh firing rockets into England as the Anglo-Saxons stole our land 1500 years ago!
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 bumbus, the Israeli Arabs that live inside Israel *are* citizens. Only those who live in Gaza are not Israeli Citizens, and even that is relatively recent (past 20 years) because they've declared themselves to be a different nation. Do I think that there's still different treatment to the Arab citizens? yes. Not by laws, though, by society, and that happens in every country (ask Native Americans, eh?). No country is perfect, and we have a lot to go. I was a member of a social-justice organization in Israel that pushed for better treatment to the Arab Israeli citizens. It's problems that occur in any "mixed-religion" country. But that's still far from saying Israel purposefully excludes its Arab citizens entirely. They can vote, they have rights and obligations like any other citizen. The Palestinians declared their own autonomy -- you can't have the cake and leave it whole; either they're their own autonomy with their own government, or they're citizens of Israel with Israeli government. If they're autonomous (which they are, they just seem to not running it very well), then why would Israel let them vote on its own government? Would they let Israelis vote in *their* government? They shouldn't. Israel shouldn't, either.
bombus Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) bumbus, the Israeli Arabs that live inside Israel *are* citizens.Only those who live in Gaza are not Israeli Citizens, and even that is relatively recent (past 20 years) because they've declared themselves to be a different nation. That's not true! Check the boundaries here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel) The Israeli side of the Green Line encompasses 78.5% of what was Palestine in 1947. The majority of Arabs who had inhabited what became the Israeli side of the Line either fled or were expelled during the war. Edited January 18, 2009 by bombus
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Hang on a minute, though. What you're talking about is the discussion of where the border goes between the Palestinian territories and the Israeli territories. I'm talking about the Arab Israelis who live *INSIDE* Israel territory. For example, in the Galilee (northern israel) there's no discussion over the "green line", and many Arab villages and cities -- all of which are Israeli citizens. Don't mix arguments. The argument about where the border lies is a political one, that goes on and will, hopefully, eventually be solved by talks. You can't claim Israel is segregating all Arabs when that's simply not true. The Arabs that stayed inside Israeli territory have the SAME RIGHTS as any other Israeli citizen, and the live in peace with the jewish and christian inhabitants.
Pangloss Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 THEY WANT A WAR WITH ISREAL!!! THEY WANT THE REST OF THE ARABS TO GET INVOLVED!!! THEY WANT ISREAL DESTRYED!! THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE HERE. Calm down please, there's no call for that here. Israel is an out of control rogue state that can do exactly what it likes, including bombing the UN. No-one does anything about it, not one sanction put in place, because they have the US and all other western nations by the balls. I only wish they weren't a nuclear armed state. It's interesting to me that you accuse other people of wearing "bias goggles". But at least we agree that Gaza should not be lobbing rockets into Israel, so I give you credit for that. I don't interpret you as supporting terrorism, I interpret you as determinedly opposed to Israeli defense practices regardless of their justifications. Put another way -- pacifism. And I respect that, even if I disagree with it. Peace at all costs is too high a cost, IMO. But you feel differently, fine. But you lose me when you say stuff like this: I think they have never been further away. So many people have lost loved ones, the Palestinians will be even more militant - which was probably Israel's objective. Why you would think that Israel would want to actually create more militantism is beyond me, and just reeks of nutcase conspiracy theory. The fact that Israel illegally annexed the occupied territories does not make them evil. It just means they don't agree with your pacifist preferences.
