Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

[jreelawg]

Ok, how do you suggest that Isreal remove Hamas?

I heard someone make a good point about this earlier. That is, Hamas is indirectly a creation of Israel's doings. Now, maybe that was some time ago, and what was wrong was wrong, and what done is done. There will be no "fair court" to be held. But it was violence, occupation, invasion, and oppression that led to the radicalization that we see. More killing destruction and invasion will only create more radicalization. The more desperate a people become, the more radical.

You can't just kill all the radicals. Playing the game where you say stop being radical or we will starve you and bomb you won't work, that only brings more desperation, and therefore more radicalization. As you get further down this path of increased radicalization, and desperation, what is the eventual outcome, the only way and end would come out of this path is removal.

 

[Cyrus]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

Ahmed, what fantasy world do you live in? Should they use their magic ray gun from space that will ONLY kill Hamas bad guys?

I'm sorry, but your post is naive.

 

[OAQfirst]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

The U.S. had "military generals and unlimited access to US technologies" when Iraq was invaded. Countless civilian deaths. So, exactly how is that an option for limiting civilian casualties when dealing with Hamas? What do military generals and US technologies have to offer in this goal?

 

[rootX]

assassination, careful (I repeat careful) bombing of their sites while making sure no civilian casualties so that it would not display itself as targeting the civilians but rather as closely targeting Hamas. And if this is not possible then don't do it, find something else, you have military generals and unlimited access to US technologies for crying out loud.

Only if US/Israel could back some organization that's against Hamas (Fatah?). That would solve all the problems with least civilian casualties :)

 

[devil-fire]

You can't just kill all the radicals. Playing the game where you say stop being radical or we will starve you and bomb you won't work, that only brings more desperation, and therefore more radicalization. As you get further down this path of increased radicalization, and desperation, what is the eventual outcome, the only way and end would come out of this path is removal.

I think this is vary true. I think Israel is putting Gaza under extream conditions because of how the people in Gaza react to extreme conditions.

 

[AhmedEzz]

The U.S. had "military generals and unlimited access to US technologies" when Iraq was invaded. Countless civilian deaths. So, exactly how is that an option for limiting civilian casualties when dealing with Hamas? What do military generals and US technologies have to offer in this goal?

So precision bombing and accurate strikes are not an option now? And even if such accurate targeting of Hamas is not viable,this does not by any way forfeit the blood of the innocent.

Your arguments are inhumane and cruel and I would like to see them forced upon you so that you would show some respect and consideration to the lives of people rather than blindingly defending Israel regardless of what's going on.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I think this is vary true. I think Israel is putting Gaza under extream conditions because of how the people in Gaza react to extreme conditions.

I don't understand the logic

 

[tiny-tim]

re-defining words …

Both sides are semites.

Please … this is an argument of anti-semitic racists who, when accused of anti-semitism, re-define it to include all "descendants of Shem", thereby including the Ishmaelites who of course are the modern Arabs, so that they can say "Well, I'm certainly not anti-Arab, so by definition I can't be anti-semitic".

"Anti-semitism" is like "gauge" theory, "thing", "husband", and thousands of other English words whose meanings have adapted.

To say "both sides are semites" (meaning both Arabs and Jews) is to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism.

(as, incidentally, the United Nations General Assembly did until recently by refusing to include anti-semitism in its annual list of “contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination”)

… and now you're also doing it with "terrorist" … suggesting that anything involving terror is terrorism …

thereby effectively excusing (by comparison) anything which is ordinarily called terrorism …

… I personally think that the word terrorism takes accuracy out of the equation when it is used so generally. I think specific actions, crimes, military operations etc, should be considered what they are. Terror is terror.:

"terror |ˈterər|
noun
1 extreme fear : people fled in terror | [in sing. ] a terror of darkness.
• the use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons : weapons of terror.
• [in sing. ] a person or thing that causes extreme fear : his unyielding scowl became the terror of the Chicago mob.
• ( the Terror) the period of the French Revolution between mid 1793 and July 1794 when the ruling Jacobin faction, dominated by Robespierre, ruthlessly executed anyone considered a threat to their regime. Also called reign of terror .
2 (also holy terror) informal a person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance : placid and obedient in their parents' presence, but holy terrors when left alone."

Both sides are using terror, and it doesn't seam to be working.

Terrorism, in ordinary English usage, is not "anything involving terror" …

it is ordinarily used to describe military or quasi-military action which serves no military purpose (and therefore achieves nothing but causing terror) …

such as bombing of restaurants markets and buses, and shelling of purely civilian targets.

 

[OAQfirst]

So precision bombing and accurate strikes are not an option now? And even if such accurate targeting of Hamas is not viable,this does not by any way forfeit the blood of the innocent.

Your arguments are inhumane and cruel and I would like to see them forced upon you so that you would show some respect and consideration to the lives of people rather than blindingly defending Israel regardless of what's going on.

Yeesh, I was asking a question this time, not making a point! Chill.

 

[jreelawg]

Please … this is an argument of anti-semitic racists who, when accused of anti-semitism, re-define it to include all "descendants of Shem", thereby including the Ishmaelites who of course are the modern Arabs, so that they can say "Well, I'm certainly not anti-Arab, so by definition I can't be anti-semitic".

"Anti-semitism" is like "gauge" theory, "thing", "husband", and thousands of other English words whose meanings have adapted.

To say "both sides are semites" (meaning both Arabs and Jews) is to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism.

(as, incidentally, the United Nations General Assembly did until recently by refusing to include anti-semitism in its annual list of “contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination”)

… and now you're also doing it with "terrorist" … suggesting that anything involving terror is terrorism …

thereby effectively excusing (by comparison) anything which is ordinarily called terrorism …Terrorism, in ordinary English usage, is not "anything involving terror" …

it is ordinarily used to describe military or quasi-military action which serves no military purpose (and therefore achieves nothing but causing terror) …

such as bombing of restaurants markets and buses, and shelling of purely civilian targets.

from the apple dictionary:

"Semite |ˈsemīt|
noun
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
ORIGIN from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem,’ son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended."

Maybe the usage of the term anti-semitic usually refers to Jews, but it is still incorrect usage of the word. It is kind of like calling Native Americans, Indians. Never the less, I was just pointing out the irony of it. I also find it funny that people still can't tell the difference between Native American and Indian.

The terrorism thing, seriously, who is it that gets to define the word terrorism if the word is not to be intended to mean what it is defined as in the dictionary:

"terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Then what is it's use? I suppose it has another term in some legal document determining who can be abducted and tortured, but can we not use the classical definition?

If you want to dispute these facts, then take it up with the authors of dictionaries.

 

[tiny-tim]

re-defining words …

You're still doing it …

insisting on a general definition of "semite" so as to help deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism …

from the apple dictionary:

"Semite |ˈsemīt|
noun
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
ORIGIN from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem,’ son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended."​

Maybe the usage of the term anti-semitic usually refers to Jews, but it is still incorrect usage of the word.

I don't have access to the apple dictionary, but I can quote both from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antisemitism" …

antisemitism - the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people

and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism" …

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also rarely known as judeophobia) is prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.[

You have deliberately avoided quoting any dictionary on "antisemitism" … presumably because you know that it only applies to Jews.

Never the less, I was just pointing out the irony of it.

No, you weren't … you were trying to dispute the meaning of "anti-semitic" …

nobody used the word "semite" until you did …

I fail to see the point of your last sentence unless your implying some sort of anti-semitic remarks.

Both sides are semites.

… what is ironic about using the word "anti-semitic"?

 

[russ_watters]

Attempting to re-define words does not change the wrongness of the actions. If you don't like the word "antisemetic", fine: the statement was just 'racist against Jews'. If you don't like the word "terrorism", fine: Hamas is a merely a criminal organization that purposely attacks civilians and attempts the eradication of an entire group of people*, both crimes against humanity.

There is a reason that many of the major powers in the world consider Hamas to be a criminal organization and an illegitimate government. They really are in the same class as the Taliban and giving them the same treatment would be perfectly appropriate.

Arguing against definitions is a really pathetic debate tactic.

*Just to be safe, I'll avoid using "genocidal" too.

 

[Astronuc]

I have an idea - stop fighting.

Be nice.

Tikkun olam.