bombus Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Calm down please, there's no call for that here. It's interesting to me that you accuse other people of wearing "bias goggles". But at least we agree that Gaza should not be lobbing rockets into Israel, so I give you credit for that. I don't interpret you as supporting terrorism, I interpret you as determinedly opposed to Israeli defense practices regardless of their justifications. Put another way -- pacifism. And I respect that, even if I disagree with it. Peace at all costs is too high a cost, IMO. But you feel differently, fine. Funny how you interpret Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but not the state of Israel. Is the fact that one has a UN approved state the dividing line? I am not a necessarily a pacifist, I just think that Israels actions were WAY over the top for the threat posed by those rockets. As previously said, the British never acted like this in Northern Ireland, despite extreme provocation. But you lose me when you say stuff like this: Why you would think that Israel would want to actually create more militantism is beyond me, and just reeks of nutcase conspiracy theory. The fact that Israel illegally annexed the occupied territories does not make them evil. It just means they don't agree with your pacifist preferences. In the past you have suggested that Israel getting this done before Obama takes office is a nutcase conspiracy theory - despite it being repeated by mainstream news reporters! (I however, don't think Obama will make any changes though, judging by his choice of Chief of Staff) OK, think about this from the other direction. Why on Earth would Israel carry out such actions knowing full well it will simply entrench opinions further? How would such actions possibly make Palestinians less militant? Are Israel's leaders total idiots? Maybe they are, but I doubt it. The more militant Hamas become, the more action Israel can take, until Gaza is a wasteland and the Palestinians flee, like has happened in the past from other former Palestinian areas. No Palestinians - no problem. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHang on a minute, though. What you're talking about is the discussion of where the border goes between the Palestinian territories and the Israeli territories. I'm talking about the Arab Israelis who live *INSIDE* Israel territory. For example, in the Galilee (northern israel) there's no discussion over the "green line", and many Arab villages and cities -- all of which are Israeli citizens. Don't mix arguments. I'm not, you said that Gaza had only been in existence for a short time. The argument about where the border lies is a political one, that goes on and will, hopefully, eventually be solved by talks. You can't claim Israel is segregating all Arabs when that's simply not true. The Arabs that stayed inside Israeli territory have the SAME RIGHTS as any other Israeli citizen, and the live in peace with the jewish and christian inhabitants. Yes that is true. But there were a great many Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the war, who are now outside so-called Israeli territory but without their land etc. - the Palestinian Refugees. They may not wish to be part of Israel as is, but may be willing to be part of a new state. Edited January 18, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I'm not, you said that Gaza had only been in existence for a short time.[/Quote] No, I said that Gaza border with Israel has only been CLOSED OFF for a *relatively* short time (20 years, off and on, with more off than on in the past 10 when terrorist attacks came from there). Yes that is true. But there were a great many Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the war, who are now outside so-called Israeli territory but without their land etc. - the Palestinian Refugees. They may not wish to be part of Israel as is, but may be willing to be part of a new state. Yes, that might be, but that again is a discussion for a peace talk. One of the subjects in peace talks is the "right to return" -- that, too, is complicated - there are territories taht are more clearly "deserving" this right-of-return and territories that are less clear. It's a historical argument and it belongs in peace talks -- as it was, for a while, with Arafat. You can't make any leeway with that, though, when the other side is not only unwiling to talk, but also declares it wants the annihilation of Israel. Would you automatically allow people who want to kill you (declaring so!) to go into whatever territories they declare are theirs historically? If that was the case, then 2500 years ago, when the Israelites lived in the biblical Israel - stretching from the Perth to the outer limit of modern Iraq - should do the same, and demand Iraq gives them right of return. These things are never simple, but the way to resolve them is peace talk and mutual acceptance of compromise. You can't really say that Israel is unwilling to compromise overall, when it gave up Gaza in 2005 *unilaterally* as a sign of it wanting to conduct peace talks... and leaving other Palestinian territories throughout the past 10 years for the same reason... And you can't really expect a country to automatically give "right of return" - even if that is, in your opinion, a deserving result - when these 'returnees' goal is to annihilate Israel off the map. Israel has an obligation to its citizens' safety. A very big part of it is making peace (because peace = safety. Take it from someone who lived in a conflicted zone most of her life and lost loved-ones and friends [that didn't make *me* more militant, btw, since i understand it wasn't the palestinian PEOPLE who killed my friend, but an extreme faction within them]; War sucks). Another part of it is making sure missiles are not being shot on Israeli citizens. Sometimes you just can't bite your tongue anymore, and if attempts for talks (despite a constant shelling from Gaza on Israeli citizens for 7 years) fails, and the Gaza extremists (who are now their government) refuse to talk and *expand the range of their missiles*, the government has an obligation for its citizens safety. As I've asked bascule before, I am curious to know what solution you would come up with (a realistic one, please - saying 'the dissassembly of Israel' is not realistic. Whether it has a right to exist or not, it's there now, and it's not going anywhere, it seems), in light of constant missile attacks on *civilians* from Gaza. Notice, btw, that even when the Israeli troops entered Gaza, the missiles from Hamas were *still* directed at Israeli *CITIES* (civilians!) and not at the groups of soldiers or military facilities that now 'sat' inside it and on its border. Hamas seemed to have *purposefully* targetted civilians. ~moo