 

[russ_watters]

Civilian casualties is something else Evo, it is 100% something else. If "un-intentionally" and after making its preparations to avoid civilian deaths, some not a lot but some civilian casualties happened then Israel should make a statement that innocent blood was shed "accidentally" while targeting Hamas. Sorry Evo but this is not the case

Two things:

1. According to the most recent news, the ratio in the death toll is more than 3:1, militants to civilians. That's pretty good considering that Hamas makes a conscious effort to put it's civilians at risk.

Most of those killed in three days of airstrikes have been Hamas members, but the U.N. agency in charge of Palestinian refugees said at least 51 of the dead were civilians. A rise in civilian casualties could intensify international pressure on Israel to abort the offensive.

A Hamas police spokesman, Ehab Ghussen, said 180 members of the Hamas security forces were among the total number of dead.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-12-29-israel-palestinians-monday_N.htm

2. This didn't get a lot of press, but before the attacks started three days ago, Israel sent out thousands of cell phone text messages warning people to stay away from Hamas members/hideouts/facilities. A modern version of leaflets designed to warn civilians to get out in order to help minimize civlian casualties. Israel didn't have to do that and it reduces the effectiveness of the air raids.

RESIDENTS at certain addresses in the Gaza Strip have been receiving unusual phone calls since the Israeli air assault began on Saturday -- a request that they and their families leave their homes as soon as possible for their own safety.

More unusual than the recorded message is the Arabic-speaking caller, who identifies himself as being from the Israeli defence forces.

Dipping into their bag of tricks for the updated Gaza telephone numbers, Israel's intelligence services are warning Palestinian civilians in Gaza living close to Hamas facilities that they may be hurt unless they distance themselves from those targets.

In some cases, the warning comes not by telephone but from leaflets dropped from aircraft on selected districts.

Such warnings clearly eliminate the element of surprise, butfor Israel it is of cardinal importance to minimise civilian casualties, and not just for humanitarian reasons.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24853989-15084,00.html

Israel isn't stupid. They recognize the propaganda factor in high civilian casualties (for that matter, so does Hamas...), and they are bending over backwards, doing far more than is really necessary, to avoid them. Why you think an additional message stating what is already obvious is necessary, is beyond me. Could you explain further?

 

[russ_watters]

I have an idea - stop fighting.

Be nice.

Tikkun olam.

Great idea. Take it to Hamas and see how it's received!

 

[turbo]

Attempting to re-define words does not change the wrongness of the actions. If you don't like the word "antisemetic", fine: the statement was just 'racist against Jews'. If you don't like the word "terrorism", fine: Hamas is a merely a criminal organization that purposely attacks civilians and attempts the eradication of an entire group of people*, both crimes against humanity.

There is a reason that many of the major powers in the world consider Hamas to be a criminal organization and an illegitimate government. They really are in the same class as the Taliban and giving them the same treatment would be perfectly appropriate.

Arguing against definitions is a really pathetic debate tactic.

*Just to be safe, I'll avoid using "genocidal" too.

Russ, we all know that Hamas has NO potential to eradicate Jews. That's a non-starter. The Palestinians have repeatedly sponsored cease-fires in attempts to get their borders re-drawn in 1967 terms and pursue a 2-state system. The radical Zionists have scuttled these attempts every time in order to grab and hold larger and larger blocks of property in the West Bank and control water-rights. When Hamas won a democratic election, the Israelis tried to pressure the Palestinians into pushing them out, and having failed in Gaza, they have blockaded 1.5M Palestinians and deprived them of food, water, medicines, and other humanitarian aid. Collective punishment is against International Law. Collective Punishment to try to force regime change is no different. The right-wing Israelis point to scattered rocket attacks from Gaza that might have killed 15-20 people over a number of months. How many Gazan Palestinians die every single day because of lack of food, water, proper sanitation, and medical care due to the blockades? Collective punishment is an international crime - the ONLY thing preventing UN action is the veto-power of the US. The Bush/Cheney/Rove attitude of "we have the power, so we do what we want" has robbed the US of any moral authority that it once had.

 

[mjsd]

I fail to see the point of your last sentence unless your implying some sort of anti-semitic remarks.

Both sides are semites.

ok... I see this current discussion on "definitions" came from my original comment.

this may sound silly, but lasting peace might actually be possible when there are no Palestinians, Arabs or muslims left in the region. Alternatively, if all Israelis and Jews suddenly disappear, it might also be a solution, don't you think?

so I think it needs some clarifications.

Firstly, I agree that the words semite and anti-semitic now carry a different meaning than it was originally intended, after years of misuse, so it is perhaps "standard" usage these days to treat anti-jews and anti-semitic are synonyms. Definitions do not concerns me. But occasionally, it does highlight how so many ppl do not try to get to the bottom of things before making judgement or statements. Though again in the spirit of an honest discussion, I don't see that as a problem, as long as one doesn't go too far in deliberately misinterpreting information based on "definitions".

Back to the original discussion about "getting lasting peace" in the region. firstly, I think when Cyrus mentioned "last sentence", it means specifically the comment about "all Israelis and Jews suddenly disappear..."
ok, Cyrus, you said you "fail to see the point of the last sentence your implying some sort of anti-semitic remarks.", Let me tell you this: the last sentence was made in the same spirit as the first, it was in response to the discussion how lasting peace might be possible... and I think there is no doubt that when there is ONLY ONE SIDE, there can't be too much fighting. Hence, either the Palestinians etc disappear (not necessarily by killing them by the way) or the Israelis disappear (again not necessarily by more bloodshed).. then we would have a situation where there is only one race present in the region and I would then say that a chance of conflict is certainly minimal.

That's just a fact (well, I know it is not all black and white but..) and it has nothing to do with a suggested course of actions, hence, it is not a remarks suggesting that we should kill some on either side.

I brought that up because I sense that many ppl are denying the obvious fact that there will be no conflicts when there is no warring factions.

of course, kiling everyone is not the smart way to go, because there will be blow-backs. But it was not my intention to try to present a solution...

 

[mjsd]

They were democratically elected. "Just" - I doubt it. I don't know why you bring up what our government labeles them as. This point holds no water.

How our government labels Hamas makes a huge difference, because it is actually illegal to deal with these terrorist groups and we can go to jail for it. Now, since we elect our own government and so in most instances our govt by default represents the views of the majority of the us, which in turns define what is right and wrong in our society.

So, I pointed out that in the absence of more concrete information, it is difficult to judge whether Hamas is good or bad, all we can go by is what we/our govt. define as right and wrong. Since to label a group as "terrorists", it is the same as saying that they are equivalent to Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Tamil Tigers, FARC... etc, the natural conclusion would then be that Hamas and almost everything they do and all cards that they play have a sinister intention against us... that's what we meant by "terrorism" (oh.. loosely speaking... don't play the definition game on me...) If you want me to clarify my statements, just ask.

In regards to the current conflict, I see that the argument has always been who is doing the right/wrong thing, who has the right to defend who etc. and so, it IS relevant to know who is good and who is bad... even though we all know too well that your definitions of good and bad may be quite different that mine. And so perhaps, only our govt. definitions can settle this (some other countries may disagree however).

While I do not want to re-open the "defintion" debate, it is quite clear that the crux of the problem lies in what we preceive as right and wrong; what is over- or under-reacting; who is occuping who's land; who started it first etc...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, we all know that Hamas has NO potential to eradicate Jews.

And if they gained that potential...? Again, just because they aren't successful, that doesn't mean the attempt isn't wrong.

 

[turbo]

And if they gained that potential...? Again, just because they aren't successful, that doesn't mean the attempt isn't wrong.

I do not advocate the attempt to eradicate any group of people, and I'm pretty sure that you know that based on my past posts. Israel has the upper hand here and can eradicate vast populations of Palestinians at will with US helicopter gunships, US fighter/bomber jets, US munitions, and US intelligence (including intercepted communications, satellite imagery, and other goodies).

It's high time the US stopped feeding taxpayer money to Zionists and left them to their own devices. Perhaps they would have to negotiate with their neighbors (Gasp!) and forge a peace based on cooperation, not on military superiority. The US has given the right-wing factions of the Israeli government so much money and power for decades... What if it were withdrawn? No more weaponry, no more ordinance, no more money, no more privileged intelligence? What if Israel had to cut the crap and act like any civilized country with neighbors?

 

[Phrak]

What if Israel had to cut the crap and act like any civilized country with neighbors?

It's fairly obvious. Their civilized neighbors would eradicate them. During that process, it's also likely, Isreal would land a nuclear weapon on Tehran and/or Syria (They know who finance these guys).