Mr Skeptic Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Yet more murderous acts here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-gaza-doctors-grief,0,7475024.story I know! Damn Hamas militants firing from civilian areas! How can they live with themselves knowing how many innocents will die due to their fighting techniques! This is why in civilized wars, military camps must be outside of populated areas. P.S. How do you feel about all the Israelis that constantly live in fear because their city (city! not military!) is constantly being intentionally bombarded by Hamas rockets? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't mind people making bets or guesses etc., it's when they don't think through the logic of what they are syaing. Making guesses is fine, but make them educated ones! OK, so if as you say Israel wants to piss off and kill the Palestinians, how come there were so few civilian casualties? How come so many of the deaths were Hamas militants? How come you hear of the house that was hit, not the thousands of homes that were hit? Follow through with your logic, and explain why if Israel wanted to kill civilians that they killed so few. And before you say they actually killed many civilians, consider how many people would have died if the Israelis were actually targeting civilians, or show how they could have killed less civilians given the combat situation that Hamas put them in. Think through the logic of what you are saying, and show that your guesses make sense! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged bumbus' date=' the Israeli Arabs that live inside Israel *are* citizens.Only those who live in Gaza are not Israeli Citizens, and even that is relatively recent (past 20 years) because they've declared themselves to be a different nation.[/quote'] That's not true! Check the boundaries here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel) The Israeli side of the Green Line encompasses 78.5% of what was Palestine in 1947. The majority of Arabs who had inhabited what became the Israeli side of the Line either fled or were expelled during the war. You probably read the very next sentence and pretended you didn't so you could continue to spout lies. The majority of Arabs who had inhabited what became the Israeli side of the Line either fled or were expelled during the war. Those Arabs who remained generally became Israeli citizens and now comprise approximately 20% of Israel's total citizenry.
bombus Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) I know! Damn Hamas militants firing from civilian areas! How can they live with themselves knowing how many innocents will die due to their fighting techniques! This is why in civilized wars, military camps must be outside of populated areas. Ooh those sneaky terrorists! Who'd have thought it! Not like the good old terrorists we used to know and love who'd always play by the rules. Even if you do believe the Israeli military's claims that there were gunmen nearby, why should innocents pay the price for the evil of terrorists? This is the same Israeli military that has been shooting young children through the head at 15 metres (as reported on the BBC). P.S. How do you feel about all the Israelis that constantly live in fear because their city (city! not military!) is constantly being intentionally bombarded by Hamas rockets? I suppose you'd have condoned the bombing of Londonderry for the acts of the IRA then? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK, so if as you say Israel wants to piss off and kill the Palestinians, how come there were so few civilian casualties? How come so many of the deaths were Hamas militants? How come you hear of the house that was hit, not the thousands of homes that were hit? Follow through with your logic, and explain why if Israel wanted to kill civilians that they killed so few. And before you say they actually killed many civilians, consider how many people would have died if the Israelis were actually targeting civilians, or show how they could have killed less civilians given the combat situation that Hamas put them in. Think through the logic of what you are saying, and show that your guesses make sense! Well, maybe you are not thinking logically. Israel can hardly been seen to blatantly target civilians can they, so they do the next best thing and just ignore their presence. This has deniability, but still serves the same purpose. Anyway, 1300 Palestinians killed is hardly 'so few'. I'd reserve that for the 13 Israeli's killed, some of whom were soldiers in combat! so few aren't there. And they're only Palestinians, not real people at all are they - and they're all probably terrorists really: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836596.stm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You probably read the very next sentence and pretended you didn't so you could continue to spout lies. Lies indeed! Hardly. It had already been established that some Arabs live in Israel. That was not the point! I added the link so it's hardly as if I was trying to cover anything up. Read the lot, read the whole history of Israel. The facts bare me out. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, I said that Gaza border with Israel has only been CLOSED OFF for a *relatively* short time (20 years, off and on, with more off than on in the past 10 when terrorist attacks came from there). OK, fair enough. You can't make any leeway with that, though, when the other side is not only unwiling to talk, but also declares it wants the annihilation of Israel. Would you automatically allow people who want to kill you (declaring so!) to go into whatever territories they declare are theirs historically? Why not? The UK did with the IRA. If that was the case, then 2500 years ago, when the Israelites lived in the biblical Israel - stretching from the Perth to the outer limit of modern Iraq - should do the same, and demand Iraq gives them right of return. This doesn't count, as I have pointed out many times in this thread. And you can't really expect a country to automatically give "right of return" - even if that is, in your opinion, a deserving result - when these 'returnees' goal is to annihilate Israel off the map. I wonder why? Israel has an obligation to its citizens' safety. A very big part of it is making peace (because peace = safety. Take it from someone who lived in a conflicted zone most of her life and lost loved-ones and friends [that didn't make *me* more militant, btw, since i understand it wasn't the palestinian PEOPLE who killed my friend, but an extreme faction within them]; War sucks). Another part of it is making sure missiles are not being shot on Israeli citizens. Well if Israel pulled out of the occupied zones, gave the refugees their land back, and stopped supporting illegal settlements you'd be a lot safer, and Hamas would have a lot less oxygen! Sometimes you just can't bite your tongue anymore, and if attempts for talks (despite a constant shelling from Gaza on Israeli citizens for 7 years) fails, and the Gaza extremists (who are now their government) refuse to talk and *expand the range of their missiles*, the government has an obligation for its citizens safety. Israel could have spoken with Arafat instead of shooting at his him in his compound. Whay do you think the extremist Hamas are in power? What lead people to vote for them? Do you ever ask these questions? As I've asked bascule before, I am curious to know what solution you would come up with (a realistic one, please - saying 'the dissassembly of Israel' is not realistic. Whether it has a right to exist or not, it's there now, and it's not going anywhere, it seems), in light of constant missile attacks on *civilians* from Gaza. Well, if the one state solution is to be ignored (and I don't think it's that unrealistic) Israel could start by pulling out of the occupied zones etc (see above). It wouldnt satisfy all Palestinians, but might satisfy enough of them in the long term. Israel has to learn to 'turn the other cheek' or it will sow the seeds of its own destruction in the long term - and that means all of us go down. Notice, btw, that even when the Israeli troops entered Gaza, the missiles from Hamas were *still* directed at Israeli *CITIES* (civilians!) and not at the groups of soldiers or military facilities that now 'sat' inside it and on its border. Hamas seemed to have *purposefully* targetted civilians. Well of course? What do you expect? Edited January 18, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Ooh those sneaky terrorists! Who'd have thought it! Not like the good old terrorists we used to know and love who'd always play by the rules. Even if you do believe the Israeli military's claims that there were gunmen nearby, why should innocents pay the price for the evil of terrorists? Exactly my point! There is no reason for Israeli civilians to continue to pay the price of the Hamas rockets bombarding their cities over several years. Something had to be done. Tell me though, how can you say that the Palestinians are so innocent if it is the (partly) elected Palestinian government who was shooting rockets at Israel? Governments are expected to be somewhat responsible, not to engage in tactics that would cause massive casualties among their civilians and be against international laws. This is the same Israeli military that has been shooting young children through the head at 15 metres (as reported on the BBC). Can you give me an example of a military that hasn't and yet fought against opponents who use similar tactics to those of Hamas? For example, in the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese occasionally sent children with weapons or explosives to fight, and the soldiers were forced to shoot the kids to protect themselves. I don't doubt that due to these tactics, some innocent kids were also shot. Is that not understandable? It is the duty of soldiers to protect themselves and each other. I suppose you'd have condoned the bombing of Londonderry for the acts of the IRA then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army The British used overwhelming force, including over 16,000 troops, artillery, and a naval gunboat, to put down the rebellion. Over half the 500 or so killed were civilians caught in the crossfire. Sound familiar? http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/07/ground-war-in-gaza-drives-up-civilian-casualties/ About 300 of the more than 670 Palestinians killed so far are civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. figures. Of those killed, at least 130 are children age 16 and under, says the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which tracks casualties. Also about 50% civilian casualties. Anyone know the final numbers and percentages? Also, from my limited reading, it seems that the IRA did not bombard England for years with rockets and artillery with no response from the British, the IRA doing the fighting were doing so against the wishes of the government of Ireland, the IRA were fighting for the freedom of Ireland rather than the destruction of England, the IRA fought mostly in Ireland rather than attacking England, etc. Well, maybe you are not thinking logically. Israel can hardly been seen to blatantly target civilians can they, so they do the next best thing and just ignore their presence. This has deniability, but still serves the same purpose. Anyway, 1300 Palestinians killed is hardly 'so few'. I'd reserve that for the 13 Israeli's killed, some of whom were soldiers in combat! It does seem like a surprisingly small number of Israeli soldier deaths. Perhaps due to being overparanoid in their attacks? In any case, trumpeting the number of Palestinians killed without mentioning what percentage were Hamas is completely irrelevant. What about the harm that the people in Palestine have been doing to Israel over the past several years? What is proportional to that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks 7,500 rockets have hit Sderot from the period of 2001-2009. ... A radar system or "red dawn alarm", was installed by the Israeli government. Sderot had a system installed before September 2005.