 

[turbo]

Nope! I think there would be a detente of some type in which an uneasy truce would allow trade to develop. Israel cannot possibly survive in its present form without constant infusions of US aid. If they want to thrive, they would have to take advantage of their location on many trade routes, and their technological advantage over their neighbors (easily over come, given peace and a bit of time)

 

[WhoWee]

Israel does have a technology rich economy

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/10/Israel-s+Exports+Underpin+Economic+Growth.htm

...but somehow I doubt trade will develop anytime soon (even in the presence of a good truce) with it's nearest neighbors.

 

[Cyrus]

I brought that up because I sense that many ppl are denying the obvious fact that there will be no conflicts when there is no warring factions.

Are you reading the same thread as me? I don't recall anyone making such a denial.

 

[Cyrus]

How our government labels Hamas makes a huge difference, because it is actually illegal to deal with these terrorist groups and we can go to jail for it. Now, since we elect our own government and so in most instances our govt by default represents the views of the majority of the us, which in turns define what is right and wrong in our society.

Sorry to be rude here, but get to your point already. This 'feel good' speech really means zip.
What does right and wrong in our society have to do with Isreal? What's in the heck does this have to do with anything? Why did you even bring this up?

So, I pointed out that in the absence of more concrete information, it is difficult to judge whether Hamas is good or bad, all we can go by is what we/our govt. define as right and wrong.

Try reading a newspaper or two, and inform yourself. When they were elected they took everyone by surprise, including themselves as they never thought they would have been elected!

Since to label a group as "terrorists", it is the same as saying that they are equivalent to Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Tamil Tigers, FARC... etc, the natural conclusion would then be that Hamas and almost everything they do and all cards that they play have a sinister intention against us... that's what we meant by "terrorism" (oh.. loosely speaking... don't play the definition game on me...) If you want me to clarify my statements, just ask.

For goodness sakes. Learn the usage of the words you type before you use them. It would save us all a lot of trouble. If you don't understand what they mean - Look them up!

I don't agree with that definition. Read Tiny Tims post, he gave you the definition and you still are not using it properly.

In regards to the current conflict, I see that the argument has always been who is doing the right/wrong thing, who has the right to defend who etc. and so, it IS relevant to know who is good and who is bad... even though we all know too well that your definitions of good and bad may be quite different that mine. And so perhaps, only our govt. definitions can settle this (some other countries may disagree however).

Point, please get to it. Fast. Who is good who is bad...uh huuh... okay. Does this mean something? Is there a point to this?

While I do not want to re-open the "defintion" debate, it is quite clear that the crux of the problem lies in what we preceive as right and wrong; what is over- or under-reacting; who is occuping who's land; who started it first etc...

Then stop using your words incorrectly. The crux of the matter isn't what we think is right or wrong. What a longwinded post that really didn't provide any useful information.

Im sorry, it was total garbage.

At least have some sort of facts or sources. All this 'we feel what's right and wrong, bla bla bla' reminds me of philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Sorry to be harsh but I really think your post lacks any meat. It's all fluff.

 

[mjsd]

Are you reading the same thread as me? I don't recall anyone making such a denial.

I said "I sensed that..." which may or may not totally correct. however, it is besides the point. The original argument as I understand it was that someone (let's not use names here) claimed/implied that Israel is doing this to further another objective more than just "self-defence" and also to eliminate the Palestinian resistance for good. Then, there was a response saying that it is beyond ridiculous to contemplate achieving lasting peace via killiing more ppl in Gaza. What I was then trying to say is that, ok, if either side is totally eliminated, there would be no racial, political divide, and lasting peace is actually possible. So, it is NOT beyond ridiculous to suggest that it is a solution even though it may not be "morally correct".

Besides, if either side is hawkish enough, anything can happen.

 

[jreelawg]

You're still doing it …

insisting on a general definition of "semite" so as to help deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism …


I don't have access to the apple dictionary, but I can quote both from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antisemitism" …

and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism" …


You have deliberately avoided quoting any dictionary on "antisemitism" … presumably because you know that it only applies to Jews.


No, you weren't … you were trying to dispute the meaning of "anti-semitic" …

nobody used the word "semite" until you did …


… what is ironic about using the word "anti-semitic"?

I never tried to deny the existence of any racism, I only think that the term anti-semitism only applying to certain semites and not others doesn't make sense. I demand you say your sorry for accusing me of racism for simply posting a definition of a word from the dictionary.

 

[mjsd]

Sorry to be rude here, but get to your point already. This 'feel good' speech really means zip.
What does right and wrong in our society have to do with Isreal? What's in the heck does this have to do with anything? Why did you even bring this up?

let me tell you why I brought it up. Firstly, because I regard myself as a thoughtful person, who does not usually take things for granted and as such I do not always believe my view is correct. In thinking about this whole conflict again, after endless debate on this topic here before, I've found it impossible to come to any sort of common ground with ppl, simply because we all have a different view on who, and which sides, is doing the right thing in this conflict. Many Israel supporters are saying that it is fair game to exercise self-defence even though the result may be ugly, while the Palestinian supporters/sympathisers are claiming that Israel is trying to use it just as an excuse to eliminate Palestine (or somehting like that... many different interpretations, I do not intend to generalise).

But as soon as we start to consider whether one's action is legit or not, it becomes a debate on what is right and what is wrong. do you get me?

Very simply...
eg. Does Israel has the right to defend itself by starting an "all-out war"?
eg. Should Hamas be regarded as legitimate govt?
eg. Is Hamas a terrorist group?
eg. Should Israel actions be considered as "bullying"?

the answers to these depend highly on what we define as right and wrong. and my point was that many of us don't seem to be able to find common ground on these.

regarding the term "terrorism", I must say since 911 and the "war on terror" has begun, I don't think I truly understand what that term truly means any more.

 

[jreelawg]

I'm kind of sick of the way people act as if the jews are israel. Many Jews don't live in Israel. It is the state of Israel that is responsible for its actions, not the race or religion. It is hard to be critical of Israel because people are so quick to label you an anti-semite. If Norway invaded Mexico, would we consider it an act of the caucasian race. Would opposing Norway be anti-caucasian?

We need to remember that this is a government, not a race. I don't think it is healthy to let a government represent a race of people. Many Jews oppose what Israel does at times, and many Arabs oppose what Hamas does. I don't see why it has to be considered the Jews vs. the Arabs, when it is more specifically the State of Israel vs. Hamas.

 

[Cyrus]

let me tell you why I brought it up. Firstly, because I regard myself as a thoughtful person, who does not usually take things for granted and as such I do always believe my view is correct. In thinking about this whole conflict again, after endless debate on this topic here before, I've found it impossible to come to any sort of common ground with ppl, simply because we all have a different view on who, and which sides, is doing the right thing in this conflict. Many Israel supporters are saying that it is fair game to exercise self-defence even though the result may be ugly, while the Palestinian supporters/sympathisers are claiming that Israel is trying to use it just as an excuse to eliminate Palestine (or somehting like that... many different interpretations, I do not intend to generalise).

Okay.

But as soon as we start to consider whether one's action is legit or not, it becomes a debate on what is right and what is wrong. do you get me?

No. It should be very clear that lobbing rockets into another country is wrong.

Very simply...
eg. Does Israel has the right to defend itself by starting an "all-out war"?
eg. Should Hamas be regarded as legitimate govt?
eg. Is Hamas a terrorist group?
eg. Should Israel actions be considered as "bullying"?

Q1: As far as I'm aware, is yes. It's a sovereign country. In fact, it did go to war with lebanon not too long ago.
Q2: No
Q3: Yes
Q4: No

These questions have definite answers.

the answers to these depend highly on what we define as right and wrong. and my point was that many of us don't seem to be able to find common ground on these.

Not really. The answer is who started the provocation. Here, Hamas did. Now they got an answer. If they want to cry about it - tough ****. Don't shoot rockets into another country and then cry when they shoot you back.

 

[Phrak]

Nope! I think there would be a detente of some type in which an uneasy truce would allow trade to develop. Israel cannot possibly survive in its present form without constant infusions of US aid. If they want to thrive, they would have to take advantage of their location on many trade routes, and their technological advantage over their neighbors (easily over come, given peace and a bit of time)

You don't know the middle east. The arab nations are not interested in peace with Isreal. They are interested in the elimination of Isreal as a Jewish state. It has never been acceptable for Islam to loose territory. The manifest destiny of Islam is to acquire world dominance. Isreal is a thorn in their sides.