[8] Ashkelon began installation in July 2005 and by April 2006 the system was completely installed.[9] Red Color alerts Israelis to incoming rocket fire, but does not alert Israelis to mortar shelling. On cold or rainy days, the radar is ineffective in detecting the rocket launches. Sderot residents have 15 seconds, once the siren goes off, to escape to a bomb shelter. In 2005, Israel started a program to fortify homes and public buildings within range of Gaza missiles. This program was expanded in 2008, the cost estimates are over one billion shekels [about 262.74300 million U.S. dollars, and that is just for fortifying buildings]. An Iron Dome anti-rocket system is under development by Rafael. It is expected to be operational by 2011.[9] The attacks are rarely fatal (<0.4% mortality). They have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both children and adults, with an estimated 33% of children living in Sderot suffering from PTSD. The rockets have actually had few casualties, but what is the price of constantly living in fear? Is a third of the children suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in a city acceptable? Lies indeed! Hardly. It had already been established that some Arabs live in Israel. That was not the point! I added the link so it's hardly as if I was trying to cover anything up. Read the lot, read the whole history of Israel. The facts bare me out. The facts do not bear out your claim that the Arabs living in Israel are not citizens. ---- http://www.aol.in/news-story/ground-war-drives-up-civilian-casualties/2009010703220001358810 On Monday, three Israeli soldiers were killed by friendly fire when a tank crew took aim at the wrong house. In a separate incident, another soldier was killed by an errant tank shell. Maybe Israel is intentionally targeting its own soldiers? Considering how few (13?) Israeli soldiers have died so far, 4 soldiers killed by friendly fire is quite a lot -- 31% of Israeli soldiers who died, died of friendly fire. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Notice, btw, that even when the Israeli troops entered Gaza, the missiles from Hamas were *still* directed at Israeli *CITIES* (civilians!) and not at the groups of soldiers or military facilities that now 'sat' inside it and on its border. Hamas seemed to have *purposefully* targetted civilians. Well of course? What do you expect? I think she expected you to condemn Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, preferably far more than you condemn Israeli attacks on Palestinian militants and weapons that result in civilian casualties? Or are you going to say that Israel can't attack combatants, while Palestine can attack as many Israeli civilians as it likes?
Pangloss Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Funny how you interpret Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but not the state of Israel. Actually if you'd been here for some of our earlier discussions a few years ago you'd know that I'm actually a frequent critic of Israeli policy on these boards, especially with regard to the 1960s and 1970s. But that's the difference between you and me, Bombus. I'm capable of judging these two entities independently of one another. I think you see them as inextricably connected by their behaviors toward one another. You're unable to judge Hamas/Gaza/Palestine without bringing Israel into the picture, because you believe that the harm that Israel has done to these people is the source of their behavior. Not justified -- still wrong -- but caused by Israel's actions. Yes? But you yourself have pointed out examples of how human beings don't have to behave that way -- e.g. Northern Ireland -- you used that to show that Israel doesn't have to do what it's done here. But in fact that's a double-edged sword -- Hamas doesn't have to behave that way either! They don't have to respond to Israel's "terrorism" by throwing rockets across the border. Which means you SHOULD be able to condemn Hamas REGARDLESS of whether Israel is right or wrong. And yet you can't seem to bring yourself to do that -- you have to make it Israel's fault. (The real problem with that kind of fundamentally flawed analysis is that leads to a much more serious problem: The inability to recognize when the situation has changed. Your predetermined conclusion requires you to process any new information such that you produce exactly the same conclusion. Which is why I say that all ideological partisans are always wrong, all of the time, even when they seem to be right. But I digress.) At any rate, I think you'd do a lot better in this discussion of you condemned Hamas's actions, full stop, with not another word for an entire post. But I'd almost be willing to bet my entire four years of experience on this board that you can't do it. (And I don't mean this as an attack, by the way. I generally enjoy your posts and I don't think anything less of you for your position on this -- it's just politics, and we're just talking here. I wouldn't even venture a post like this if I weren't reasonably sure you'd be okay with it based on your long membership here and general compatibility with the community. I hope I'm not wrong on this, but if I am I apologize. It's not my intent to get the community to dog you around and make you feel bad.)
padren Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 I have a question on the ceasefire - can it really be called a ceasefire? It seems more like a "completion of operations" than a genuine ceasefire, which I always thought was generally considered an at least temporary truce. (I guess that's why it's called "unilateral" in this case.) While I am glad Israel feels it does not need to continue with those operations, it strikes me that it has more in common with when, during the Gulf War, the coalition forces stopped short of Baghdad - they did "cease" "fire" but it was because they were done with the scope of their operation. In this case, Hamas has not agreed to any terms whatsoever, so it's still exceptionally volatile. For a true ceasefire in my mind, there would have to be terms that Hamas agrees to, which if they break, may result in Israel breaking the ceasefire and engaging in new operations (going both ways of course). However, for Israel to simply stop operations (which is good - does mean fewer daily deaths) without any conditions to be met by either side means the situations could explode again at anytime again. For the first time, I've finally found a quote on a demand from Hamas that doesn't include the annihilation of Israel: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum in Gaza said a unilateral cease-fire was not enough to end Hamas' resistance — echoing the stance taken earlier by Hamas leaders in exile. "The occupier must halt his fire immediately and withdraw from our land and lift his blockade and open all crossings and we will not accept any one Zionist soldier on our land, regardless of the price that it costs," Barhoum said. Only problem - most of those issues are not even on the negotiations table, and no one seems to be sitting at it. I don't think Hamas could get Israel to agree to those terms without some serious concessions themselves, such as at least acknowledging Israel's right to exist, and proof (in terms of no attacks for some time) that they can police their own. This would be the perfect (well, least worst in recent memory) time for the international community to try to get this "ceasefire" into something more stable, and try to get both parties to work towards mutual coexistence. I am sure Israel would like to have open borders with a Gaza they can trust, that thrives and contributes to trade and the overall economy... but it would take a lot of work, and even more time, yet it would have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, I think the world has simply heard the word "ceasefire" uttered and now feels it can go back to it's normal distractions, since we've gotten desensitized to the "flare ups" in the region, and even more to the simmering pot when it's not actively boiling over.
DrP Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Calm down please, there's no call for that here. Sorry. I do hope I am wrong though.
mooeypoo Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 I have a question on the ceasefire - can it really be called a ceasefire? It seems more like a "completion of operations" than a genuine ceasefire, which I always thought was generally considered an at least temporary truce. (I guess that's why it's called "unilateral" in this case.) Yeah, I tend to agree, I think it's a matter of political definitions, though.. There were a few offers for a cease fire that Hamas didn't accept and one that Israel didn't.. Israel just calls this a unilateral cease fire because its intentions are to stop the fire and get out (which is what the cease fire was meant to achieve, all three of them) but without accepting Hamas' demands of opening the border crossings. Again, with due respect to everyone, I think people tend to forget that "opening the crossings" means that Palestinians have uncontrolled entry *into* Israel. I don't see how that's any form of plausible demand. If they want to open their way to the outside world, they should ask from *BOTH* Israel *and* Egypt, and make sure their harbor to the sea is operational (instead of shooting at anyone who comes to rebuild it?). As I've pointed out before, the borders with Gaza have only been closed off in the past 10 years, and during those 10 years they were open off-and-on. They were only closed off completely after a suicide bomber managed to pass through, or when Isarel caught one trying to pass through. On a personal note, I remember watching the news and physically crying as I've seen .Before that incident, there were 2 others involving children, but they had explosives in their bags, so the conclusion was that they were unsuspecting tools, used by the terrorists without their knowledge (not that this makes it any less horrible). I am not sure anyone can really blame Israel for being reluctant to open the crossings *INTO* Israel. Take into account, though, that the fact they're closed does not mean they're COMPLETELY closed. If you look back in the recent years, Palestinians have been (and still are) going back and forth to hospitals in Israel and to visit their families inside Israel or in the West Bank. It's also worth mentioning that a suicide bomber (woman) was caught trying to . The situation is never simple. Demanding Israel opens its borders undescriminantly, specifically in light of those events, is not very realistic. And quite an unfair demand, I'd say.
padren Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 It appears Hamas has now issued their own ceasefire: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7836205.stm Hamas' deputy chief in Syria, Moussa Abou Marzouk, said the ceasefire was in the name of all "Palestinian resistance factions". "We... announce a ceasefire of our factions in the Gaza Strip and we stress that our demand is the withdrawal of the enemy forces from the Gaza Strip within a week, along with the opening of all the crossings for the entry of humanitarian aid, food and other necessities for our people in the Gaza Strip." That sounds much more reasonable, allowing aid in and including all "Palestinian resistance factions" within the declaration. I also found this rather worth reading - some very different opinions from Palestinians.
Pangloss Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 Now for the $64,000 question: Would Hamas have done that were it not for Israel's attack? You can say that they are pretty callous and don't care how many of their own people died, but it's pretty hard to ignore the international attention that this event has drawn to Hamas' actions and the tremendous amount of support Israel received (even as it also drew much criticism). In short, it worked. I don't like it, I think it stinks, but I don't blame Israel, I blame the United Nations and the ridiculous inefficacy of international politics.
bombus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) Actually if you'd been here for some of our earlier discussions a few years ago you'd know that I'm actually a frequent critic of Israeli policy on these boards, especially with regard to the 1960s and 1970s. But that's the difference between you and me, Bombus. I'm capable of judging these two entities independently of one another. I think you see them as inextricably connected by their behaviors toward one another. You're unable to judge Hamas/Gaza/Palestine without bringing Israel into the picture, because you believe that the harm that Israel has done to these people is the source of their behavior. Not justified -- still wrong -- but caused by Israel's actions. Yes? At any rate, I think you'd do a lot better in this discussion of you condemned Hamas's actions, full stop, with not another word for an entire post. But I'd almost be willing to bet my entire four years of experience on this board that you can't do it. Of course I condemn Hamas' actions - or at least the actions of the actual people who fire rockets into civilian areas in 'Israel'. If these actions are justified by Hamas I condemn Hamas unreservedly - Just as I condemned the actions of the IRA (whilst generally supporting their cause for a united Ireland). The point is that there are reasons why people resort to these type of actions (be it suicide bombings, planting of bombs, going mad with diggers, hijacking planes etc), and it's usually done as a last resort and in desperation. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just sayng that's what happens. To give you an analogy - if unemployment goes up, crime also tends to go up. So, if one wants to reduce crime, reducing unemployment is an effective measure. I don't in any way condone burglars, but can't deny that a lack of money (jobs, etc) pushes some (more) people into becoming burglars. I don't excuse them for this, but I would accept it as a reason. Simlarly, Israel's actions over the years have caused a reaction - that is militant Arabs/Palestinians etc. Israel needs to understand this rather than proclaim its self imposed right to exist. Only then can they become more humble and start to see things from the viewpoint of the Arabs/Palestinians. Only then will anything approaching peace be possible. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow for the $64,000 question: Would Hamas have done that were it not for Israel's attack? You can say that they are pretty callous and don't care how many of their own people died, but it's pretty hard to ignore the international attention that this event has drawn to Hamas' actions and the tremendous amount of support Israel received (even as it also drew much criticism). In short, it worked. I don't like it, I think it stinks, but I don't blame Israel, I blame the United Nations and the ridiculous inefficacy of international politics. Hamas are declaring victory over the Israeli's. One viewpoint (not necessarily one I share) is shown here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21793.htm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Exactly my point! There is no reason for Israeli civilians to continue to pay the price of the Hamas rockets bombarding their cities over several years. Something had to be done. Tell me though, how can you say that the Palestinians are so innocent if it is the (partly) elected Palestinian government who was shooting rockets at Israel? Governments are expected to be somewhat responsible, not to engage in tactics that would cause massive casualties among their civilians and be against international laws. I think you maybe do not understand the sort of conditions Palestinians live under. Can you give me an example of a military that hasn't and yet fought against opponents who use similar tactics to those of Hamas? For example, in the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese occasionally sent children with weapons or explosives to fight, and the soldiers were forced to shoot the kids to protect themselves. I don't doubt that due to these tactics, some innocent kids were also shot. Is that not understandable? It is the duty of soldiers to protect themselves and each other. These children were unarmed and aged as young as five years old - emerging with a whte flag from a shelter - after being told to leave by Israeli soldiers. I'm not saying this is Israeli military policy - there are always psychopaths in any army - but will these events be investigated by Israel? I doubt it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_ArmyThe British used overwhelming force, including over 16,000 troops, artillery, and a naval gunboat, to put down the rebellion. Over half the 500 or so killed were civilians caught in the crossfire. Sound familiar? I am talking about the conflict in modern times - not pre-WW2. I.e that which involved the provisional IRA who became active in the late 60's. In modern times the British never bombed civilian areas. Whilst the British Army were by no means squeaky clean, the politicians at least had the good sense to attempt to contain the violence and keep it as low intensity warfare - and not to respond with a heavy handed military approach. Some civilians were killed during Bloody Sunday, and that caused a major row which is still going on. The idea of the UK behaving like Israel was unthinkable. Also about 50% civilian casualties. Anyone know the final numbers and percentages? Also, from my limited reading, it seems that the IRA did not bombard England for years with rockets and artillery with no response from the British, the IRA doing the fighting were doing so against the wishes of the government of Ireland, the IRA were fighting for the freedom of Ireland rather than the destruction of England, the IRA fought mostly in Ireland rather than attacking England, etc. The Northern Irish conflict was fought by the provisional IRA against the British (not English per se) and involved a lot of violence and many many bombs and killings against British Irish citizens in Northern Ireland. Some actions were carried out on the mainland, but most were against British citizens in Ireland. What about the harm that the people in Palestine have been doing to Israel over the past several years? What is proportional to that? What about the illegal settlements, the embargoes, the random shootings, the refugees, the occupied land? constantly living in fear? Is a third of the children suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in a city acceptable? The word is proportionality The facts do not bear out your claim that the Arabs living in Israel are not citizens. I think you misundertood me - I did not claim that, I was referring to Arabs expelled or that had fleed from Israel. Edited January 20, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
mooeypoo Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I think you maybe do not understand the sort of conditions Palestinians live under. With due respect, neither do you.
bombus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) With due respect, neither do you. No, you are correct - but with the information I have I can imagine how horrid it must be. Edited January 20, 2009 by bombus
Mr Skeptic Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Can you give me an example of a military that hasn't and yet fought against opponents who use similar tactics to those of Hamas? For example, in the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese occasionally sent children with weapons or explosives to fight, and the soldiers were forced to shoot the kids to protect themselves. I don't doubt that due to these tactics, some innocent kids were also shot. Is that not understandable? It is the duty of soldiers to protect themselves and each other. These children were unarmed and aged as young as five years old - emerging with a whte flag from a shelter - after being told to leave by Israeli soldiers. I'm not saying this is Israeli military policy - there are always psychopaths in any army - but will these events be investigated by Israel? I doubt it. You know, you could have just said that no, you can't find an example of military that hasn't killed innocent children yet had to fight against that sort of tactics. No need to get all teary-eyed about yet another accident, since that is not what the question was. Incidentally, what is your explanation for 31% of Israeli soldier casualties being due to friendly fire? Does the military hate itself?
bombus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) You know, you could have just said that no, you can't find an example of military that hasn't killed innocent children yet had to fight against that sort of tactics. No need to get all teary-eyed about yet another accident, since that is not what the question was. Incidentally, what is your explanation for 31% of Israeli soldier casualties being due to friendly fire? Does the military hate itself? A simple 'No' wouldn't really have cut the mustard would it now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA pretty good unbiased article here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21794.htm A very good question asked here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21790.htm Also a snippet from an article from Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/) below which I thought interesting: It was a hot September day in Gaza and I was sitting in the office of a Hamas-affiliated newspaper talking with a senior Hamas intellectual. As the French news crew that had given me a ride from Jerusalem packed up their camera equipment, I took the opportunity to change the subject from the latest happenings in Gaza to a more fundamental question that had long bothered me. "Off the record, lets put aside whether or not Palestinians have the moral or legal right to use violence against civilians to resist the occupation. The fact is, it doesn't work," I said. Suicide bombings and other direct attacks on Israeli civilians, I argued, helped to keep the subject off the occupation and in so doing allowed Israel to build even more settlements while the media focused on the violence. His response both surprised me with its honesty and troubled me with its implications. "We know the violence doesn't work, but we don't know how to stop it," he said. Edited January 20, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 A simple 'No' wouldn't really have cut the mustard would it now. You mean, a simple 'No' would have made it look silly when you criticize Israel for something that you are unable to show that any other country would have been able to do differently.
Sisyphus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 A pretty good unbiased article here: You are joking, right?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now