Under continual bombardment by such luminary news outlets as Al-Jassir, we get half truths--thus threads like this one. There is religious compulsion to give you a string of lies. This is Islam. You are kafir. Hindered by such BS, it's simply frustrating to communicate.

Isreal wants peace. Their neighbors don't. How hard is that to weigh?

 

[Hurkyl]

The US has given the right-wing factions of the Israeli government so much money and power for decades... What if it were withdrawn? No more weaponry, no more ordinance, no more money, no more privileged intelligence?

And what if your plan backfires? What if the fighting remains the same... except that they can't afford to use precision strikes in favor of the cheaper, less accurate and more destructive weapons? And they do it with less intelligence, meaning they have less ability to ensure that they strike only military targets?

Or worse -- what if withdrawing aid means that Israel can no longer afford to bend over backwards to show restraint (and is no longer influenced by the US to do so), and is forced to take more definitive action?

(And this is ignoring any moral implications of withdrawing aid... or what precedents it might set)

 

[tiny-tim]

peace between Israel and its neighbours

Perhaps they would have to negotiate with their neighbors (Gasp!) and forge a peace based on cooperation, not on military superiority.

Why "Gasp!"? … are you so biased against Israel that you treat obvious facts as irrelevant? …

Israel has already negotiated peace with its neighbour Egypt (and handed back land), and with its neighbour Jordan (and handed back land).

Israel is trying to negotiate peace with Fatah, but this is doomed until Fatah regains control over Gaza.

What if Israel had to cut the crap and act like any civilized country with neighbors?

See above … Israel has already acted "like any civilized country" with its civilized neighbours.

It's high time the US stopped feeding taxpayer money to Zionists and left them to their own devices.

"Zionists"?

Who are they?

You don't know the middle east. The arab nations are not interested in peace with Isreal. They are interested in the elimination of Isreal as a Jewish state.
…
Isreal wants peace. Their neighbors don't. How hard is that to weigh?

Hi Phrak!

Sorry, but I think you're being glass-half-empty here …

what you say was certainly true until the visit of Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, but since then Egypt and Jordan have made peace, and the other Arab countries seem willing in principle …

even Syria, so long as it gets its Golan Heights back.

(not Iran, but that, of course, is a non-Arab country)

It is very unfortunate for the Palestinians that they have lost virtually all political (and financial) support from Arab governments, whose main aim is now civilized and lasting peace and economic co-operation.

 

[russ_watters]

I do not advocate the attempt to eradicate any group of people, and I'm pretty sure that you know that based on my past posts.

I'm not suggesting that you do, I'm saying that you are ignoring reality and arguing fantasy. This vision of Hamas and Israel you have is not real. It exists only in your head and in terrorist propaganda.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You don't know the middle east. The arab nations are not interested in peace with Isreal. They are interested in the elimination of Isreal as a Jewish state. It has never been acceptable for Islam to loose territory. The manifest destiny of Islam is to acquire world dominance. Isreal is a thorn in their sides.

Under continual bombardment by such luminary news outlets as Al-Jassir, we get half truths--thus threads like this one. There is religious compulsion to give you a string of lies. This is Islam. You are kafir. Hindered by such BS, it's simply frustrating to communicate.

Isreal wants peace. Their neighbors don't. How hard is that to weigh?

I can't believe the amount of BS in this post...really. Get your facts straight before making such luminous claims about Islam, which I am sure you know nothing of.

To refrain myself from being warned by replying harshly to your post, I will make one statement which will turn the table upside down.

The Arab Peace Initiative:

The plan consists of a proposal to end the Arab-Israeli conflict...The initiative is based upon:

* The principle of Land for peace.
* The conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties.

The goals of the initiative are:

* Full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967
* Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
* The establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital
* A just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem, to be agreed upon in accordance with section 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
* The normalization of relations in the context of a comprehensive peace

The initiative was fully endorsed by the Arab League at the Riyadh Summit in 2007 by all members as well as by the Muslim World Summit which gave it complete credibility for if it is undertaken the normalization with Israel will be done by the entire Muslim and Arab Worlds.
...
Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has welcomed the plan, with reservations on a pull back from East Jerusalem and resettlement of Palestinians in Israel proper.
...
In November 2008 The Sunday Times reported that American president-elect Barack Obama is going to support the plan, saying to Mahmoud Abbas during his July 2008 visit to the Middle East that "The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative"