View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes
Below is the link to an interview with Steven A. Cook on the recent attacks in Israel and Gaza and possible reasons behind it coming from perspectives of Israel, Hamas, the people of Gaza, Fatah, and others. Long but interesting.
CFR's leading Middle East expert, says that the latest attacks by Israel against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip were "not surprising" given the renewed rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Gaza, and the political and military environments in Israel. Cook says "there is not a tremendous amount" either the departing Bush administration or the new Obama one can do right now, but he says the impact the Israeli attacks have on the Middle East as a whole, and the political gains to be made by Iran as a result, force the Obama administration to put the crisis "high on the agenda once the president enters the Oval Office."
Were you surprised by the outbreak of fighting over the weekend in which Israel launched a devastating air attack against Hamas targets in Gaza, killing well over three hundred people, including many civilians, in retaliation for continued rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza? In addition, Israel seems to be signaling a readiness for a ground offensive if necessary.
It is not surprising to me at all given the fact that the cease-fire had come to an end; once it was over in December, Hamas and other militant factions in the Gaza Strip began bombarding Israel with rocket attacks. In the week after the cease-fire ended, Israel absorbed two hundred such attacks. The Israelis were also engaged in their own military operations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as well. So both parties saw the end coming and quickly took advantage of it. Thus, it really wasn't surprising that the Israelis launched this significant military operation because Hamas had vowed to continue to take attacks to the Israelis.
There have been all kinds of analyses on why the Israelis launched such a major air operation---its largest in many, many years against Palestinians. Some, as the New York Times correspondent in Jerusalem said in the paper today, postulated that the Israelis wanted to compensate for their poor showing in the summer war of 2006 against Hezbollah. Others think that perhaps it was a prelude to the Israeli parliamentary elections in February and others postulated that the Israelis wanted to get the fighting over with before there is a new president in Washington. What do you think?
It is probably a combination of all of those things. I think that first and foremost the primary issue was that Israeli citizens had been under attack. Before the June cease-fire, three thousand rockets had landed on Israel over recent years. No government can abdicate its responsibility to try to protect its citizens under attack. That's first and foremost the reason the Israelis undertook this devastating attack against Hamas' infrastructure and against other militants in the Gaza Strip. But I think secondarily and certainly driving part of this is the fact that Israel's engaged in an election campaign. The coalition led by Ehud Barak, the defense minister and leader of Labor, and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and new leader of the Kadima Party, have been criticized from the right by Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, who is leading in the polls, and who opposed the Gaza withdrawal, which was taken unilaterally by the then Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon [and later founder of the Kadima Party]. This gave the ruling coalition the opportunity to demonstrate to the Israeli people their security credentials, that they could be tough. Barak, a former military chief of staff, doesn't really have to do that, although he did preside over the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, which is now widely regarded as a failure. It remains to be seen how the situation plays out, whether it will help them in the polls. But it would be remiss not to factor Israeli politics into this situation. But I have to emphasize that the real drive here was that Israeli citizens in the south have been under attack for quite some time.
To the other point, that the Israeli Defense Forces wanted to make up for their performance in 2006, certainly senior officers have been looking for opportunities to reestablish Israel's deterrent, something they felt was damaged as a result of the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the subsequent withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, because what Hezbollah and Hamas drew from both events was that if we bloody the Israelis enough they'll cut and run. That is a view that is shared by other militant groups throughout the Middle East, and the senior military officers in Israel want to correct that impression. This is also in keeping with standard Israeli military doctrine which is to respond to threats with overwhelming and brutal force.
Let's talk a bit about Hamas' leadership. It seems that they had very little to gain by resuming the rocket attacks on Israel when the cease-fire ended. Are they under pressure to be even more militant than they are? Or is this almost a suicidal wish at work?
Their radicalism serves them well in Palestinian politics. The radicalism within Hamas has become attractive to the Palestinians who support Hamas. If Hamas would not be radical, it would be like Fatah, which it does not want to become. I think that what has happened ---and it is something we perennially misread about Palestinian politics --- is that this is not some sort of suicidal thing, but there was pressure building within the Gaza Strip to do something about the crippling siege that the Israelis had imposed on Gaza. The cease-fire was supposed to allow more goods to enter the Gaza Strip. It happened to some extent, but not as fully as the people there would like. Resistance is a core part of Hamas' world view. In fact that is the meaning of its name, the Islamic Resistance Movement. This garners support for them among Palestinians.
If you read Palestinian press reports or talk to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have been under siege for quite some time, they say "Well, we are not necessarily supportive of Hamas, but we have to do something to convince the Israelis that we won't be put under siege like this, that we won't be driven off of our land," and that's essentially why Hamas let the cease-fire lapse and didn't demonstrate a tremendous interest in renewing it. Just as there is a political struggle going on in Israel, there is a struggle going on between Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader who is president of the Palestinian Authority. The way Palestinian factions demonstrate their nationalist bona fides is often in these violent responses to the Israelis.
Now, Abbas' term in office ends early in January, and what will happen then? Do you know?
It's entirely unclear what's going to happen. There's certainly not enough time to organize elections. Hamas says it will not recognize Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority after his term runs out. He says he will disband the Palestinian legislature. Hamas says it will not recognize that. So we are at a political standstill here. I must say that the violence is not beneficial to Mahmoud Abbas. It's not because he holds a brief for Hamas, but the scale of the Israeli attacks have created a very difficult political situation for Abbas. He is the one who has staked his political reputation, his political legacy by negotiating with the Israelis to demonstrate that negotiations between the Palestinian Authority that he controls and the Israeli government will bear fruit for the Palestinian people, to get them closer to their ultimate goal of statehood and sovereignty. The Israelis, by unleashing a brutal attack on the Gaza Strip, only weakens Abbas in his call for moderation and negotiation.
This gets us to negotiations. The Bush administration plan to work out an Israeli-Palestinian agreement which was launched with some fanfare last November has run its course with no deal. A new administration led by Barack Obama is coming into office. There were great expectations, particularly in the Middle East, that he would launch a major initiative but no administration can come into office with war going on and expect to do very much at the outset, can it?
Presently, there is not a tremendous amount that the departing Bush administration or the new Obama administration can do. As long as the parties continue to want to fight, there is not a tremendous amount that Washington can accomplish. But the current situation brings to bear just how important this issue is, and how the fact that the Bush administration had really not discovered the issue until very late in the president's term can lead to tremendous crises like this. But I think that this has been such a significant military operation, such a significant step back from the negotiations, that the president-elect and the transition team should be looking for ways to achieve what it had already said it wanted, to make this a priority.
The situation between Israel and Palestine was not good to begin with. It's only worse now and the longer this kind of violence and instability continues, it becomes more difficult for the United States to achieve its goal of ensuring Israeli security through the establishment of a Palestinian state. But it also affects broader American interests ---the instability in Israeli-Palestinian relations provides opportunities for the Iranians to play Arab politics. And when they do that, they necessarily put major Arab interlocutors like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan on the defensive because Egypt and Jordan have relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia is closely aligned with the United States. Iran can weave a narrative about how the United States and its allies stand by while the Israelis engage in predatory attacks against the Palestinian people. That makes it harder for our allies to help us and it advances Iran's interest in extending its influence throughout the region. On the issue of Palestinian rights and sovereignty and nationhood, the Persian-Arab-Shiite-Sunni divide does not hold. In fact, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the second most popular figure in the Arab world after the Hezbollah leader, [Hassan] Nasrallah.
This situation creates a situation that makes it far more difficult for the United States to achieve its interests in the region. Already, you see the Syrians suspending the indirect peace talks with Israel, through the Turks, which had been promising. Obama has said this would be a priority for the administration. The situation is grave. The situation is dire. In the very short run there is not a tremendous amount to do, but it should be high on the agenda once the president enters the Oval Office.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18080/assessing_the_gaza_flare_up.html?breadcrumb=%2F
Council of Foreign Relations
Moderator, please fix spelling mistake in title. Thank you. Saudis blame Hamas amid calls for talks with Fatah.
Arab Columnists Blame Hamas
Abbas blames Hamas for bloodshed
The Arab world seems to be pretty pissed at the Hamas/Hezbolla/Iran trouble makers, especially Egypt and the Saudis. The Arabs had been begging Hamas for weeks to extend the cease fire.
Thanks Pierce, and Bruce; it may be long, but its a good synopsis.
Why is it with the likes of Bruce's links, that on the tv news all we are shown is protests against Israel?
I've been trying to find a way to turn around that people who live in glass houses thing ... oh, I think I've got it ...
People who don't want to live in glass deserts shouldn't throw rocks at the neighbors.
Israel is the defending team here ... I don't get people who think they're being mean because they've got bigger and more useful toys than the idiots who shot first.
I'd say I pretty much agree with the
Washington PostI wonder why it's always Israel that is called upon to give up land and other concessions in talks. It's not "Palestinian" land, it always belonged to Israel, as I see it. The Palestinians were just squatting on it when the Jews came along in 1948 and kicked them off.
Where was "Palestine" prior to their eviction? Political boundaries? Seat of government? World recognition? I can't find it on any map. I see nothing in history that shows they "owned" that land. So where is their beef?
It is with the very existence of Israel. The only thing that will satisfy these crazies is the death of each and every last Jew in the area. Only that.
Israel has shown remarkable restraint in the fighting over the last fifty years or so and especially in the last five. They give advance warning of attacks, they offer olive branch after olive branch, wanting only peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians while they are interested only in extermination.
Israel isn't going to give in to that, so round after round of fighting in, which mostly Hamas personnel are killed but a few civilians too, will go on and on and on. The West will only hear about how evil the Israelis are for killing this little girl and her mother but somehow mention is not made that Hamas stored missiles in her house.
I'm sick of the obvious twisting of the truth going on and almost wish Israel would wipe out their enemy once and for all.
Ever notice that the rest of the Arab world invariably protests Israeli responses to attack but rarely if ever protest Palestinian attacks on Israel? I have. I'm disgusted and totally sick of having to listen to Arab whining about how terrible things are when THEY are the root cause of the unrest.
I have to agree with Charles Krauthammer in the link provided by Radar. He's more eloquent than I (he's PAID to be) and better informed. I'm just a truck driver who gets to glance at the headlines on the USA Today and maybe a local paper and I do see the Yahoo homepage when I manage to get online. so I don't see everything.
But can anyone else honestly look at this situation and not wonder why Israel hasn't been more aggressive in their response? Who else in the world would allow rocket and mortar and other such attacks on their people? Would the USA? I doubt it.
Brian
*opens mouth then thinks better of it*
It's a nice day. I'm feeling quite groovy. I'm not going to fuck that up :P
It's not "Palestinian" land, it always belonged to Israel, [COLOR="Red"]as I see it[/COLOR]. The Palestinians were just squatting on it when the Jews came along in 1948 and kicked them off.
Cuz the bible tells you so?
Seriously, we have no allies in the region. Any commitment on our part is a waste of energy. Both sides will continue to kill.
Rule of thumb: if you favor the Palestinians, don't root for the worst bloodthirsty terrorist organizations in the world to "represent" them in the very most appalling of ways.
Another rule of thumb: neutrality ain't favoritism. Israel does look more like "us." I want them to survive. I don't believe they have any more or less right to the sand than the Palestinians had before eviction. Unfortunately, the might makes right mentality in the mid-east includes unguided missiles against civilians as well as planes and artillery versus militants plus civilians. At some point Israel is going to have to cut a deal with the wider Arab world and the Palestinians will have to understand that they've lost and take whatever scraps they can get. Any wider role we play will not hasten that reality. A wider role by us only creates a false power structure.
Excellent post Brian - especially how it always seems as though we see all this from the perspective of Israel being the aggressor and all the poor Palestinian civilians getting killed. Rather biased in my opinion.
As far as a solution, Griff nailed it. They better agree to take what they can get and move forward. Otherwise that whole area will be nothing more than a parking lot.
Seriously, we have no allies in the region.
Bingo! Some use the U.S. as an enemy to rally the rabble, and some use the U.S. as a cash cow, but none are actually allies... or friends. :headshake
A solution for this problem does not exist. Palestine would collapse in a two state solution and a single state solution would result in fighting within.
Both sides have major fault. Israel has cut off Gaza to the point of starvation, it even says in the interview why the civilians support Hamas. As I said in the other post, it a cause and effect downward spiral that both sides are contributing.
Where was "Palestine" prior to their eviction? Political boundaries? Seat of government? World recognition? I can't find it on any map. I see nothing in history that shows they "owned" that land. So where is their beef?
You do realize that Europeans invented the idea of the state, correct?
Palestine would collapse in a two state solution
define collapse
Fall apart both politically and economically. Hamas runs Gaza, Fatah runs West Bank. They both want to a unified Palestine but only if they are the ones running it. A peace with Israel cannot be obtained without a unified Palestine and Israel knows that, hence why it has been using divide and conquer techniques since the PLO.
An independent Palestine would not be able to survive economically on its own either, especially without political stability and any resources. What resources do Palestinians have?
You do realize that Europeans invented the idea of the state, correct?
You are referring to the state of Israel, yes?
Prior to the state of Israel being formed, the people living in the area (Persians, Arabs, Jews, et al), always had absentee landlords. Probably because nobody in their right mind wanted to live in the shithole.
After Israel was formed and the Jews flocked in to make the desert flourish, it was not the locals but outside agitators that started the trouble. The Arabs, after losing a couple of wars, pretty much accepted the status quo, but the Persians continue to cause trouble.
What resources do Palestinians have?
The west has poured billions into Palistine... they bought guns with it. If they would knock this shit off, there are plenty of countries, including Israel, that would take care of them.
I was referring to the idea of a state in general? Notice how no one had political boundaries until European colonization?
But anyways, the British and Jews were first to attack. The Arab riots were reactionary to those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion
Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed.
The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Palestine. Arab opposition to the plan led to the 1920 Palestine riots and the formation of the Jewish organization known as the Haganah (meaning "The Defense" in Hebrew), from which the Irgun and Lehi split off.
n 1922, the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom a mandate over Palestine for the express purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home".[45] The population of the area at this time was predominantly Muslim Arab, while the largest urban area in the region, Jerusalem, was predominantly Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
As I've said many times, both sides contributed.
Before Hamas' election, and after the removal of settlements, 750 trucks went from Israel to Gaza every day, carrying food and goods and supplies.
A peace with Israel cannot be obtained without a unified Palestine and Israel knows that, hence why it has been using divide and conquer techniques since the PLO.
Oh this is the new excuse? Do keep us up to date. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for terrorist violence. Before this one it was the settlements. Those sneaky Joos always find some way to trick various Palestinian groups into being violently unstable.
and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed
And then the terrible
UN was tricked by the Zionist British into the partition plan, huh? With unstable, un-unified borders in wildly varied areas, so that the Arabs would go to war on the first day afterwards?
When did I say that Israel was the sole factor behind it? I said what I've been emphasizing this entire time, BOTH SIDES HAVE FAULTS BEHIND IT.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/b25_palestine_divided.pdf
This, a very legitimate sources, clearly states that Israel is working with Fatah. Why wouldn't they? They view Hamas as a group that needs to be destroyed. But before that, it was Fatah that needs to be destroyed? How do you think they did that? How about when the PLO was in control?
You are a smart man UT, think about it for a second. Israel would prefer as much land as possible, why wouldn't they do this?
The 1947 UN Partition Plan. Who divided the borders again?
Israel would prefer as much land as possible to properly defend itself
FTFY.
Because land grab is the OLD excuse. It's last decade's criticism of Israel, and some people are still using it in knee-jerk fashion.
But it's very very very obviously not true at this time in history. Because Israel LEFT Gaza. It uprooted the homes and lives of Israelis who had lived there for twenty years to do so.
And suddenly, once that was no longer an excuse, new excuses arrive.
I was referring to the idea of a state in general? Notice how no one had political boundaries until European colonization?
Right, before the idea of political boundaries was established, it was always military boundries... world wide, what ever you could capture and hold. That's why the residents of that area never owned it.
Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the British conquered it so a Jewish state could be formed.
No, the Brits grabbed it to secure the Suez Canal so the tea supply was assured. The Jews took advantage of the opportunity to go home.
As I've said many times, both sides contributed.
Absolutely, there have transgressions by all, but the Palestinians have to face up to the fact that Israel is a reality and isn't going away. The rest of the world has accepted that, even if they are not happy about it. Even the Persians know that, but keep stirring up shit anyway.
And suddenly, once that was no longer an excuse, new excuses arrive.
Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution. A disunified Palestine cannot make peace with Israel and neither Israel, Hamas, or Fatah are working towards a unified Palestine. In fact, most outside sources are not supporting a unified Palestine either. Which backs up my original point that all parties are at fault. Actually fault is a bad word because most actions by every side are defensive in nature.
Note, I am not saying Israel is solely at fault.
Right, before the idea of political boundaries was established, it was always military boundries... world wide, what ever you could capture and hold. That's why the residents of that area never owned it.
Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.
This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.
Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
The Jews took advantage of the opportunity to go home.
I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone elses? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old. The area became Christian under 2,000 years ago and then Islamic about 1,200 years ago. It wasn't as if the Jews living there were kicked out either by the Christians, many converted and then converted to Islam. So technically, the Palestinians living there have been living there the entire time. The Jews living there now immigrated from other areas and do not have genetic origin to that land.
Or another view, why do Europeans have a right over the United States and Canada and not the natives? The natives were living there for over 10,000 years but we kicked and moved them around. Would the descendants of an Iroquois tribe be legitimate in "going home" and taking over New York?
The only way to make it much easier for everyone and not be hypocritical is to not give any group a right to any land. Jews do not get Israel and neither do Arabs. Nothing can be done to change the situation we are in so we have to deal with it.
If you disagree, show how Jews have a right to that land over any other group.
Absolutely, there have transgressions by all, but the Palestinians have to face up to the fact that Israel is a reality and isn't going away. The rest of the world has accepted that, even if they are not happy about it. Even the Persians know that, but keep stirring up shit anyway.
No, I agree as well. Hell, most Arab states accept it as well even though they may not show it. A small group of Palestinians are the only ones that do not, but they have got power through other means. Reread the original article I posted, it clearly says that the citizens of Gaza support Hamas not necessarily because of their views but because of the siege against them.
Now, I am not arguing that the siege is an ugly oppressive move. Israel is doing it to get rid of Hamas. And Hamas was elected because of Israeli actions. Those Israeli actions were reactionary to Palestinian actions which were reactions to Israeli which were reaction to...
Both sides are on the defensive and all three internal forces are doing what every other country in this world is doing, working to further their self interests. As I said, a peace cannot come without a unified Palestine and neither of the three sides, plus external forces, are working towards that.
Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution.
Really? Uprooting citizens from their lives and homes of 20 years? Patiently waiting to see if the enemy runs out of bombs? You would do less I assure you.
They do what they can. They can't possibly address the real root of the problem that has developed. I think I get it:
The real root of the problem is that Israel is massively successful.
This presents a severe headache not for Palestine, but for all fanatical Islamists.
Israel's remarkable success is evidence, right before their eyes, that their very system of beliefs is faulty. Allah promised all that success to THEM. To see their deepest enemies succeed, economically, culturally, militarily, over and over again, is not just a source of envy. It creates an inner dialogue that is simply impossible for them to resolve in any sort of logical way.
This leads them to fund and support the proxy war so that the question doesn't have to be resolved... the battle is ongoing you see. Question is still in the air. Israel has won? Oh ho, not quite yet! Not in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973... those were silly little struggles that didn't mean anything! The longer battle continues as long as mothers send their children to be suicide bombers.
Other cultures, following wars with their bitter enemies, including those in which they've lost their dear dear homeland, have picked themselves up and gotten on with it.
We lost, there's nothing left we can do. Let's just move to the mountains. Why not this culture?
Really? Uprooting citizens from their lives and homes of 20 years? Patiently waiting to see if the enemy runs out of bombs? You would do less I assure you.
They did the same to the Palestinians in 1948. But remember, even if the views of Israelis changed, it still doesn't undo that fact, no matter if they were justified in it or not. Which goes into this...
They can't possibly address the real root of the problem that has developed.
This is true. Israel cannot solve the problem. No single party can solve this problem. And saying the Palestinians can is not an answer. Very informed sources say that this problem cannot be solved without outside help. I already gave the link.
The real root of the problem is that Israel is massively successful.
Oh c'mon UT. You don't actually believe there is a single root to this problem. I mean, displacement, occupation, and a mutual hatred that has been around for over 1,000 years could not have any impact on this at all....
Honestly, I actually agree with you on what you said but that isn't the entirety of the movement. There are many other people with many other reasons. To say that everyone that is anti-Israel is doing it because of the reasons you gave is the same as saying anyone pro-Israel believes that God gave Israel to the Jews and the Jews have the right to take back that land by any means necessary, which does have a following as well.
Well stated. But why is this displaced culture different? Even the majority of Israelis today are displaced Jews and progeny thereof, that headed to Israel because they were kicked out of the various Arabic countries that had been their ancestral homes.
I try not to jump to solutions based on ideals, but the situation at hand. Ideally, the Palestinians are no different than any other displaced group in history, which there have been a tremendous amount. The natives in the United States are displaced and face third world living conditions, many times without electricity and water but no one besides a few native radicals argue for a native state. If I did base solutions on ideals, I would naturally have to argue for a similar solution by every displaced group which you can quickly realize is unrealistic.
The reason why the Palestinian situation is different than the natives in the United States is because of the situation at hand. Look at how the relations between Israel and Palestine have changed over the past 20 years and compare that to native versus colonist relations in other countries such as Australia and the United States. The difference is that Palestinians fight back and have much larger numbers.
If you honestly look at it, the oppression and conditions other natives are in are not that much different than the Palestinians. If the Palestinians did not fight back and had smaller numbers they would just become the same as the natives in the United States or Aboriginals in Australia.
I do not disagree with the Jews on becoming self-empowering. Actually, it is quite possibly the best example in history. It is just that the location that they picked was one that could never work out. If a different location was picked and a secular, not Jewish state, was formed or converted, we would not see a problem or it at least would be much smaller.
Knowing that, we can see why the situation in Palestine is different than with any other displaced culture that we give attention too and also why a different solution is necessary. Unfortunately, with the situation at hand, a peace between Israel and Palestine is not likely because of many different factors that are both internal and external.
Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.
This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundaries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.
Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...
When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.
The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.
Individual ownership and property rights was one of the basic tenets of the United States, and highly unusual.
I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone else's? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old.
The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started, which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land. The Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.
BAM STIRS FEARS IN ISRAEL
COULD HALT DEATH BLOW TO HAMAS
AS WORLD leaders and international organizations rush to rescue Hamas, Israel faces complex bat tlefield challenges - while fearing a stab in the back from the incoming Obama administration.
Israel's leaders are asking themselves two questions: Is the cost of sending sufficient ground forces into Gaza just too high? And, upon his inauguration on Jan. 20, will President Obama undercut Israel's counterterror offensive before its goals have been reached?
Israel can deal with self-aggrandizing busybodies, such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose irresponsible attempts to force a cease-fire upon Israel benefit only Hamas. (Carla, can't you give that guy something to do?) But Israel would be hard pressed to fight on without American support.
As government leaders and generals in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv weigh the question of whether or not to send tanks into Gaza's streets, they hear the clock ticking. A major ground incursion would take time. Would Israel Defense Forces soldiers find themselves fighting on political quicksand?
Despite the frankly anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish reporting of this conflict in the global media, Israel's military performance not only has been technically superb, but has been as humane as possible under such difficult circumstances.
From earlier briefings in Israel, I know the IDF takes an almost absurd degree of care in its targeting. The questioning doesn't stop with "Is that the right building?" it then asks, "What should be our angle of attack to ensure any rubble falls into the street, not atop the primary school next door?" (Hamas consistently embeds terror facilities among innocent civilians.)
Hitting a terrorist hideout in an apartment building, for example, an F-16 would be armed with the smallest warhead that could do the job. If the terrorists are tucked into rooms on the fourth floor, targeting officers evaluate which window the guided missile should go through to kill the terrorists, while minimizing harm to civilians living below.
Any military veteran can tell that the Israelis are taking enormous care to spare civilians. Given the number of airstrikes thus far and the hundreds of tons of bombs dropped, it remains remarkable that so few innocents have been injured in such a dense urban environment.
nuff said.
When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.
When did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.
The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.
I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.
The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started
As I said in my last post, the self-determination part I don't care about it is that area would not have worked out. The more I look into it the more I find that this plan was destined to fail but there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. The Jews weren't going to go anywhere else and the Arabs didn't want to live in a Jewish homeland.
Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.
which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land.
Studies have shown that the DNA of the Palestinians represent people that have lived in that area since Prehistoric times. Other cultures have invaded and mixed in with the gene pool, but most can trace ancestors back to prehistoric ancestors that lived in the same area.
Define didn't own the land.
the Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.
The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.
Years gained independence from British
Syria - 1946
Jordan - 1946
Lebanon - 1943
Egypt - 1922
Iraq - 1932
Even then, they didn't really see the Jews as a threat because they denied the early two-state solution.
If you are talking about the local Arabs, you are dead wrong. Tensions started right when the talk of a Jewish state began.
The promise of liberation from the Ottomans led many Jews and Arabs to support the allied powers during World War I, leading to the emergence of widespread Arab nationalism.[12] During this time tensions between the native Arab population of Palestine and the small, but growing, Jewish population in the area had begun to increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict
In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others (1922 census[8]). However, this area gradually saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants (most of whom were fleeing the increasing persecution in Europe). This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew violent opposition from local Arabs, in part because of Zionism's stated goal of a Jewish state, which many Arabs believed would require the subjugation or removal of the existing non-Jewish population
Under the leadership of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local Arabs rebelled against the British, and attacked the growing Jewish population repeatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_WarSounds like the potential for Israel to have it's own little Iraq.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/04/mideast/assess.phpWhen did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.
Right here.
Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.
Which is why I said;
The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land. Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.
I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.
You don't accept the history of man since prehistoric times... Hmm.
Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.
The Aboriginals still live in Australia, the Indians still live in the US and the Kurds still can and do live in Turkey. Most of the others still live in the same areas unless they chose to migrate or were forcibly removed by people like Stalin. But even most of those people can now go back to the same area if they choose.
Maybe you don't approve, maybe you don't accept, or maybe you don't understand, but whichever, that's your problem because I don't think there's one nation in the whole world that gives a shit.
Define didn't own the land.
OWN : noun, pronoun : that which belongs to oneself
There are two ways you can own the land;
1- Legal title under the rule of law
2- Have possession and the power to retain it
Most of the world uses #2
The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.
States, because individuals don't have armies so they don't count. See #2 above.
The fact remains that the people living in and around Palestine have always been ruled by others... that owned the land.
If you want pictures,
here's pictures.
via Bruce's gallery,
When a photographer is present, the Hamas missile launchers are set up in a remote location. Notice there's no shot of them firing the ones in that location.
The ones actually launched are launched from neighborhoods.
When they are staging the drill for the photographer, the out of the way park is nice and won't bother anyone. But when they actually launch them, making smoke trails that can be followed back, then they want the cover of the neighborhood.
Oh, I did notice the Israelis made some humongous holes in the ground.
They learned well from their brothern in Iraq. They set up many launchers on the back of trucks in crowded neighborhoods and near schools, knowing full well that the electronic track back would send rounds on the way in less than one minute. Then they could appeal to the American public with cries of how we were targeting civilians.
Oh, I did notice the Israelis made some humongous holes in the ground.
That one WAS the police station.
Ironic as it may sound - to minimize loss of life, massive deaths of equal numbers on both sides are necessary. That is the only way that moderates from both sides can act as moderates again. That is the only way that wacko extremists can be disenfranchised. That is the only apparent way that this conflict can end up back at the negotiation table.
Once upon a time, there were no more suicide bombings, stealing land, etc. Once upon a time, the Oslo Accords were working. But as the Norwegian foreign minister predicted, George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords in a world where wacko extremist view everyone as only good or evil. ie the Axis of Evil myth.
Another Oslo Accord is impossible until death rates are very high on both sides - until the number of dead make everyone realize how wacko those extremists really are.
BS. I think the vast majority see the reality of the situation - comparing death tolls from one side versus the other is meaningless and childish.
BS. I think the vast majority see the reality of the situation - comparing death tolls from one side versus the other are meaningless and childish.
Funny how wackos suddenly lose power when death rates increase massively. But then that required one to think without posting meaningless and childish replies. Not that I expect you to think. This post was from tw. Therefore classicman must attack it. Typical of meaningless and childish replies.
Many a war suddenly had no purpose or glory once the death rates became impossible to accept. Numbers such as 10% are often discussed.
Many a war suddenly had no purpose or glory once the death rates became impossible to accept. Numbers such as 10% are often discussed.
Cite.
Ironic as it may sound - to minimize loss of life, massive deaths of equal numbers on both sides are necessary. That is the only way that moderates from both sides can act as moderates again. That is the only way that wacko extremists can be disenfranchised. That is the only apparent way that this conflict can end up back at the negotiation table.
Once upon a time, there were no more suicide bombings, stealing land, etc. Once upon a time, the Oslo Accords were working. But as the Norwegian foreign minister predicted, George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords in a world where wacko extremist view everyone as only good or evil. ie the Axis of Evil myth.
Another Oslo Accord is impossible until death rates are very high on both sides - until the number of dead make everyone realize how wacko those extremists really are.
Oh really??
Ironic as it may sound - to minimize loss of life, massive deaths of equal numbers on both sides are necessary. That is the only way that moderates from both sides can act as moderates again. That is the only way that wacko extremists can be disenfranchised. That is the only apparent way that this conflict can end up back at the negotiation table.
Another Oslo Accord is impossible until death rates are very high on both sides - until the number of dead make everyone realize how wacko those extremists really are.
Funny how wackos suddenly lose power when death rates increase massively. But then that required one to think without posting meaningless and childish replies. Not that I expect you to think. This post was from tw.
Oh really??
BTW - the disparaging remarks are getting old again. I think you are due for your 2 week break about now.
BTW - the disparaging remarks are getting old again. I think you are due for your 2 week break about now.
Well then talk to the source and instigator - TheMercenary. I am not the one so low class as to routinely post profanity and remarks completely irrelevant to the topic. Meanwhile, "Oh really" is your usual way of personally attacking another. If classicman was being honest, then classicman posted facts in reply - or posted nothing. Passive aggressive on your part will eventually start another flame war. Your choice.
Meanwhile, one effective solution to conflicts - because the objective of all wars is to take the conflct back to the negotiation table - is massive death rates. Suddenly the glory hyped by extremist quickly loses credibility. A 10% death rate of all Palestinians and Israelis would quickly make Likud and Hamas extremists unpopular. No way around that potential solution - which may be the only one left in a region where being a moderate is almost impossible.
Well then talk to the source and instigator - TheMercenary. I am not the one so low class as to routinely post profanity and remarks completely irrelevant to the topic.
WTF?
Many a war suddenly had no purpose or glory once the death rates became impossible to accept. Numbers such as 10% are often discussed.
Cite.
That was the theory of Sun Tzu, what it would take to achieve the ultimate goal of driving the enemy to the bargaining table. When wars ground on for years, until attrition forced bargaining, it was true. But that went the way of sword fighting and knickers.
We have the technology for a relative handful of people to obliterate a continent, so now it's unconditional surrender of the entire nation.
I think the Hamas may be at a disadvantage in this one unless it goes on for an extended period of time. Israel may have learned it's lesson with the last incursion into Lebanon.
I think the Hamas may be at a disadvantage in this one unless it goes on for an extended period of time. Israel may have learned it's lesson with the last incursion into Lebanon.
An important question is which lesson Israel learned. For example, if the purpose in Lebanon was to attack Hezbollah, then why were Israeli warplanes attacking non-Hezbollah targets even in the most northern Lebanon cities?
Whereas Israel clearly got their asses kicked in Lebanon, the reasons why are not entirely clear. Maybe Israel listened to their Air Force foolishly insist the Air Force could force the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Or maybe Israel foolishly thought they would force the release by attacking even the Lebanon army and UN observers. Or maybe Israel had no strategic objective until a last minute decision caused a sudden and underplanned attack on Lebanon.
The common theme was serious management failures. Was that management failure the only reason that Israel failed so miserably in Lebanon? Or maybe Israeli extremists were losing control over the moderates? Or maybe Hezbollah had more military strength than Israel was willing to admit. Without answers to those questions and others, then any prediction in Gaza will only be wild speculation more akin to total fiction.
Long before anyone can speculate on Gaza, first, what is Israel's strategic objective? To clean out militants and withdrawal? To completely occupy Gaza like Israel did in Lebanon? Until such questions can be answered, then nothing can be speculated about Hamas' future in Gaza.
Okay I see your point now Bruce.
I think the Hamas may be at a disadvantage in this one unless it goes on for an extended period of time. Israel may have learned it's lesson with the last incursion into Lebanon.
Israel stated that they plan an occupation that will last a long time. They want to completely wipe out Hamas, which I would think is impossible. Even if they do, its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.
its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.
Why do you say that?
Two reasons, one history, the other is social conditions.
History of Israeli resistant groups:
PLO -> Fatah -> Hamas
Each group more extreme than the last
Social Conditions:
As of now, there have been over 500 deaths in Gaza, 200 of them being civilians. A blockade on Gaza by Israel is leaving very few medical supplies and is one of possible reasons behind the rockets fired by Hamas.
As more civilians die, see family members and neighbors die or get injured, get hungry, go without medical supplies and electricity for extended periods of time, the anti-Israeli feeling will grow even further and allow for a more extreme resistance group to take over.
Have you seen the Dark Knight classicman? This analogy can be applied to both Palestine and Israel. As both sides get pushed and feels like they are being trapped, they will go to more and more extremes to rid themselves of the situation.
Yeh I saw it, thought it was a terrible movie too.
At some point they gotta realize that isn't the way to go. Israel, for all its faults isn't going anywhere and they gotta get used to it.
[youtube]fLIdxF-GHWw[/youtube]
47 devastating seconds... devastates your post at 0:40. Required viewing.
At some point they gotta realize that isn't the way to go. Israel, for all its faults isn't going anywhere and they gotta get used to it.
Did you read the article I posted Classicman?
Let's talk a bit about Hamas' leadership. It seems that they had very little to gain by resuming the rocket attacks on Israel when the cease-fire ended. Are they under pressure to be even more militant than they are? Or is this almost a suicidal wish at work?
Their radicalism serves them well in Palestinian politics. The radicalism within Hamas has become attractive to the Palestinians who support Hamas. If Hamas would not be radical, it would be like Fatah, which it does not want to become. I think that what has happened ---and it is something we perennially misread about Palestinian politics --- is that this is not some sort of suicidal thing, but there was pressure building within the Gaza Strip to do something about the crippling siege that the Israelis had imposed on Gaza. The cease-fire was supposed to allow more goods to enter the Gaza Strip. It happened to some extent, but not as fully as the people there would like. Resistance is a core part of Hamas' world view. In fact that is the meaning of its name, the Islamic Resistance Movement. This garners support for them among Palestinians.
If you read Palestinian press reports or talk to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have been under siege for quite some time, they say "Well, we are not necessarily supportive of Hamas, but we have to do something to convince the Israelis that we won't be put under siege like this, that we won't be driven off of our land," and that's essentially why Hamas let the cease-fire lapse and didn't demonstrate a tremendous interest in renewing it. Just as there is a political struggle going on in Israel, there is a struggle going on between Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader who is president of the Palestinian Authority. The way Palestinian factions demonstrate their nationalist bona fides is often in these violent responses to the Israelis.
See how both Hamas and the population supporting Hamas are reactionary. That goes with what I have been saying this entire time. Both sides are working on the defensive, which means it isn't as simple as "realize that this isn't the way to go. Israel, for all its faults isn't going anywhere and they gotta get used to".
47 devastating seconds... devastates your post at 0:40. Required viewing.
What did this prove? It proved that one Palestinian child, who we have no history of, thinks Hamas is at fault. It wouldn't be hard to find quotes of Jewish Israelis that find Israel at fault either. This topic will hold views from all over the spectrum and it would not be surprising at all to find that some Palestinians are against Hamas and some Israelis are against Israel. If you could find a report of the majority of Gazans thinking that Hamas is at fault, then it would devastate my post, but not one out of the millions that live in Gaza.
Take a look at this Undertoad:
“May God exterminate Hamas!” she screamed, in a curse rarely heard these days. In this conflict, many Palestinians praise Hamas as resisters
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/world/middleeast/05gaza.html?ref=worldIsrael has a right to defend itself. It does not havea right to rain down death, destruction and overwhelming might upon a subject and physically trapped populace.
I suspect the British news reports on this are very different to the American news reports. From the reports I have seen, Hamas represents a relatively minor threat to Israel, in terms of rockets launched. The level of response is out of all proportion with the level of threat. There is seemingly little to no effort made to avoid civilian casualties and indeed some evidence that non-civilians are being targetted (such as the two young boys who were killed whilst playing on the supposedly safer roof top of a known safe house (a house where children and women hole up for the duration.)
I have a friend/colleague who is over there at the moment. She and her group are there trying to offer humanitarian aid and moral support to the Palestinians. Her group includes Christians, Moslems and Jews. She's been over there many times and brought back video coverage of some of her earlier experiences.
Having seen some of the footage she captured last time, and heard her stories and the stories of other people who've been there (including last month my good friend L) the only surprise to me is that the Palestinians ever put down their weapons at all.
Hamas shot first.
They made their choice.
It's not like they didn't know they were outgunned.
Hamas aren't the only ones dying though Wolf. It doesn't matter who shot first. What matters is hundreds of Palestinians are dying. An entire people is trapped in a war zone.
Blame the guys who set up their rocket launchers next to the houses, then.
There's a step in between them setting up their rockets and some completely unconnected child getting killed. It's the stage when an Israeli remote controlled drone targets a 12 year old on a roof. That is not Hamas' fault, that;s Israel's fault.
Too true. The Israeli's should just stand there and take it like men. Targeting those shooting at you is soooo last century.
Hamas shot first.
They made their choice.
It's not like they didn't know they were outgunned.
Maybe you should read the article as well wolf...
Lets take this extreme ideal example:
Community one (C1) and community two (C2) are stuck on an isolated island with limited food. C1 and C2 do not like each other. C1 has control of food and decides to limit the food available to C2. C2 becomes starved. C2 then decides to attack C1 to get food.
As you can see through that example and other examples such as the American revolution or the French revolution, fault does not always lie at who shoots first.
As I have shown a tremendous amounts of time, Hamas most likely fired rockets at Israel because of the siege placed on Gaza where Gazans are going hungry and lack medical supplies. I have heard other reports where Israel led a secret mission into Gaza but I can not back it up so I will not use it but that does remain a possibility.
This situation is not as simple as "Hamas shoots first so it is their fault", this is a very large string of cause and effects. If you elect a government that says they will destroy Israel, Israel will start a blockade. If you blockade Gaza and prevent them from getting adequate food, they will fire on Israel. If Hamas fires on Israel, Israel will unlease a ground attack. If Israel unleashes a ground attack, Gaza will......
....lose the ability to attack Israel, when the Hamas leadership and infrastructure to do so are gone, thereby producing the right conditions for the 750 trucks per day to once again continue crossing the Israeli border.
Feel free to put your own ellipisis up and make a prediction. It should be easy, since you believe the chain of events is so predictable.
Actually, I can say this is Hamas' fault. Living conditions are terrible, food supplies are short and all the rest of that. However, there was another option.
That option was: not firing on Israel after the 6 month cease fire was over and saying, "See, we can be civilized people. Let's talk about sending in more food and making things better for the people we're supposed to be governing."
Instead, they fired rockets into Israel and acted all surprised when Israel decided enough is enough and spanked them. Hard. Then they go crying to the rest of the world about "poor us, they are killing our civilians". Should have thought of that before you launched the rockets, dumbass.
While it sucks to be a civilian in this situation, they are the ones that elected Hamas to rule there, in the midst of shouts about Death to Israel. They have placed themselves into this situation. They have made the choices to get themselves here. Now it's time to pay for those choices.
This situation is not as simple as "Hamas shoots first so it is their fault", this is a very large string of cause and effects. If you elect a government that says they will destroy Israel, Israel will start a blockade. If you blockade Gaza and prevent them from getting adequate food, they will fire on Israel. If Hamas fires on Israel, Israel will unlease a ground attack. If Israel unleashes a ground attack, Gaza will......
I think that's about as good a round-up of the situation as any Pierce.
[eta] Wtf...Onyx? *laughs* hallo. Didn't know you were back down here!
they are the ones that elected Hamas to rule there, in the midst of shouts about Death to Israel. They have placed themselves into this situation. They have made the choices to get themselves here. Now it's time to pay for those choices.
I prefer this description.
Feel free to put your own ellipisis up and make a prediction. It should be easy, since you believe the chain of events is so predictable.
I wasn't making a prediction, I was showing the cause and effect of the situation. I have many possible predictions but not one that I believe will happen because I honestly have no idea.
This is the information I have:
[list]
[*]History of the situation
[*]Knowledge that many Gazans are supporting Hamas based on the situation and not necessary political ideals
[*]Knowledge that Hamas tends to see themselves as reactionary and the Gazans do as well
[*]Hamas and Fatah are not working with eachother
[*]Israel did not accomplish its objectives in Lebanon
[*]Israel is facing a different situation and have said to learn from their mistakes
[/list]
So based on this knowledge, its reasonable to expect the following to occur. Lets first say that Israel does accomplish its objectives.
[list]
[*]Gaza will have lost its leadership and need a new one
[*]The blockade on Gaza will most likely go away
[/list]
That can lead us to some diverse conclusions. It is possible that a well fed Gaza, assuming that happens, could change its views on Israel but I would say that is doubtful. It would be similar to seeing George Bush do something the liberal population agree with and see the liberal population change their views on him.
So then Gaza will need new leadership. Fatah is doubtful to regain control without force since one of Hamas objectives was to not be Fatah. That also means that since Fatah was seen as corrupt and not harsh enough on Israel, which makes it doubtful that the new leadership will be any different than Hamas. Remember, even if Israel do get rid of Gaza, they cannot get rid of the feelings held by the population. And also remember, most Gazans do not necessary support the ideals of Hamas but support them anyways.
That was only a limited amount of the possibilities but it can go either way. Those are the reasons I expect the situation to keep the same but only get more intense and not the other way around. It is possible that I am wrong as well. Only time can tell.
Actually, I can say this is Hamas' fault. Living conditions are terrible, food supplies are short and all the rest of that. However, there was another option.
That option was: not firing on Israel after the 6 month cease fire was over and saying, "See, we can be civilized people. Let's talk about sending in more food and making things better for the people we're supposed to be governing."
Instead, they fired rockets into Israel and acted all surprised when Israel decided enough is enough and spanked them. Hard. Then they go crying to the rest of the world about "poor us, they are killing our civilians". Should have thought of that before you launched the rockets, dumbass.
While it sucks to be a civilian in this situation, they are the ones that elected Hamas to rule there, in the midst of shouts about Death to Israel. They have placed themselves into this situation. They have made the choices to get themselves here. Now it's time to pay for those choices.
I see a few holes in your logic.
[list]
[*]You assume you can control your ability to be "civilized" in harsh situations.
[*]You do not state why it was unreasonable for Gazans to elect Hamas.
[/list]
Lets look at the economic crisis situation in the United States. For the United States, I want to show how quickly and strongly blame is thrown around. For Republicans, most blame the Democrats. For the Democrats, most blame Republicans. I'm assuming you think citizens of the United States are civilized, but as you can see, we are fully irrational when it comes to who is at fault at our own circumstances. Now, the situation in the United States is NOWHERE near as bad as the situation in Gaza. So what gives you any credibility to blame the Gazans? If the majority of Americans were starving, I think it would be very hard to believe that violence will not be introduced.
Second, lets look at the last few presidential elections. Many foreigners do not like the United States because of their presidents. George Bush is one of the most hated figures in the world right now so it would be easy to for foreigners to say that the United States should just not have elected Bush. But, looking at the past two elections, we can see that it was not that simple. Both Kerry and Gore were seen as inadequate and many were voting for one so the other would not win.
So back to the holes in logic I see.
[list]
[*]Do you have any credibility to show that you, or Americans in general, would react any differently to the situation they are presented in.
[*]You state that Gazans are at fault for electing Hamas but you do not give the reasons why Gazans elected Hamas. Please state them.
[/list]
*Note, as I have said many times in this thread, I do not think Israel is at sole fault either.
I see a few holes in your logic.
[list]
[*]You assume you can control your ability to be "civilized" in harsh situations.
[*]You do not state why it was unreasonable for Gazans to elect Hamas.
[/list]
Harsh is relative. What I consider harsh some may consider easy, and vice versa, and for various reasons (culture, human rights, etc).
I didn't say it was unreasonable for Gazans to elect Hamas. I said in essence that a majority of Gazans elected Hamas for what they represented. Hamas followed up with their rhetoric and started messing with Israel again, just like they said they would do.
Getting their asses spanked is the consequence of the whole Hamas way of thinking: i.e. that firing missiles/rockets/whatever into Israel is going to in any way shape or form HELP the people that they are supposed to be governing (I'm assuming this is agreed upon to mean furthering their cause in a way that benefits the people within that cause).
If the majority of Americans chose candidate X to be president, than the same majority of Americans deserve the consequences brought about by that choice.
Does it suck for the minority who wanted candidate Y? Sure it does.
But you can bet that if an Al-Qaida terrorist wanted to use my roof to fire missiles into anywhere, he'd have to kill me first. And then I'd be dead, so I wouldn't care when the return fire destroyed my house.
Lets look at the economic crisis situation in the United States. For the United States, I want to show how quickly and strongly blame is thrown around. For Republicans, most blame the Democrats. For the Democrats, most blame Republicans. I'm assuming you think citizens of the United States are civilized, but as you can see, we are fully irrational when it comes to who is at fault at our own circumstances.
You're right. And since I am neither Repulican or Democrat, I blame BOTH of them AND the American people who have lain dormant like sheep. If the American people were to stand up and say "Fuck this, we're not having a war in Iraq!" there wouldn't be. Instead it's hand wringing and mouth talk that means nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I *respect* Hamas for standing up for what they believe in, regardless of the cost. But Hamas and the people who ELECTED Hamas to be their representatives to the world are going to pay that cost, as terrible and as brutal, and as unfair to the innocent as that may be.
So what gives you any credibility to blame the Gazans?
Sorry, I don't have any credibility, just like you. I'm just another schlub with her own opinions. Very very few people have any credibility these days.
If the majority of Americans were starving, I think it would be very hard to believe that violence will not be introduced.
Really? You think is there is no violence in America?? The United States is one of the most violent countries on the planet. And who are the most violent people in America? Poor, starving, uneducated people with no hope of a better future. Ghetto kids. Gang kids. Unemployed IT professionals, and even some black folks.
Second, lets look at the last few presidential elections. Many foreigners do not like the United States because of their presidents. George Bush is one of the most hated figures in the world right now so it would be easy to for foreigners to say that the United States should just not have elected Bush.
The president is not elected by popular vote. The popular vote doesn't mean a thing. I'm sure Radar can tell you all about it.
So back to the holes in logic I see.
[list]
[*] <snip>
[*]You state that Gazans are at fault for electing Hamas but you do not give the reasons why Gazans elected Hamas. Please state them.
[/list]
Well if Gazans aren't at fault for electing Hamas, who is? Are you saying that a bunch of non Gazans elected Hamas? (that was sarcastic.)
I don't *care* why they elected Hamas. The end result is that they did. The missiles don't care. The bombs don't care. Apperantly, the people in charge in Israel don't care. The point is, the Gazans elected an extremist military faction to be their voice. That voice spoke to Israel and the world with violence and hatred. Now they face the consequences.
[analogy]
If I poke my neighbors dog with a stick every single day for months and years, I HAVE NO RIGHT to be either surprised or pissed off at the dog when it bites me, nor do I have the right to petition the neighborhood to have the dog put down because it bites people, nor should I make the neighbor pay for my medical care to treat the dog bite.
[/analogy]
Okay I see your point now Bruce.
Israel stated that they plan an occupation that will last a long time. They want to completely wipe out Hamas, which I would think is impossible. Even if they do, its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.
Maybe, maybe not. There really is no evidence to support that notion. So far it looks like Iraq is coming around, there is no reason to think that The Gaza could not do the same. As I said in an earlier post, Israel may be getting ready to go through their own little Iraq as well and all the pain that went with it.
Someone should just go and blow the whole lot of them up. Either that or just leave the bastards to it. Let them obliterate themselves.
There is no point debating the issue. There are no 'rights' in this issue. Only huge, mountainous, bloody wrongs!
Someone should just go and blow the whole lot of them up. Either that or just leave the bastards to it. Let them obliterate themselves.
At this point I have to support this. Isolate the lot of them, no support in material or monies, and let them all go at it. Those with the most toys at the end win.
OnyxCougar, even though I have a slightly different viewpoint I respect your last post. As I said many times, many different groups have fault in this situation and most of the actions by both Israel and Palestine are reactionary. Israel's attack on Gaza is reactionary as well.
Maybe, maybe not. There really is no evidence to support that notion. So far it looks like Iraq is coming around, there is no reason to think that The Gaza could not do the same. As I said in an earlier post, Israel may be getting ready to go through their own little Iraq as well and all the pain that went with it.
I stated my reasoning in a post 71 to Undertoad. I think there is evidence to support my claim but it isn't overwhelming.
The possibility of an occupation of Gaza was mentioned but Israel said they had no intention of occupation. Gaza was already occupied until 2004 and in fact the original anti-Israeli groups began because of Israeli occupation.
And I do have a disagreement on the US-Iraq analogy and Israel-Palestine. The United States is half way across the globe from Iraq while Israel and Palestine are roommates and hatred between the Israelis and Palestinians are much greater. Its possible, but an Israeli occupation would be much much harder.
Your lack of overwhelming evidence only translates into nothing more than a guess.
An educated guess though.
I based my guess on history and evidence presented towards me. But that guess has more supporting evidence than any other theory, including yours.
Gaza was occupied by Israel for 38 years and they pulled out 4 years ago. Israel has also stated that they do not plan on occupying Gaza. I gave two large differences between the United States situation in Iraq versus Israel and Palestine. Mine at least has some support to it, yours is just a shot in the dark.
A report came out by the International Crisis Group today. So we can sort some of the questionable aspects out.
A. The Ceasefire
[list]
[*]Six-month ceasefire began on June 19th, 2008
[*]The ceasefire was never strong and was destined to fail. Israel wanted a ceasefire while still blocking crossing with Gaza and Egypt and maintaining a blockade while Hamas wanted a ceasefire with no blockades on either Gaza or the crossing.
[*]Rockets were fired in Israel from Gaza in June but no action was taken. A separate movement claimed responsibility and said it was in response to two Palestinian deaths in West Bank and Hamas encouraged them to stop. Another rocket attack from Gaza into Israel was claimed by Fatah, an oppositional movement to Hamas. Later, more rockets were fired but no one claimed responsibility.
[*]On November 4th, Israeli troops, from Israeli Intelligence, crossed into Gaza using a secret tunnel made by Hamas to prevent a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier killing 6 Gazans.
[*]On December 13th, Israel said they would renew the ceasefire but Hamas was reluctant.
[*]On December 19th, ceasefire ended.
[/list]
So it was in fact Israel who did actually break the ceasefire.
B. Why ceasefire was not renewed.
[list]
[*]
Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’s main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 70 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity
[*]
As the date approached, senior Hamas leaders increasingly made clear that, faced with the alternative between “starvation and fighting”, they would choose the latter, an unsubtle indication that they would intensify rocket fire in an attempt to force Israel to relax the siege.
[/list]
As shown in the first quote, both sides seemed to have not lived up to the agreements. The second quote shows why Hamas did not continue with the ceasefire.
So as we can see, both sides had fault on starting this conflict and both sides seem to be acting as the reactionary.
TheMercenary-
While an occupation of Gaza may happen, it will only happen because Israelis are forced too, not because of a plan.
In the first days of the war, a former Israeli deputy foreign minister said, “the last thing the leadership wants is to be in a situation where it has to rule Gaza. If we don’t, what will replace Hamas? Abbas will find it difficult to take control on the back of Israeli bayonets”
Even then...there is major skeptism
What would the day after be? Would Israel reoccupy Gaza and rule a population made all the more hostile by the military assault that preceded it? Would it try to hand power over to a discredited PA, which quickly would be viewed as stooges? Which international forces would be willing to come in and take the reins over from us? And if the day after we leave 200,000 Gazans rally in support of Hamas, who do you think will come out the victor?
A report came out by the International Crisis Group today. So we can sort some of the questionable aspects out.
A. The Ceasefire
[list]
[*]Six-month ceasefire began on June 19th, 2008
[*]The ceasefire was never strong and was destined to fail. Israel wanted a ceasefire while still blocking crossing with Gaza and Egypt and maintaining a blockade while Hamas wanted a ceasefire with no blockades on either Gaza or the crossing.
[*]Rockets were fired in Israel from Gaza in June but no action was taken. A separate movement claimed responsibility and said it was in response to two Palestinian deaths in West Bank and Hamas encouraged them to stop. Another rocket attack from Gaza into Israel was claimed by Fatah, an oppositional movement to Hamas. Later, more rockets were fired but no one claimed responsibility.
[*]On November 4th, Israeli troops, from Israeli Intelligence, crossed into Gaza using a secret tunnel made by Hamas to prevent a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier killing 6 Gazans.
[*]On December 13th, Israel said they would renew the ceasefire but Hamas was reluctant.
[*]On December 19th, ceasefire ended.
[/list]
So it was in fact Israel who did actually break the ceasefire.
What? But getting a kidnapped soldier back? Are you nuts?
B. Why ceasefire was not renewed.
[list]
[*]
[*]
[/list]
As shown in the first quote, both sides seemed to have not lived up to the agreements. The second quote shows why Hamas did not continue with the ceasefire.
So as we can see, both sides had fault on starting this conflict and both sides seem to be acting as the reactionary.
Only 15 or 20 rockets a month is NOT a ceasefire, not even close. Can you even imagine what it's like to live under that threat? Like London in WW II, knowing they are coming but never where or when. No, Hamas didn't live up to the agreement by a long shot, so why would the Jews? Their only shot at convincing the Pals to stop was hold up the trucks.
First, I only displayed the facts. Israel did cross into Gaza but Hamas did not claim any of the rocket fires. Those are the facts. They can be justified to fit either political side but those are the facts. Also, It was not to get a soldier back. Israeli intelligence got word of a supposed kidnapping and they went into Gaza to stop it. I do not know of validity of the intelligence.
The rockets might not have been Hamas related. Two other groups took responsibility for them for two early attacks but no one has claimed responsibility for all rockets following.
*keep in mind all above are facts from the latest sources
Only 15 or 20 rockets a month is NOT a ceasefire, not even close. Can you even imagine what it's like to live under that threat? Like London in WW II, knowing they are coming but never where or when. No, Hamas didn't live up to the agreement by a long shot, so why would the Jews? Their only shot at convincing the Pals to stop was hold up the trucks.
Nothing was said to imply that Israel started the blockade because of the rockets. The rockets were mainly ignored because there were no reports of Hamas breaking the truce.
Using the same argument as the reason Israel invaded Gaza, you can say that by blockading the Gazans of the most basic supplies, what did Israel expect from Hamas? If you starve a population they are going to fight back. If you fire rockets on a stronger enemy's civilians they are going to fight back. Like I've always said, all three sides have faults here and mostly everything is defensive.
And no, I can not image what it is like to live under that constant threat and I also cannot imagine what it is like to live under starving conditions as well.
Not just starvation. Palestinian society has ground to a halt in every conceivable way. Electricity, water supplies, medicines, access to places of employment (for the handful who have it) all erratic and subject to sudden withdrawal/destruction. It's also the violence and humiliation routinely meted out to ordinary Palestinian civilians as they try to make there way through the growing network of military roadblocks. It's the humiliation, for example, of living and working in a market street, above which is an Israeli settlement who drop their raw garbage down onto your heads. They've had to place wire meshing across the street to block it.
Day after day, year after year, ordinary people are subjected to humiliation, fear and violence. And there's nowhere they can go. No where they can take their kids. All blocked in. Somewhere on their street, or in their part of the camp, a Hamas fighter primes a weapon. I don't know what goes on three houses away from me, or in the house next door.
They were misfortunate enough to live in a place that is under permanent siege. A place where the resistance to that siege is embedded within their town and the families that live there. Judging by many people in this thread, that simple piece of misfortune renders them unworthy of even the most basic human sympathy or anger or their behalf.
Sundae now's when you should be slapping me....
They were misfortunate enough to live in a place that is under permanent siege. A place where the resistance to that siege is embedded within their town and the families that live there. Judging by many people in this thread, that simple piece of misfortune renders them unworthy of even the most basic human sympathy or anger or their behalf.
Any sympathy and anger I may have on their behalf is assassinated by every single missile their chosen leaders fire at someone else. I don't think anyone here believes that life in Gaza is easy or fun.
What are they doing to make things better? How are they trying to accomplish peace and stability? Firing rockets throughout a cease fire and even more afterwards (in the face of overwhelmingly superior firepower, money and numbers) is stupid, not deserving of my sympathy.
If the Palestinians were to be totally pacifistic, and still Israel blockaded them and held them under siege, the world would be outraged and Israel would be forced to open up the borders. But the Palestinians have proven time and time and time again that they can't be trusted to keep their word, but you CAN count on them to be violent.
I don't deserve sympathy for my dog bite.
I agree with you Dana that it must be really difficult to live under those circumstances. Blaming Israel for their plight is not the answer nor is firing rockets at them going to make things better . . . only worse.
They were misfortunate
Misfortunate. They chose their route. They voted for Hamas. Hamas' very charter is to destroy Israel.
They had 750 trucks per day coming in before voting for the organization whose charter is to destroy Israel.
above which is an Israeli settlement
Old complaint. Settlements are gone 3-4 years now. The terrible "humiliation" of occupation is gone. They got the ethnically-cleansed land they demanded. They were even gifted greenhouses, economic opportunity, which they chose to destroy because they were built by Jews.
It ain't misfortune. So when you continue to give them charitable cover -- "oh here's why we're WITH you even when you vote for the terrorist organization! -- Oh actually, BECAUSE you vote for the terrorist organization!!" -- you're part of the problem.
The problem is ... this is a war that has literally been going on for thousands of years... can't think of any reason they'd give it up now... it is all they as a culture have ever known... on all sides.
I'm not saying it should be allowed to continue and I'm not saying that it isn't a sorry situation and a real tragedy for the new lives born into that mess, I certianly wouldn't want to live in that chaos, but every time the U.S. goes and sticks its nose into shite over there we create new enemies. Remember Osama was once our ally.
What solution could possibly be offered here? These groups have hated eachother for so long it is part of there genetic make up... how can we expect them to enter into and uphold agreements that require respect and trust when neither party will acknowledge the other's humanity and right to exist.
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
And now a word from Europe. Funny how we're not hearing about attacks against Muslims, huh? Not funny as in strange, funny as in incredibly sad.
Gaza conflict spreads to Europe with Jews attacked
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:50 AM EST
The Associated Press
By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer
PARIS (AP) — Signs are mounting that the conflict in Gaza is starting to spill over into violence in Europe's towns and cities, with assaults against Jews and arson attacks on Jewish congregations in France, Sweden and Britain.
Assailants rammed a burning car into the gates of a synagogue in Toulouse, in southwest France, on Monday night. A Jewish congregation in Helsingborg, in southern Sweden, also was attacked Monday night by someone who "broke a window and threw in something that was burning," said police spokesman Leif Nilsson. Neighbors alerted rescue services before the fire took hold.
Someone also started a blaze outside the premises last week. And on Sunday slogans including "murderers ... You broke the cease-fire" and "don't subject Palestine to ethnic cleansing" were daubed on Israel's embassy in Stockholm.
In Denmark, a 27-year-old Dane born in Lebanon of Palestinian parents is alleged to have injured two young Israelis last week, opening fire with a handgun in a shooting that police suspect could be linked to the Gaza crisis.
France has Western Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities and a history of anti-Semitic violence flaring when tensions in the Middle East are high. In 2002, some 2,300 Jews left France for Israel because they felt unsafe.
President Nicolas Sarkozy warned in a statement Tuesday that France would not tolerate violence linked to the Gaza crisis. A day earlier, his interior minister said she was concerned about the prospect of contagion and met with the heads of the two main Muslim and Jewish groups and police officials to stress the need to "preserve national unity."
Damage to the synagogue in Toulouse was limited to a blackened gate, and there were no injuries even though a rabbi was giving a course to adults inside, authorities said. They said unlighted gasoline bombs were also found in a car nearby and in the synagogue's yard. A local Jewish leader, Armand Partouche, said he believed the assailants had planned to torch the synagogue, but fled when the building's alarm went off.
"It could have been very, very serious," Partouche said in a telephone interview. "There were people inside; there could have been deaths."
He said Jewish leaders are asking Toulouse authorities for reinforced security for the city's synagogues.
"We really fear that anti-Semitism will spring up again and that the current conflict will be transposed to our beautiful French republic," he said.
In Britain, the Community Security Trust, a Jewish defense group, said it had seen a rise in anti-Semitic incidents since the start of Israel's offensive against Gaza. The group said it had recorded 20-25 incidents across the country in the past week that it believed were connected with Gaza, including an arson attempt on a synagogue in north London on Sunday.
London police are investigating the attack, in which suspects splashed flammable liquid on the door and set it on fire.
Community Security Trust spokesman Mark Gardner said that in another incident last week a gang of 15-20 youths walked along the main street in Golders Green, a largely Jewish neighborhood in north London, shouting "Jew" and "Free Palestine" at passers-by.
"It could get worse," Gardner said. "We tend to see these things happen in waves."
The government in Belgium on Tuesday ordered police in Antwerp and Brussels to be on increased alert after recent pro-Palestinian protests ended in violence and dozens of arrests. Police said burning rags were shoved through the mailbox of a Jewish home in Antwerp last weekend. Damage was limited and no arrests were made.
In the Danish shooting, one Israeli man was shot in the arm and another in the leg as they were selling hair care products in a shopping mall. Eli Ruvio, who owns the company that operated the stands, said his employees have been harassed by Muslim youths since they set up three kiosks in the shopping center in August.
"They kept cursing and shouting at us," Ruvio told The Associated Press. He added that the Muslim youths also threw mud and firecrackers at the employees and spat at them.
Ruvio recalled an episode Dec. 27 when some of the youths shouted "slaughter all the Jews."
"I told my employees not to speak in Hebrew and lie about where they come from, they should say there were from Spain or somewhere else. If people ask you where you are from, never say you're from Israel," he said.
You shouldn't feel bad for Hamas though. They're declaring victory. Oh and a larger war against Jews, especially Jewish children, who haven't had anything to do with oppressing them:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129242
Hamas spokesman Mahmoud Az-Zahar claimed victory for Hamas on Monday, saying Hamas had succeeded in "destroying Israel's sense of security" with its rocket attacks. Zahar made his proclamation in video footage sent from a secret hideout, where he is taking shelter in order to avoid being targeted in an IAF strike. Other Hamas leaders have gone into hiding as well.
Zahar directed his message to Hamas' troops, and promised them victory over the IDF. "We must be patient until we are victorious, Allah will help us," he said. Hundreds of Hamas terrorists have been killed since the Cast Lead operation began last week, including 100 since the start of Israel's ground operation, and several of the group's senior leaders have been assassinated. Dozens have been taken prisoner as well.
The Hamas leader called to murder Israelis and Jews worldwide, including children. "The Israelis have sentenced their children to death... They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world," he said. Hamas' platform calls for all Jews to convert to Islam or be killed, based on an Islamic saying (Hadith), and the group has not refrained from targeting children in the past.
And BTW
So it was in fact Israel who did actually break the ceasefire.
No they didn't. This line in the
ICG analysis notices it but fails to notice the implications:
Hamas used [the cease-fire] to amass a more powerful and longer-range arsenal;...
I.e., bombs. Missile parts. Many people think they imported them through the smuggling tunnels into Egypt. Some others think they reeled in boxes thrown off of ships off the coast.
No matter how they did it, they obviously did it. 6000 launches don't lie. And no matter how they did it, it was against the rules of the cease-fire.
And one does notice that they are importing missile parts and not, you know, food and medicine and other such goods.
Lastly
Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.
You favor the Pals...? awesome.
-- You hate what Israel has done to them...? granted.
---- You support a terrorist organization ruling them and attacking Israel... destroying Gaza and killing Palestinians to do it...? you've lost the plot.
I don't recall Pierce ever saying that he supports Hamas.
I don't recall Pierce ever saying that he supports Hamas.
Out.
At your own request I am here to escort you out of this thread.
Git!
*looks guilty* yeah. I said that. 'm outta here.
i dont know who im sick of more, the people railing against the big mean evil israelis, or the people railing against the rabid hateful evil palestinians.
both sides fucking suck, here, guys. both of 'em. im just sick of it.
You favor the Pals...? awesome.
-- You hate what Israel has done to them...? granted.
---- You support a terrorist organization ruling them and attacking Israel... destroying Gaza and killing Palestinians to do it...? you've lost the plot.
Hahahaha. Do you really think I repeat "both sides have faults in this" just so I sound unbiased to put forward my biased pro-Palestinians pro-Hamas opinions? If I thought Israel was at sole fault I would have said it and my posts would have been much different.
I have been pointing out the pro-Israeli posts because I disagree with them. This for example...
I agree with you Dana that it must be really difficult to live under those circumstances. Blaming Israel for their plight is not the answer nor is firing rockets at them going to make things better . . . only worse.
There is nothing wrong in terms of facts in this post. But he has made assumptions on what the Palestinians demand and what the actions of Hamas are.
Palestinians do not want to live as dogs. They are currently dependent on humanitarian sources for survival. Classicman is making the claim that Palestinians should be content with this and stop the fighting so they can live their lives as dogs without disturbing the Israelis. [sarcasm]Hell maybe they can learn to be civilized as well like the Israelis if they took up their culture and religion[/sarcasm].
Hamas is not looking for peace until the state of Israel is taken over. Basically, they would like to see the situation switched. They would like to see the Jews living like dogs so the Muslims can live in peace.
Maybe you can understand now why I don't side with either of those groups because neither side is realistic. The Palestinians have shown they will fight before they live as dogs and we know the Jews will fight to the death before they live like dogs again. Both sides are unrealistic and will bring more fighting and death.
I do not go against your views because I hate the Jews, even though I strongly disagree with Zionism, but because it cannot happen. That is why I said there are faults on both sides, neither ideology can lead to a peaceful solution.
If you still side with the belief that the Palestinians should give up their attempts at self-sufficiency so both sides can live in peace, I honestly don't really care. You can believe that a peaceful solution can come out of this and maybe you are right, but I disagree. I do not see a solution coming out of this and hence my views.
And one does notice that they are importing missile parts and not, you know, food and medicine and other such goods.
Are you serious? Everyone knows that Hamas was importing weapons. It wasn't a secret by any means. If it makes you feel any better, the reason why Hamas agreed to the six month ceasefire was to gain complete control over Gaza. This could only happen if the population was fed (siege) and Hamas was supplied (border crossings). Israel provided neither so Hamas attacked, probably actually as bait. Israel took the bait and now support for Hamas has grown throughout Gaza and even now the West Bank. Many news sources are now criticizing Israel's actions and and foreign leaders are telling Israel to stop. If Hamas gets taken out from their government role by Israel, they will return to an underground movement. It might be possible that Israel will be able to suppress Hamas, but I guess we will have to see.
Originally Posted by Classicman
I agree with you Dana that it must be really difficult to live under those circumstances. Blaming Israel for their plight is not the answer nor is firing rockets at them going to make things better . . . only worse.
Pierce:
There is nothing wrong in terms of facts in this post. But he has made assumptions on what the Palestinians demand and what the actions of Hamas are.
Palestinians do not want to live as dogs. They are currently dependent on humanitarian sources for survival. Classicman is making the claim that Palestinians should be content with this and stop the fighting so they can live their lives as dogs without disturbing the Israelis. [sarcasm]Hell maybe they can learn to be civilized as well like the Israelis if they took up their culture and religion[/sarcasm].
Hamas is not looking for peace until the state of Israel is taken over. Basically, they would like to see the situation switched. They would like to see the Jews living like dogs so the Muslims can live in peace.
Maybe you can understand now why I don't side with either of those groups because neither side is realistic. The Palestinians have shown they will fight before they live as dogs and we know the Jews will fight to the death before they live like dogs again. Both sides are unrealistic and will bring more fighting and death.
I do not go against your views because I hate the Jews, even though I strongly disagree with Zionism, but because it cannot happen. That is why I said there are faults on both sides, neither ideology can lead to a peaceful solution.
If you still side with the belief that the Palestinians should give up their attempts at self-sufficiency so both sides can live in peace, I honestly don't really care. You can believe that a peaceful solution can come out of this and maybe you are right, but I disagree. I do not see a solution coming out of this and hence my views.
That is not differenct from what Classic just said. In the end I don't see any specific point you are trying to make on this issue. And there is no way you can really defend Hamas. I don't like what Israel has done with targeting areas with so many civilians but they are going to do as much as they can to cut the head of Hamas off before they are forced, I think via international pressure, to back off. Time will tell.
Classicman is making the claim that Palestinians should be content with this and stop the fighting so they can live their lives as dogs without disturbing the Israelis.
I NEVER made that claim, far from it. No one should "live like dogs."
Hamas is not looking for peace until the state of Israel is taken over. Basically, they would like to see the situation switched. They would like to see the Jews living like dogs so the Muslims can live in peace.
What's their plan B? Cuz history has proved that one isn't going to work.
Hahahaha. Do you really think I repeat "both sides have faults in this" just so I sound unbiased to put forward my biased pro-Palestinians pro-Hamas opinions?
Although Dana made it sound like I was directing at you, I wasn't. I was pointing out that you were wrong about the cease-fire earlier but my last message was directed to all.
Israel took the bait and now support for Hamas has grown throughout Gaza and even now the West Bank.
cite
Many news sources are now criticizing Israel's actions
1) European news sources?
1a) They haven't failed to criticize everything Israel has ever done. An Israeli picks his nose in Tel Aviv and the French report it as an offensive against innocent boogers.
2) This is confused, isn't it? News sources report facts, opinion sources criticize. When the news sources criticize we can no longer trust their facts.
If Hamas gets taken out from their government role by Israel, they will return to an underground movement. It might be possible that Israel will be able to suppress Hamas, but I guess we will have to see.
"Hamas has nothing left but rockets"That is not differenct from what Classic just said. In the end I don't see any specific point you are trying to make on this issue. And there is no way you can really defend Hamas. I don't like what Israel has done with targeting areas with so many civilians but they are going to do as much as they can to cut the head of Hamas off before they are forced, I think via international pressure, to back off. Time will tell.
I am making the point that the current view on the situation is flawed because of unrealistic ends. If we took a poll about the solution each dwellar would like to see on this issue, we would most likely see (and tell me if I'm wrong) something like....
"I would like to see the Palestinians stop firing rockets at Israel, which would allow Israel to stop firing rockets at Palestine, which would allow Israel to live in peace and supplies to go into Palestine"
I am saying that most likely can never be a realistic scenario because if that happened, the Palestinians could not be self-sustainable and will dependent on humanitarian supplies for an extremely long time. I have not seen anything to show that Palestinians will settle for that. It is possible, other cultures have settled for less, but as I said I have my large doubts.
I NEVER made that claim, far from it. No one should "live like dogs."
As I said earlier, by agreeing to this solution..."I would like to see the Palestinians stop firing rockets at Israel, which would allow Israel to stop firing rockets at Palestine, which would allow Israel to live in peace and supplies to go into Palestine"...it says the Palestinians should live like dogs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you an asshole or even says you want the Palestinians to live like dogs, but that is how the situation is. It would be similar to saying you would like to keep white privileged and get mad when someone points out that that you support racism (racial privileged is a product of racism).
With the blockade, 80% of Gazans are dependent on foreign aid, I don't have any number without it but it would still be high because the Palestinian economy is completely shot. To be fed food, especially by people that you accuse of taking your land, cutting you off from the rest of the world, and starving you, can be considered living like a dog. If no more rockets were fired from this day forward, the economic situation in Palestine would not be different, it would still be shot and Palestinians would still be fed from outside sources.
So even if you don't believe any person or population should live like dogs, by saying that the rockets should stop and everyone live in peace you will also be saying the Palestinians will need to be fed from outside sources. If you want one, you get the other.
What's their plan B? Cuz history has proved that one isn't going to work.
Death? Keep in mind, Hamas could only be temporary. Hamas is looked at in high regards because it is standing up against Israel, not necessarily because of their ideals.
cite
I could find the quote that said that many Gazans are now becoming more supportive of Hamas but here is two other quotes for Fatah supporters.
The scope of the attacks swayed even some longtime Fatah members – and diehard Hamas opponents. A former interior ministry employee, who abided by Ramallah’s call for PA security to boycott the Hamas government, told Crisis Group that for the first five days of the bombing campaign, he was glad that Hamas was getting its comeuppance: “Israel did it to Fatah. Then Hamas did it to Fatah. Now Israel is doing it to Hamas”. But on the sixth day, with his children inconsolable after their house was heavily damaged in the attack on the justice ministry, he changed his tone: “Israel never did anything this bad to Fatah and neither did Hamas. It’s clear who the real enemy is. This is aggression against the institutions that serve the
people, against what we [the PA] built; it’s all been destroyed”.47 Another self-described former “Hamas hater” too had a change of heart, extolling the “Islamic model” over the “corruption” of the PA and its Arab allies. When asked the reason for this conversion, he replied, “They are destroying mosques. They don’t want children to know about the Koran or their religion”.48
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/middle_east___north_africa/arab_israeli_conflict/b26_ending_the_war_in_gaza.pdf
The lack of interest was not, for certain, lack of support for Hamas. Fury is rising here over the war in Gaza, as are support for Hamas and anger with the Palestinian Authority in this city, which has long been the beating heart of opposition to Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Many want the authority and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party, to do more to criticize Israel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/middleeast/06westbank.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world
1) European news sources?
No, United States.
2) This is confused, isn't it? News sources report facts, opinion sources criticize. When the news sources criticize we can no longer trust their facts.
I was not talking about open criticism. Sources can display certain facts in certain ways to make the situation seem like it happened a certain way. The facts given are not wrong but there is much more than what is seen.
"Hamas has nothing left but rockets"
So Islamic papers are saying Hamas won and Jewish papers say Hamas has lost? I don't know the credibilities but what are you trying to point out?
As I said earlier, by agreeing to this solution..."I would like to see the Palestinians stop firing rockets at Israel, which would allow Israel to stop firing rockets at Palestine, which would allow Israel to live in peace and supplies to go into Palestine"...it says the Palestinians should live like dogs.
I disagree. Your conclusion of
"Hamas stops firing rockets = Palestinians should live like dogs"
is quite a stretch.
I could find the quote that said that many Gazans are now becoming more supportive of Hamas but here is two other quotes for Fatah supporters.
I find my little Pal girl video more compelling. But at that time you said
If you could find a report of the majority of Gazans thinking that Hamas is at fault, then it would devastate my post, but not one out of the millions that live in Gaza.
I was not talking about open criticism. Sources can display certain facts in certain ways to make the situation seem like it happened a certain way. The facts given are not wrong but there is much more than what is seen.
Yeeeah. They're taught in Journalism school never to do this, and then, when asked why they have the cajones to do this, they point to their gravitas because they went to J-school.
You're not supposed to notice. But you're too smart. Now apply critical thinking skills to the problem. When paying attention to the "secondary message" communicated as news, do you get closer to the truth, or further from the truth?
It's a classic SAT question. If the "news" reports, for five days in a row,
The Administration today again denied that there had ever been waterboarding used at Guantanamo Bay, do you believe A) There probably was waterboarding at Guantanamo, B) There probably was not waterboarding at Guantanamo, or C) Not enough information to determine?
(Answer: C of course. But it's also a trick question. The people who already believe A will find that the reports confirm their truth. The people who already believe B will find that the reports confirm their truth as well. The same report will be heard as liberal if aired on MSNBC, and conservative if aired on Fox.)
So Islamic papers are saying Hamas won and Jewish papers say Hamas has lost? I don't know the credibilities but what are you trying to point out?
Who to believe. Who to believe. It's a toughie innit.
I find my little Pal girl video more compelling. But at that time you said If you could find a report of the majority of Gazans thinking that Hamas is at fault, then it would devastate my post, but not one out of the millions that live in Gaza.
I made a mistake on my post. I should have wrote, I
couldn't find the quote that said that many Gazans are now becoming more supportive of Hamas but here is two other quotes for Fatah supporters.
The quote I couldn't find is somewhere in a 28 page report but I did post a similar quote in the post where I argued against your video. The quote I wanted did actually imply majority while this one does not.
“May God exterminate Hamas!” she screamed, in a curse rarely heard these days. In this conflict, many Palestinians praise Hamas as resisters
The first quote was from an individual, I am aware, but not the second. Stats are not available to determine how large this group is, but there is a group and it seems to have grown since the start of the bombings, or at least they have become more vocal.
Fury is rising here [West Bank] over the war in Gaza, as are support for Hamas and anger with the Palestinian Authority in this city
do you get closer to the truth, or further from the truth?
Alright, I'll go with you on this. Not to patronize your statement but this is off from my original point. I was saying that popular opinion from around the world has shifted away from Israel on this event. Many disagree with their latest actions. I won't use the word criticize though.
I disagree. Your conclusion of
"Hamas stops firing rockets = Palestinians should live like dogs"
is quite a stretch.
I will show the a proof (like a mathematical proof) of how I got there. If you disagree with any part, state it and show me evidence of why you believe the contrary.
1. Hamas/other Palestinian resistant groups stops firing rockets indefinitely
2. Israel stops firing rockets indefinitely
3. Two-State solution appears on current boundaries
4. Palestine's economy not strong enough, has the infrastructure, size, funding, etc to become self-sufficient.
5a. Palestine becomes dependent on foreign aid
5b. Maybe Israel/other Arab countries will open borders for some and they become second class citizens
6. Living like dogs statement
Obviously saying that "Hamas should stop firing rockets" does not mean you wish to see the Palestinians living that way but I am saying if a peace happens in this current scenario, that is what will end up happening. That is why many Palestinians don't want peace at this moment.
As I've said numerous times, things do change and maybe I will be wrong, but looking at the current scenario that proof is strong and will most likely hold.
1. Hamas/other Palestinian resistant groups stops firing rockets indefinitely
2. Israel stops firing rockets indefinitely
3. Two-State solution appears on current boundaries
4. Palestine's economy not strong enough, has the infrastructure, size, funding, etc to become self-sufficient.
5. Palestine becomes dependent on foreign aid
6. While living on foreign aid, without war draining attention and resources, turn to rebuilding their economy and become self sufficient.
As long as the irresponsible sort of Palestinian keeps crying "Victim! Victim! Victim!" while his every behavior, day in and day out, year in and year out, for decades on end, says "Perp! Perp! Perp!" he has no hope of ever having the moral ascendancy.
The assholes attach more importance to their feud with the Jews than to living a good life, or to recuperating their losses! The surrounding countries have pursued only destructive policies, believing apparently that they can conquer the Israelis. They can't; the Israelis simply are not going to leave no matter what the surrounding Arab nations try. They don't even want to take over Jordan -- the other two thirds of the British Mandate.
Mass migrations, displacing the original inhabitants from a given place, have occurred all through history. There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about this one. The Palestinians have been carefully prevented from finding new homes or new fortunes -- as if they had much fortune before the twentieth century.
A lot of these symptoms, these dysfunctional wars, go back in their origin to the Ottoman Empire, which in its long span was hardly a model of social enlightenment, and which did not encourage creative thinking from the provinces. Nobody paid much attention at all to that swatch of Eastern Mediterranean littoral until a bunch of Jews moved in and made a success of the place.
The Palestinians have been carefully prevented from finding new homes or new fortunes --
There you have it then. That, if correct, is a
HUGE part of the problem.
This may be an ignorant question, but
Why do the Palistinians have to live like dogs once all the rockets have stopped? Why can't they live off aid while they rebuild (or establish) their infrastructure, economy and government?
...(Just thought of this) because to Israel, letting them do that puts them in a better position to really hurt Israelis and rearm and all that stuff, since they are known to be deal breakers.
So it is in Israel's best interest not to let them do that, based upon past history.
Sheesh. That just crystallized a whole bunch for me.
Why do the Palistinians have to live like dogs once all the rockets have stopped? Why can't they live off aid while they rebuild (or establish) their infrastructure, economy and government?
Hmmmm.....I actually have never have thought of that before. Maybe you can go over there and establish their infrastructure, economy, and government for them. But if I were you I would try to get some experience, might want to start in Africa, South America, Central Asia, or any other third world country. I'm sure there's will be just as easy.
Hint....there might be a difference on why Israel was able to be successful and Palestine will not.
I hope they all chill out over there....this could be the real deal, a la WWIII.... :neutral:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/09fighter.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
A car arrived with more patients. One was a 21-year-old man with shrapnel in his left leg who demanded quick treatment. He turned out to be a militant with Islamic Jihad. He was smiling a big smile.
“Hurry, I must get back so I can keep fighting,” he told the doctors.
He was told that there were more serious cases than his, that he needed to wait. But he insisted. “We are fighting the Israelis,” he said. “When we fire we run, but they hit back so fast. We run into the houses to get away.” He continued smiling.
“Why are you so happy?” this reporter asked. “Look around you.”
A girl who looked about 18 screamed as a surgeon removed shrapnel from her leg. An elderly man was soaked in blood. A baby a few weeks old and slightly wounded looked around helplessly. A man lay with parts of his brain coming out. His family wailed at his side.
“Don’t you see that these people are hurting?” the militant was asked.
“But I am from the people, too,” he said, his smile incandescent. “They lost their loved ones as martyrs. They should be happy. I want to be a martyr, too.”
So now we are posting extreme individual incidents to make them seem to represent the majority. I like that game. My turn.
At least 30 people were killed in the Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military, the UN said today.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said in a report it was "one of the gravest incidents since the beginning of operations" against Hamas militants in Gaza by the Israeli military on 27 December.
OCHA said the incident took place on 4 January, a day after Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated about 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. The evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for their safety but 24 hours later the Israeli army shelled the house. About half the Palestinians sheltering in the house were children, OCHA said. The report also complains that the Israeli Defence Force prevented medical teams from entering the area to evacuate the wounded.
The OCHA report does not accuse Israel of a deliberate act but calls for an investigation. Responding to the report, an Israeli military spokeswoman, Avital Leibovich, told AFP news agency: "From initial checking, we don't have knowledge of this incident. We started an inquiry but we still don't know about it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/gaza-palestinians-israel-evacuees-zeitoun
Hamas did it! Hamas did it! Hamas did it!
P.S. I did read your article on the other thread and I assume that is why you posted that quote. You posted a quote from an extreme individual who one, really doesn't represent the majority and two, said "they should be happy too", meaning that they were not at the moment. I agree that the two cultures are fundamentally different but you took that to the extreme.
If that's the game (if), then I understand the projected majority that would be represented by Undertoad's example; but what is the projected majority that piercehawkeye45's example is supposed to represent? Walk me through that one, I don't get it.
That incident is being investigated, possibly for being a war crime. But, that incident is a minority. The Israelis are not systematically rounding up Palestinians, mainly children, into "safe" houses, telling them not leave, and then later shelling the houses.
It is the same as war crimes that happened in Vietnam by the United States, rare and not representative of the majority of the US Army.
I agree that the two cultures are fundamentally different but The New York Times took that to the extreme on their front page.
FTFY
So, because your example is not representative, that makes Undertoad's example also not representative?
You serious?
First, the New York Times is a newspaper whose trying to make money over forcing a political point. They may have a slant, which ironically isn't convincing Americans that Arab culture is different than ours, but they mainly post articles that will get readers attention. That is an article that will get peoples attention.
You are trying to make a point. You are trying to convince people on this forum that Arab culture is fundamentally different than Western culture. The New York Times isn't.
Second, it was you who posted the article on this forum, not the New York Times.
So no, I still agree that the two cultures are fundamentally different but I think you are taking it to the extreme. Have you never heard of 21 year old American soldiers who say the want to die fighting for their country? Do you realize that the militant's view is not the majority? Even the New York Times names the title of the article "Fighter Sees His Paradise in Gaza’s Pain", which first names the fighter as singular and then Gaza, the majority, as in pain, not happy.
I would think the article's title separates the soldier from the civilian population, not the rest of the soldiers, or the leadership.
So, because your example is not representative, that makes Undertoad's example also not representative?
The news source where Undertoad got his example from makes the point that fighter isn't representative of the majority. Do you honestly think that the majority of Gazans are happy they are being killed?
I forget the name of the term, but don't fall into the trap thinking that everyone in a different culture thinks the same. Their views are just as diverse as us, also leaving room for complete psychos like the one that Undertoad posted.
I would think the article's title separates the soldier from the civilian population, not the rest of the soldiers, or the leadership.
Then why the fuck is Undertoad posting articles how
Arab culture is fundamentally different than ours. Then also, why didn't Undertoad point that out for himself. Keep in mind, Hamas makes up less than 1% of the Gazan population.
Edit- My fault, the guy wasn't Hamas.
Do you honestly think that the majority of Gazans are happy they are being killed?
You're making the wrong (illogical) differentiations. Nobody thinks, or has suggested that. Stop and think for a minute.
You've lost the plot. I'm out.
Rather curious that America - that once could understand and communicate with different cultures all over the world - suddenly has a problem only during part of the past decade.
Let's see. Turkey was one of the nations described by UT’s article. And Turkey (before George Jr) had a 90 something percent approval rating of America. In NATO, Turkey and American had some of the strongest friendships. Funny how their culture was so different that Turkey ended up being one of America's closest friends.
And then wackos came to power. Suddenly the 90+% approval rating dropped to something below 10%. Clearly there were too many cultural differences. Maybe Turks can only understand nations lead by leaders not supported by TheMercenary? Ahhh but I jest ... using reality.
......George Jr.....TheMercenary.....
Damm, you left out a reference to Rush Limberger and wacko extremists! You're slipping Ted. :lol2:
Damm, you left out a reference to Rush Limberger and wacko extremists! You're slipping Ted. :lol2:
You mean I forgot to mention your IQ again? No wonder you would love to like George Jr's dic. Oh. Profanity? Just trying to make TheMercenary feel more at home.
.....George Jr's ...... TheMercenary ......
You forgot Bin Laden and Rush.
You forgot Bin Laden and Rush.
You regurgitate what they tell you to say everyday. How could I forget them - or your wife that you are trying to sell in another thread - you turd.
When do you get an original thought other than to attack others? Welcome to the Cellar that TheMercenary works so hard to create.
You regurgitate what they tell you to say everyday. How could I forget them - or your wife that you are trying to sell in another thread - you turd.
When do you get an original thought other than to attack others? Welcome to the Cellar that TheMercenary works so hard to create.
That's quite enough, Thomas.
That's quite enough, Thomas.
No UT it is not enough. We when through this exact same thing with classicman months ago. Apparently you (or someone else) gave him some very strong words about doing personal attacks. He stopped. The cellar returned to honest discussions. And now both he and TheMercenary are doing it again to multiple posters.
I only posted like TheMercenary for one day. Did that shock finally get your attention? He has been doing it for months. You only respond because my tone has changed sharply? That tone is acceptable because TheMercenary does it routinely? You banned others (ie April) for much less. Routine personal attacks are acceptable from TheMercenary UG and others? But being a teenage girl probably begging for help is not? Expect me to post attacks as the wacko extremist have been doing for years. TheMercenary says he whores out his wife (as he posted elsewhere). But the dripping gonerhea he got is now routinely in his posts. Its only acceptable from him?
Meanwhile, the wacko extremists only increased their personal attacks. That is acceptable because it is them? No. That means personal attacks are now a new Cellar standard.
I stop when the problem is solved as I did with classicman many months ago. You want me to stop. Then you next attack the problem - the personal attacks by the wacko extremists on other Cellar contributors.
Don't drag me into your squabble with another poster. Do not lump me in with another poster and try to act like YOU are the victim. No one, not UT nor Bruce nor Wolf, NO ONE said a damn thing to me.
And don't you dare think that for a friggin second I will not keep calling you out when you make claims as fact that are completely unsubstantiated. I have not personally attacked you at all, in months because its what I alone chose to do. You are not worth dragging me down into your petty BS as a diversionary tactic when you are called out to cite or back up your claims. You have been called out recently about your claims again and coincidentally you start this crap again. Curious.
No Thomas, compared to what you're doing now, everything directed at you was pretty minor stuff. And had a point. Now you've just thrown a lot of garbage all over several threads. It looks like a hissy fit and is ridiculous. Stop it.
I do find it funny that Merc endlessly carped about a Cellar "double standard" when he was ruining threads in the beginning, and now seeks refuge under sensible moderation and somebody else is screaming double standard at him. I also find it funny that for years tw lectured about how silly it is to be provoked by the likes of Barak, and has now been rather easily provoked, to the point of tantrum.
Don't drag me into your squabble with another poster.
The new dynamic. When you provide no facts for your doubts, then "cite" means I will return with attacks on your intelligence. Your 'calling out someone' is classic Limbaugh - the subtle mockery of another poster and not really a request for knowledge.
"Cite' without the long reason why you are confused is openly declared a personal attack. Posting without contributing additional facts to the question as you routinely do - that was what you were doing months ago when I finally put an end to it. Deja vue. You want more. Then keep it up.
It is a simple benchmark, classicman. Any request for a citation from you must include additional facts to justify your doubts. Your reign of passive aggressive attacks on others is no longer tolerated. Your every post is expected to contribute new information. Your one word 'cite' nonsense is now considered mockery of another. You want a citation? Then prove in that post that you have the knowledge or intelligence to justify that request. Limbaugh style challenges from you are now considered personal attacks.
I don't care who started. I just want you to stop it.
Since when does asking someone to substantiate a claim require anything? tw made the claim now tw is responsible to back it up.
Since when did tw get to decide what the rules are in the cellar?
Since when does asking someone to substantiate a claim require anything?
Responsible posters do that routinely. You don't. You do what is typicaly of and encouraged by wacko extremist. You need clarification. Good. State why by contributing facts rather than posting personal challenges.
"Cite' without the long reason why you are confused is openly declared a personal attack.
That's bullshit. Questioning unsubstantiated statements is not a personal attack. Calling someone a turd for doing so, is a personal attack.:eyebrow:
Your long standing habit of ignoring questions about your claims has damaged your credibility, which will cause more people to request citation... or just dismiss you as a twit.
No UT it is not enough. We when through this exact same thing with classicman months ago. Apparently you (or someone else) gave him some very strong words about doing personal attacks. He stopped. The cellar returned to honest discussions. And now both he and TheMercenary are doing it again to multiple posters.
I only posted like TheMercenary for one day. Did that shock finally get your attention? He has been doing it for months. You only respond because my tone has changed sharply? That tone is acceptable because TheMercenary does it routinely? You banned others (ie April) for much less. Routine personal attacks are acceptable from TheMercenary UG and others? But being a teenage girl probably begging for help is not? Expect me to post attacks as the wacko extremist have been doing for years. TheMercenary says he whores out his wife (as he posted elsewhere). But the dripping gonerhea he got is now routinely in his posts. Its only acceptable from him?
Meanwhile, the wacko extremists only increased their personal attacks. That is acceptable because it is them? No. That means personal attacks are now a new Cellar standard.
I stop when the problem is solved as I did with classicman many months ago. You want me to stop. Then you next attack the problem - the personal attacks by the wacko extremists on other Cellar contributors.
FTR
Finally to get back on topic........
Iran renews efforts to supply Hamas
Iran has renewed efforts to supply advanced weaponry to Hamas and the IDF is concerned that the terror group will try to smuggle long-range Fajr missiles into the Gaza Strip.
According to the latest intelligence assessments, Iran, which was responsible for writing Hamas's military doctrine, has already launched an internal probe to determine how the plan it had created for Hamas failed to cause more IDF casualties.
The military plan created by the Iranians was based on three pillars: The first was the defensive measures that Hamas had created in Gaza, which included dozens of kilometers of tunnels and thousands of roadside bombs and booby-trapped homes.
The second pillar was rocket attacks against the home front. Here too, Hamas failed to fire rockets farther than 40 kilometers, even though it had planned to.
The third pillar was creating a "victory image" in the form of a burned-out tank or the abduction of an IDF soldier.
"Hamas thought it would succeed like Hizbullah did in 2006," a senior defense official said.
On Monday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that renewed weapons smuggling would be legitimate grounds for Israel to renew attacks against Hamas.
Following a successful pilot on Sunday, direct access from Egypt to Gaza was allowed and 10 trucks with an Egyptian donation of 198 tons of flour entered directly in to Gaza though Kerem Shalom.
Also, the Red Cross facilitated the transfer of 10 ambulances from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in the West Bank to the Gaza Strip, in order to beef up the ambulance fleet in Gaza.
Further medical movements included 33 Palestinians that left Gaza for medical treatment in Israel.
Since the beginning of the operation, 41,937 tons of humanitarian supplies and 2,263,351 liters of fuel have been transferred to the Strip.
This just absolutely amazes me. Why does Hamas need any more weapons? I know that the same could be asked of Israel, but they have a lot more enemies. Nice to see that a lot of aid is getting into Gaza though. Especially interesting were the Palestinians who went to Israel for medical care.
Tw, you've just managed to move from "Unlikeable" to "Disgusting."
When people stop teaching their children to hate, then there will be an end to it all... But unfortunately I don't ever see that happening, the hatred is just too ingrained.
When people stop teaching their children to hate, then there will be an end to it all... But unfortunately I don't ever see that happening, the hatred is just too ingrained.
Tell it to the Muslims.
Tell it to the Muslims.
Yeah. 'Cause no Jewish parents teach their children to hate.
Yeah. 'Cause no Jewish parents teach their children to hate.
I would not support that statement. Nor did I imply it.
They certainly don't teach it the way Hamas does.
[youtube]gi-c6lbFGC4[/youtube]
That is so wrong on so many levels. It just shows that some people do not want peace at all. They are more interested in hate, destruction and death.
Maybe a nuclear holocaust in the Mideast is not such a bad idea after all.
In some seasons the prevailing winds are from the west. Look where the fallout blows.
Yeah. 'Cause no Jewish parents teach their children to hate.
Given the actions of the Palestinians, why ever would they need to, uh, fill in?
Really, DanaC, an excessive and ill-considered bias to the Arabs looks like antisemitism from here. What are you going to do about that? You're shaking the pompoms for a bunch who cry "Victim, Victim!" all the hours of the day, while the whole of their actions scream "Perp! Perp!"
It disgusts the aware and open-eyed.
Really, DanaC, an excessive and ill-considered bias to the Arabs looks like antisemitism from here.
How bout you go find somewhere nice and quiet, and fuck yourself senseless with something sharp? No offense.
That has to be the most polite "fork off" I've ever read.
lol
Dana - you are sworn off this thread, remember?
You can't do any good here.
No. No you're quite right. This is not a good thread for me to be in.
This is the bestest threadest EVAH for you to be in.
I was surprised to learn that Israel censors military info and even banned international reporters from conflict areas. Here is an underground site called Israeli Uncensored News
http://samsonblinded.org/news which runs some very odd reports.
Ah. Welp, it's long been my view that being hostile to the cause of the one full, highly successful democracy in the Middle East is the province of the rather slow of mind.
How bout you go find somewhere nice and quiet, and fuck yourself senseless with something sharp? No offense.
In other words, you're at least somewhat antisemitic, and you're on the wrong side, and you can't defend your position. Sorry, m'girl. Here, why don't you borrow this sharp thing? Oh, and this tube of lube.:p
Then it's time to fucking reform, DanaC. What you're doing is the kind of thing that raises American hackles.
Now that the Israel/Hamas cease-fire is on, what is Hamas doing? Going around shooting people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/hamas-reprisal-attacks
Evidence is emerging of a wave of reprisal attacks and killings inside Gaza that have left dozens dead and more wounded in the wake of Israel's war.
Among the dead are Palestinians suspected of collaborating with the Israeli military. Others include criminals who were among the 600 prisoners to escape from Gaza City's main jail when it was bombed as the war began. Their attackers are thought to be their victims' relatives.
It's mob rule. It's also called, kill the moderates until only the extremists are left, a cult of blood and death, and the innocent people who are terrified by them.
One woman from near Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, described how masked men with ID cards showing they were members of the Izzedin al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas armed wing, shot her brother in the legs. The family had fled the house but returned on 18 January, the first day of the Israeli ceasefire. At 8pm several gunmen appeared at the gate asking for her brother, a 36-year-old Fatah military intelligence officer who had not been working since Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007. The men searched the house for weapons, but found none and later left.
Early the next morning they returned. "They started firing in the air," said the 23-year-old sister, who declined to give her name for fear of further attacks.
"They asked him to put his hands up.They fired one shot into his left knee. He fell to the floor and started screaming and saying: 'I didn't do anything.'"
He was then shot in the right leg and again in the left. "They were holding us back and we were watching him bleeding," she said. The victim is now in a Cairo hospital after two operations on his legs.
She said several of his Fatah colleagues had been targeted: "It's a kind of revenge on Fatah. They thought they were responsible for what was going on in Gaza."
Separately, Hamas is believed to have stopped Palestinians reaching an Israeli field hospital on Israel's side of the border at Erez. "We don't care about it," said Hassan Khalaf, Hamas's deputy health minister.
The world demanded the end of Israel's occupation of Gaza. The world now has what it wanted. I'm not sure why the world doesn't think this blood is on their hands. It remains, as the Guardian says, "Israel's war". Hamas terrorism will not move Jimmy Carter, who believes that negotiation with Hamas is critical to the plan:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200912823298296434.html
The former US leader said there was "no way to have a permanent peace in the Middle East without the inclusion of Hamas".
"Hamas has got to be involved before peace can be concluded."
Carter said reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the faction led by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, had been "objected to and obstructed by the US and Israel".
You got that? The US and Israel are responsible. Not Hamas shooting Fatah supporters in the kneecaps. Israel was responsible when it occupied, and now Israel is responsible when it has left.
And thus, unabated by any criticism, supported by all countries everywhere, violence the source of all Hamas' power... the shooting will continue.
sar/oh, poor Hamas. Its not their fault. They were forced to attack and kill them - don't you see it?/casm
Either way, that doesn't prove that Israel is working towards a solution. A disunified Palestine cannot make peace with Israel and neither Israel, Hamas, or Fatah are working towards a unified Palestine. In fact, most outside sources are not supporting a unified Palestine either. Which backs up my original point that all parties are at fault. Actually fault is a bad word because most actions by every side are defensive in nature.
Note, I am not saying Israel is solely at fault.
Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.
This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.
Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone elses? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old. The area became Christian under 2,000 years ago and then Islamic about 1,200 years ago. It wasn't as if the Jews living there were kicked out either by the Christians, many converted and then converted to Islam. So technically, the Palestinians living there have been living there the entire time. The Jews living there now immigrated from other areas and do not have genetic origin to that land.
Or another view, why do Europeans have a right over the United States and Canada and not the natives? The natives were living there for over 10,000 years but we kicked and moved them around. [COLOR="Teal"]Would the descendants of an Iroquois tribe be legitimate in "going home" and taking over New York?[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Indigo"]I love that analogy.[/COLOR]
The only way to make it much easier for everyone and not be hypocritical is to not give any group a right to any land. Jews do not get Israel and neither do Arabs. Nothing can be done to change the situation we are in so we have to deal with it.
If you disagree, show how Jews have a right to that land over any other group.
No, I agree as well. Hell, most Arab states accept it as well even though they may not show it. A small group of Palestinians are the only ones that do not, but they have got power through other means. Reread the original article I posted, it clearly says that the citizens of Gaza support Hamas not necessarily because of their views but because of the siege against them.
Now, I am not arguing that the siege is an ugly oppressive move. Israel is doing it to get rid of Hamas. And Hamas was elected because of Israeli actions. Those Israeli actions were reactionary to Palestinian actions which were reactions to Israeli which were reaction to...
Both sides are on the defensive and all three internal forces are doing what every other country in this world is doing, working to further their self interests. As I said, a peace cannot come without a unified Palestine and neither of the three sides, plus external forces, are working towards that.
Israel has been committing human rights violations against Palestinans for decades. Just because they are a "legitimate" government does not mean they are not also terrorists. If we didn't fund Israel to the tune of about $3 billion/year maybe they could actually work out their differences.
When Britain originally made a deal with Zionists for the land (which happened behind the backs of the Arabs, who had agreed to help Britain fight the Germans, and T. E. Lawrence, who was the British liaison officer to the Arabs), it was supposed to protect the people who already lived on the land by limiting the number of Jews who could migrate there. That did not last long. The huge influx of Jews and displacement of Palestinians is probably the main reason why the fighting started to begin with, because before this backroom agreement with Zionists, the Jews who lived there and the Palestianins who lived there got along. It was the Zionists who caused the problem.
Israel had many terrorist organizations well before the PLO and Hamas existed. The reason why Britain decided to leave and wash their hands of the mess they created is because the Zionist organization Irgun, led by Menecham Begin, blew up the King David Hotel in July 1946, killing almost 100 people, including Jews. Funny how Begin later became a respected and validated political leader, after being a terrorist, along with other political leaders in Israeli history. (Funny how we now call it Jewish resistance, and call Palestinian resistance terrorists).
After Israel declared themselves a state, they legitimized their terrorist acts against the people who had been living on that land for hundreds of years, and by default, the Palestinians, who were fighting a resistance against an invader who was put there by a foreign country, became the bad guys.
I am not defending the actions of either people. Personally, I don't understand why they can't just get along with one another and peacefully share the land. But I certainly understand the Palestinians fight more, because they are fighting for their land, for their freedom in their own land, and for their dignity. The Israeli government has systematically driven the Palestinians onto smaller and smaller tracts of land. And the settlements someone mentioned that they gave back, those settlements were created after forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes and putting them in camps, and then bulldozing the houses to make way for homes for Israelis. And if they refuse to leave, they bulldoze right over the people. In fact, an Israeli soldier killed an American student who was there protesting in 2003 with a bulldozer. And that is not the only example of Israeli military brutally killing innocent protesters or peace activists from other countries who are there trying to help Palestinians. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can condone such behavior from a supposed "democratic" country.
He said, she said. Who struck first. They all need to STFU & start over like adults. There is so much friggin blame to go around its pointless to mention it.
The problem as some here have pointed out, is that they are teaching their children HATE.
Nothing will change until that does.
Someone should just go and blow the whole lot of them up. Either that or just leave the bastards to it. Let them obliterate themselves.
There is no point debating the issue. There are no 'rights' in this issue. Only huge, mountainous, bloody wrongs!
Well said.
I was surprised to learn that Israel censors military info and even banned international reporters from conflict areas. Here is an underground site called Israeli Uncensored News http://samsonblinded.org/news which runs some very odd reports.
Why? Israel routinely tries to censor/control information about what they do. Don't all governments who engage in war?
Yes, of course - every single entity that engages in war censors as much as possible - In fact most of what you hear that isn't censored is intentionally leaked and misleading.
He said, she said. Who struck first. They all need to STFU & start over like adults. There is so much friggin blame to go around its pointless to mention it.
The problem as some here have pointed out, is that they are teaching their children HATE.
Nothing will change until that does.
They are both teaching hate, by example.
It's like this, a prisoner from GITMO was released by the Bush administration awhile back, and now he is apparently an al qaeda leader in Yemen. This man had claimed he was innocent when he was captured, but he was detained for years, with no trial. So the question is, what if he actually WAS innocent, but because we detained him for so long (and probably tortured him), and he grew to hate us so much, did we actually
create an al qaeda leader?
I see a very real resemblance here with us/Iraq and Israel/Palestine - big strong country with an army, fighting a resistance movement. Many Americans hate the Iraqi insurgency, but did we not create that hate ourselves, by our actions in THEIR country? (OK, so we are not colonizing or staying, but we are certainly occupying, and have in some cases acted atrociously.)
Me too...must rent again.
He said, she said. Who struck first.
Lets look at the facts.
A six month ceasefire occurred on June 19th, 2008 between Israel and Hamas on the conditions that Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel and Israel would allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, which is very much needed.
Lets look at the stats. The following is a graph showing rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza.
We can clearly see that Hamas made a very good attempt to stop rocket fire into Israel from the start of the ceasefire until November. The numbers on wikipedia say rocket fire dropped 98% and keep in mind their are other factions besides Hamas in Gaza and have taken responsibility for a few of those rocket fires while the others remain unclaimed.
On the other hand, during this time, humanitarian aid into Gaza increased only 20%. Yes, there are legitimate reasons for Israel to block off humanitarian aid but they did not live up to their side of the ceasefire as Hamas did.
Now that brings us to November, when rocket and mortar attacks increased dramatically. What happened during this period?
On November 4th, Israeli intelligence got hold of information saying that a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier was going to take place through a tunnel between Gaza and Israel. To prevent this, Israel when into Gaza and killed six militants. After this event, we can see a very sharp increase in rocket fire.
So with this information we can come to conclusions.
[list]
[*]Neither Israel nor Hamas truly respected or lived up to the ceasefire
[*]The reason for Hamas attacks are because of the blockade and siege. November 4th was a catalysis, but the ceasefire was obviously not going to last.
[*]Israel was the first to officially break the ceasefire. November 4th was a very big mistake on their part. This is also assuming Israeli intelligence was correct.
[/list]
They all need to STFU & start over like adults. There is so much friggin blame to go around its pointless to mention it.The problem as some here have pointed out, is that they are teaching their children HATE.
Besides the irony of saying it is pointless to mention blame and then blaming Hamas for teaching children to hate, we really do need to change our method of viewing this situation. This problem can never be solved on moral philosophy, both sides will always think they are the morally correct side, and should be viewed as a power issue.
For example, the method of fighting by both Hamas and Israel should be seen as immoral but necessary because of the power disparity between the two sides. Hamas cannot fight with any other method besides the one they are doing now and Israel cannot either. To blame either side for their methods of fighting is pointless, idealistic, and will not solve anything. Neither side will change.
It's like this, a prisoner from GITMO was released by the Bush administration awhile back, and now he is apparently an al qaeda leader in Yemen. This man had claimed he was innocent when he was captured, but he was detained for years, with no trial. So the question is, what if he actually WAS innocent, but because we detained him for so long (and probably tortured him), and he grew to hate us so much, did we actually create an al qaeda leader?
Actually, we've gone over that one in detail here, and proved in two posts that he was a jihadi before capture,
by his own words.
I see a very real resemblance here with us/Iraq and Israel/Palestine - big strong country with an army, fighting a resistance movement. Many Americans hate the Iraqi insurgency, but did we not create that hate ourselves, by our actions in THEIR country? (OK, so we are not colonizing or staying, but we are certainly occupying, and have in some cases acted atrociously.)
No. If you had noticed what the Iraqi insurgency used to do, before we crushed it, you would not be trying to develop this narrative.
They killed everybody, beheading the children and even shooting the livestock, and buried them in shallow graves.
It is once again the necessary violence of mob rule. The ones with the biggest guns and the will to use them against innocents, are the ones who get to run things. This is unacceptable and will only lead to more violence. The old policy was to support it if the end leader was friendly with the west. THAT is the corrupt ideology you should be fighting against as it only leads to more death and destruction.
Actually, we've gone over that one in detail here, and proved in two posts that he was a jihadi before capture, by his own words.
OK. I don't know whether he was or not, but that analogy still holds. We are creating terrorists by
our actions.
No. If you had noticed what the Iraqi insurgency used to do, before we crushed it, you would not be trying to develop this narrative.
They killed everybody, beheading the children and even shooting the livestock, and buried them in shallow graves.
It is once again the necessary violence of mob rule. The ones with the biggest guns and the will to use them against innocents, are the ones who get to run things. This is unacceptable and will only lead to more violence. The old policy was to support it if the end leader was friendly with the west. THAT is the corrupt ideology you should be fighting against as it only leads to more death and destruction.
We never should have been there in the first place. We drew first blood. And I agree with your last statement, to the degree that we should not do business with governments that are corrupt and abuse their own people.
PH - READ CAREFULLY - Where did I mention Hamas in my post? I specifically did not.
There is no win here for anyone. Whether anyone concedes land or whatever else the other side wants. They are all at fault. They don't know how to, nor (I believe) want to live in peace. Everything in their existence is based upon hate for the others.
*Note* I have not specified one side versus the other - its all of them it IS who and what they and their culture is based upon.
Hamas cannot fight with any other method besides the one they are doing now and Israel cannot either. To blame either side for their methods of fighting is pointless, idealistic, and will not solve anything. Neither side will change.
Hamas's very charter clearly states that its goal is the destruction of Israel. From Hamas point of view, the cease fire was made so that it could restock its supply of weapons, which it did by sea and through smuggling tunnels.
The basic truth is that if Hamas doesn't fight, Israel doesn't fight. Please acknowledge that basic truth.
Lets look at the facts.
Besides the irony of saying it is pointless to mention blame and then blaming Hamas for teaching children to hate, we really do need to change our method of viewing this situation. This problem can never be solved . . .
Please retract that first statement as I intentionally did not specify Hamas at all. YOU read that into the post...interesting.
Your last line was best *BOLD MINE*
Neither side will change.
Agreed
OK. I don't know whether he was or not
No no, don't just gloss over that one because it hurts your approach. Think on a straight line here.
We proved it by his own words. You now know that he
was. This is an important data point.
, but that analogy still holds. We are creating terrorists by our actions.
That's a common notion, what is your proof of it?
We never should have been there in the first place. We drew first blood.
Then where are the Bosnian terrorists we created?
Where are the Panamanian terrorists we created?
Where are the Grenadan terrorists we created?
Where in holy hell are the Vietnamese terrorists we created? There had better be 500,000 of them, or your narrative is crashing and burning badly.
PH - READ CAREFULLY - Where did I mention Hamas in my post? I specifically did not.
My fault. Sorry about that again.
There is no win here for anyone. Whether anyone concedes land or whatever else the other side wants. They are all at fault. They don't know how to, nor (I believe) want to live in peace. Everything in their existence is based upon hate for the others.
I disagree that these people do not want to live in peace. I believe they are just like everyone else. They want to live in peace under their own terms. The problem is that the terms directly contradict each other and that is why the violence will not stop.
Hamas's very charter clearly states that its goal is the destruction of Israel. From Hamas point of view, the cease fire was made so that it could restock its supply of weapons, which it did by sea and through smuggling tunnels
It has been mentioned that Hamas would be willing to accept a two state solution on 1948 (I think??) lines. I do not believe that Hamas will pursue the total destruction of Israel because they know that is unrealistic unless a great power shift occurs. These comments are more than likely just hype to get a political and popular base.
Even if their goal was "pure", corruption would enter eventually. It always does.
The basic truth is that if Hamas doesn't fight, Israel doesn't fight. Please acknowledge that basic truth.
I acknowledge that fact but that is only part of this situation. As I said in my earlier post, this is a power disparity problem, not a moral one. Israel has control of all food, water, and energy resources, has the backing of the strongest nation in the world, and have the economic power to hold its own. Hamas does not. White collared criminals do not need to use violence to hurt others but blue collared criminals do. Once again, it comes down to power. So even though your statement is true on a violence scale, it does not represent the situation as an entirety.
750 trucks per day into Gaza before Hamas was elected. All they have to do is say they want peace and they will become prosperous merely by location. Israel would love to be a partner in peace and prosperity.
They can build missiles or they can build tractors. It's completely up to them.
There is very little that anyone can say positive about Hamas.
Hamas's very charter clearly states that its goal is the destruction of Israel. From Hamas point of view, the cease fire was made so that it could restock its supply of weapons, which it did by sea and through smuggling tunnels.The basic truth is that if Hamas doesn't fight, Israel doesn't fight. Please acknowledge that basic truth.
I have heard that from Israel also, that their goal is the complete destruction of the Palestinian people. The radicals on both sides want mutual destruction. The sad part, there are LOTS of Palestinians, and also Israelis, who truly want peace. I seem to remember when Clinton was office, they were making headway. You seem to want to only blame Hamas, but the Israeli govt has just as much blame. It is the Zionist religion causing problems as much as Hamas.
Again, I really believe we should stop all funding to Israel. I'm hoping President Obama can help broker some kind of peace treaty.
I have heard that from Israel also, that their goal is the complete destruction of the Palestinian people.
That is not the official stance of the Israeli government. It is the official stance of Hamas, the current government of the Palestinian People. You can't continue to put radical beliefs and statements by minority extremists on the government as a whole.
No no, don't just gloss over that one because it hurts your approach. Think on a straight line here. We proved it by his own words. You now know that he was. This is an important data point.
That's a common notion, what is your proof of it?
The fact that al qaeda has been able to recruit more people than they would have otherwise. That is pretty much agreed upon by most people. Our govt may not have been liked very well before the Iraq war in certain parts of the Middle East, but our credibility in most parts of the ME has since tanked with a majority of the people over there. That isn't saying the people hate us as a people, but they hate our govt's politics with regard to them. We have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for a hundred years. They don't like it. Now we have waged a war against a country that did not attack us. We have used torture and humiliation against their people, many of whom were not really terrorists. We have held people for years, with no access to legal representation or a trial. Those things have done more to help al qaeda than Osama bin Laden could have dreamed of doing on his own.
Can you honestly say that you would not feel hate for another country if they did those things to you or your country?
Then where are the Bosnian terrorists we created?
Where are the Panamanian terrorists we created?
Where are the Grenadan terrorists we created?
Where in holy hell are the Vietnamese terrorists we created? There had better be 500,000 of them, or your narrative is crashing and burning badly.
I wasn't talking about those groups of people. Those situations are very different from the one we are in now. You cannot compare them, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
I have heard that from Israel also, that their goal is the complete destruction of the Palestinian people.
Citation needed
Again, I really believe we should stop all funding to Israel.
The bulk of the aid started, along with military aid to Egypt, during the 1979 peace negotiations. Without the aid, Israel had no motivation to give up the Sinai peninsula, with its oil, and its strategic military positions from which Israel had been attacked several times. But, you know, whatever.
It has been mentioned that Hamas would be willing to accept a two state solution on 1948 (I think??) lines.
It is the pre- 1967 borders, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza.
That is not the official stance of the Israeli government. It is the official stance of Hamas, the current government of the Palestinian People. You can't continue to put radical beliefs and statements by minority extremists on the government as a whole.
There are
some extremists in the Israeli govt who want this. Do they all? Probably not. But to think there aren't some is gullible. Zionist thought is to completely take over the country.
The fact that al qaeda has been able to recruit more people than they would have otherwise. That is pretty much agreed upon by most people.
Then you should have no problem finding a citation.
Can you honestly say that you would not feel hate for another country if they did those things to you or your country?
If they did it to my corrupt, terroristic government? Boo fuckin' hoo. If they screwed up the occupation period and allowed my country to be run by thugs? Unacceptable, but if left to pick sides I know where I'm going.
I wasn't talking about those groups of people. Those situations are very different from the one we are in now. You cannot compare them, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
It is not. Situation much worse in Vietnam. We invaded. We waged war. Along they way we burned villages. We screwed up, and it led to the deaths of millions. Where are the Vietnamese terrorists?
Hell, where are the Cambodian terrorists? You
google "Cambodian terrorists" and the result is [COLOR=#cc0000]Did you mean: [/COLOR]
canadian terrorists ...that's bloody hilarious.
Citation needed
It was on Frontline a couple of years ago. I don't remember the name of the program, but you can go online to pbs.org/frontline and watch any of their shows. They are all available online.
The bulk of the aid started, along with military aid to Egypt, during the 1979 peace negotiations. Without the aid, Israel had no motivation to give up the Sinai peninsula, with its oil, and its strategic military positions from which Israel had been attacked several times. But, you know, whatever.
It doesn't matter how it started, I'm talking about the situation now, today. If we quit funding them and started brokering a peace treaty, along with other countries (both Middle Eastern and European), maybe they would be forced to work it out eventually.
Then you should have no problem finding a citation.
good grief. Do you not watch commentators on news channels? General consensus among many people is we have made terrorism worse, not better. Do all people think that? Of course not. I'm not going to look for citations right now, but if you really want me to I will another time. You could just google it yourself.
[quote]If they did it to my corrupt, terroristic government? Boo fuckin' hoo. If they screwed up the occupation period and allowed my country to be run by thugs? Unacceptable, but if left to pick sides I know where I'm going.
Well, we took over the prison where Saddam tortured people, and then we commenced to humiliate and torture the people as well. We have turned their country into a battleground for terrorists for the past 6 years. Thousands of people have been displaced because of us, and over 100,000 have died, many of them children. If we just HAD to go and remove Saddam, then we should have allowed the Iraqi people to have control over their own country and their own destiny, and just stayed to help them rather than to dictate to them and occupy them. Maybe things would have turned out differently, for us and them. But we didn't. We screwed this up in every conceivable way possible.
[quote]It is not. Situation much worse in Vietnam. We invaded. We waged war. Along they way we burned villages. We screwed up, and it led to the deaths of millions. Where are the Vietnamese terrorists?
It is the same in that respect. But in every other way it isn't. For one thing, the world is much more global now than it was then. It is much easier for Islamic terrorists to move around now. They are well funded and trained. Islamic terrorist organizations already existed before we invaded Iraq and they had been waging jihad for years before we went in, and they had already attacked us twice, here, and in various other places around the globe, in addition to attacking other western countries. We in turn attacked a country that had nothing to do with the attack against us. The Middle East is an entire region that is connected. We have been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for decades. We have propped up dictators and supported coups in different countries, and we have supported Israel in their fight against Palestine. We have bases in Saudi Arabia on sacred ground. So, no, it is not at all the same situation.
Hell, where are the Cambodian terrorists? You google "Cambodian terrorists" and the result is [COLOR=#cc0000]Did you mean: [/COLOR]canadian terrorists ...that's bloody hilarious.
HA!
There are some extremists in the Israeli govt who want this. Do they all? Probably not. But to think there aren't some is gullible. Zionist thought is to completely take over the country.
It is not the official policy of the Israeli government. Their solution is the 2 State Solution and they are waiting for Hamas to agree to their right to exist as a country. Extremists and Ziontists do not run the Israeli government nor do they control the Army.
It is not the official policy of the Israeli government. Their solution is the 2 State Solution and they are waiting for Hamas to agree to their right to exist as a country. Extremists and Ziontists do not run the Israeli government nor do they control the Army.
I have seen more than one documentary/interview with members of Hamas where they have said they would agree to the 2 state solution if Israel agreed to the pre-1967 borders. ummm, lots of members of the Israeli govt are Zionists.
We screwed this up in every conceivable way possible.
Perhaps not.
Peace rules as polls close in Iraq
# Story Highlights
- NEW: President Obama praises election, says he's "proud" of collaborative efforts
- Preliminary results of provincial elections expected within five days
- Polls close after one-hour extension; no serious violence reported
- "There is a new norm of politics," deputy prime minister says
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Voting ended Saturday evening for Iraqi provincial elections and the mood was festive in some places, unlike the violence, intimidation and apathy that marked the balloting in 2005.
"Politics has broken out in Iraq. ... It's truly a proud moment," Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh told CNN. "The distance that we have come is truly inspiring."
Only time will tell. Also, the United States did not start a war against the country of Iraq.
Only time will tell. Also, the United States did not start a war against the country of Iraq.
Semantics. We killed their people and broke their country. We have some good news don't ruin it with self-deception.
Semantics. We killed their people and broke their country. We have some good news don't ruin it with self-deception.
*nods* We helped them tear down one brand of tyranny and then allowed another to rise in its place. In Saddam's Iraq you could die for many things. Political activism, trade unionism, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being Kurdish. Rarely did people die for being un-Islamic. Rarely were women dragged from the streets and beaten for an accidental breach of some extremist sect's own conception of Islamic dress code.
In large sections of Iraq women are living amidst a Taliban-style gender panic. Fury and fear of female licentiousness.
To butcher a Franz Fanon quote: wars of national survival increase the central authority of the father within society.
Defeat in war is the ultimate emasculation. The response is rarely pleasant for the female half of the population.
Look at it this way, at least under Saddam you could play soccer in the olympics for his brother and have no worries.
And let's no forget about thos pesky Kurds.
Hamas attempts to reconcile. I am not sure this is going to help. But it does sound like a similar tactic of getting the Israeli's hit them with a hammer again and gain sympathy from the international press.
Gaza Militants Launch Rockets Into Israel
FEBRUARY 1, 2009, 7:49 A.M. ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123348818069836725.html
good grief. Do you not watch commentators on news channels?
I consume news as a hobby. Being unemployed, I watch approximately 8 hours per day of daytime cable news alternating between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC; listen to Dennis Miller's 3-hour radio talk show almost every day; and read scores of stories on the net via news aggregators. My opinion is that al Qaeda recruited easily in Iraq because they became the umbrella organization for terrorism there, as our presence infuriated a radical minority in Iraq and attracted 40-50% foreign fighters from other countries. We then kicked their ass nine ways from Sunday, with the assistance of the Iraqi people and especially trbal leaders and clerics. And now they are unable to recruit. al Qaeda is a toothless monster outside and does not seem as able to recruit as they were ten years ago, at least judging from their ability to carry out attacks worldwide.
So when I ask for a cite, I'm not being argumentative; I just believe that you're talking out of your ass, but I'm giving you the opportunity to back up your words and prove me wrong. This is how I for one would like it to work in the Current Events/Politics side of the Cellar.
Well, we took over the prison where Saddam tortured people, and then we commenced to humiliate and torture the people as well. We have turned their country into a battleground for terrorists for the past 6 years. Thousands of people have been displaced because of us, and over 100,000 have died, many of them children.
I respect you for getting the numbers right. Here's a "60 Minutes" exchange in 1996:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Bold mine. Sanctions preferable? You could make a good case. The world preferred them. Hussein didn't mind; he built palaces with the corrupt oil-for-food money, and when there were people dying, he just dug mass graves for them. Containment was easier and sure was cheaper.
We have bases in Saudi Arabia on sacred ground.
Unless all of Saudi Arabia is sacred, our bases were just on "ground".
And BTW we left in 2003.
Semantics. We killed their people and broke their country. We have some good news don't ruin it with self-deception.
I think there is a HUGE difference. But, I'll let it go since we are celebrating :)
750 trucks per day into Gaza before Hamas was elected. All they have to do is say they want peace and they will become prosperous merely by location. Israel would love to be a partner in peace and prosperity.
That is not the official stance of the Israeli government. It is the official stance of Hamas, the current government of the Palestinian People. You can't continue to put radical beliefs and statements by minority extremists on the government as a whole.
I said this many times before but no one listens. Politicians are liars. We acknowledge this in the United States but when an Iranian or Hamas leader lies to get public support, no one can accept it.
Though, I think this is an over simplistic view on the situation. There are many more forces than this.
The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html
Another source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/
Hell I'll just google it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=hamas+accept+1967+borders&btnG=Google+Search
Now lets look at this from a logical standpoint. Hamas is dependent on the Palestinian population's support. We can greatly assume that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace on their terms. So, if a peace can be reached that the Palestinian population accepts, Hamas will be forced to accept as well. So technically, even if Hamas is lying about the 1967 borders, which could be possible, it won't matter if the vast majority of Palestinians accept a truce because they will kick Hamas out.
This is an over-simplistic view though. The situation is not as simple as "Both sides agree to peace and then it will magically happen".
You have forgotten where Hamas gets its support, Iran. Where do you think all that cash they have been handing out comes from.
Perhaps not.
Peace rules as polls close in Iraq
And that is awesome. It doesn't negate all the massive mistakes we made up until very recently. If we had done things correctly, we could have had the same results years ago, at much less cost, and with much less human sacrifice.
Only time will tell. Also, the United States did not start a war against the country of Iraq.
We did not start a war against the country of Iraq? Really? What would you call it then? We bombed the crap out of Iraq. We took over the country. We brought in contractors from OUR country to do all the work. We hired American workers to work for them. We've had soldiers going into people's homes and searching them. We imposed curfews on the people. We took over a prison where Saddam Hussien tortured people, imprisoned Iraqis and others there, and then proceeded to humiliate and torture them. We have been fighting over there for 6 years. In fact, we decided to fight the war on terrorism there, in Iraq, so we wouldn't have to fight it here, according to Bush anyway. Before we went there, there
was no terrorism in Iraq. So how is that not a war against Iraq?
Let me ask you something. If some country, say China, came to the United States and did all of those things, do you think the people of this country would not think that was a war against our country and our people?
If we had done things correctly, we could have had the same results years ago, at much less cost, and with much less human sacrifice.
Yeh, we could have left it up to the UN too. Oh wait we tried that.
Before we went there, there was no terrorism in Iraq. So how is that not a war against Iraq?
???
Let me ask you something. If some country, say China, came to the United States and did all of those things, do you think the people of this country would not think that was a war against our country and our people?
Yes, I probably would since we are a democracy, not really a valid analogy to me.
I consume news as a hobby. Being unemployed, I watch approximately 8 hours per day of daytime cable news alternating between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC; listen to Dennis Miller's 3-hour radio talk show almost every day; and read scores of stories on the net via news aggregators. My opinion is that al Qaeda recruited easily in Iraq because they became the umbrella organization for terrorism there, as our presence infuriated a radical minority in Iraq and attracted 40-50% foreign fighters from other countries. We then kicked their ass nine ways from Sunday, with the assistance of the Iraqi people and especially trbal leaders and clerics. And now they are unable to recruit. al Qaeda is a toothless monster outside and does not seem as able to recruit as they were ten years ago, at least judging from their ability to carry out attacks worldwide.
So when I ask for a cite, I'm not being argumentative; I just believe that you're talking out of your ass, but I'm giving you the opportunity to back up your words and prove me wrong. This is how I for one would like it to work in the Current Events/Politics side of the Cellar.
I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/iraq_war_increased_terrorist_attacks_600
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/18/iraq.alqaida
I respect you for getting the numbers right. Here's a "60 Minutes" exchange in 1996:
Quote: Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
What does that have to do with the war we're fighting now?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
How many Iraqis have been displaced... 4 million
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/29/oxfam-report.html
Bold mine. Sanctions preferable? You could make a good case. The world preferred them. Hussein didn't mind; he built palaces with the corrupt oil-for-food money, and when there were people dying, he just dug mass graves for them. Containment was easier and sure was cheaper.
So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?
Unless all of Saudi Arabia is sacred, our bases were just on "ground". And BTW we left in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_Air_Expeditionary_GroupYeh, we could have left it up to the UN too. Oh wait we tried that.
Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?
Yes, I probably would since we are a democracy, not really a valid analogy to me.
So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sovreign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.
I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.
Thank you; I believe it now, well cited.
So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?
We should act in our interests, as does every nation on the planet.
Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?
Because the entire planet knows how America acts -- and is all right with it. That's why. We're in the century-old habit of restoring order and leaving, and it's pretty clear to everyone who looks that this is basic to our political structure. Nobody in charge of a nation gets the creeps when our troops hit the beach nearby, or anywhere, for that matter. And frankly, no objections that matter to the world have been raised, either. The bad actors, yeah, they complain -- but nobody thinks the assholes should have it their way. The people who cheerlead for the assholes and bad actors within states are in America invariably the American Left, and this is considered the behavior of retards by everyone not of the American Left.
So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sov[e]reign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.
Reeeally? So tell me: just how are despotic oligarchies (most of the nondemocracies are so ruled) maintained, and democracy doesn't occur? That's right, it's by the oligarchies' naked force. That, sugarpop, is what's not very democratic.
Remove the oligarchy's naked force and thus its ability to impede the development of democratic republican government, and you've got a good thing going, do you not? With the oligarchy eviscerated and neutralized, can they impede a democracy arising? No, they can't, and that's fine. It's amazing how many just plain Cellarites can't wrap their brains around this concept -- they are obsessed with trying to hit me over the head with straw-man arguments. Well, straw-man arguments are just that -- they're fakes. I annoy the hell out of these people when they find I don't do their fakes and aren't impressed by them. They can't grasp that I know better than that sophomoric stuff like Rich's -
an addition to a quote box. Stunts like that are not reinforcements to your argument, Rich. How is it you didn't see that, Rich? Is it because you think Left? Looks that way to me!
You have to be a special kind of subadult to stay Left, I find. The Left wants you both immature and dependent. None for me, thanks.
So far, your thinking looks heavily clouded. The Left
does that to otherwise good people, and the way into clear light and clear thinking is to research what the American conservative periodicals are saying. Personally, I resent the American Left, and think them foolish. It also amuses me that they prove their foolishness so regularly and abundantly.
I think you only got to 9 on the condescending meter there UG. Have another go and see if you can do better. lol
Seriously though, sugarpop has a good point, and unlike yourself, I happen to agree that it's not the US's job to 'police' the world.
It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?
So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?
And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.
You?
Reeeally? So tell me: just how are despotic oligarchies (most of the nondemocracies are so ruled) maintained, and democracy doesn't occur? That's right, it's by the oligarchies' naked force. That, sugarpop, is what's not very democratic.
Remove the oligarchy's naked force and thus its ability to impede the development of democratic republican government, and you've got a good thing going, do you not?
The best and most secure removal of despots occurs from within, not by the invasion by external forces attempting to impose their own brand of democracy.
Examples like:
The labor movement in Poland and the intelligentsia movement in the Czech Republic
The yellow revolution in the Phillipines.
The rose revolution in the Republic of Georgia.
The purple revolution in the Ukraine.
The end of apartheid in South Africa
A rainbow of relatively peaceful transition from despot to democracy!
Quite right, Ali, and it drives me to a fury. Quibbles over exactly what is the national interest always muddle the signal that we, or anyone, send. I put it down to the world's imperfection, and make such peace with it as I can. But there's always the hope of unsheathing justice's sword sometime later.
Oh well, I guess maybe some day we'll all know...or not. :)
No arguments there, redux; these have all the good features you mentioned.
But, for the people of freedom, there's really no odds at all in who actually removes the oppressor, so long as the oppressor be removed. Sometimes it is peaceful and civilized, excellent, good for the common weal. Sometimes the oppressor puts up a fight, and then it's the artillery that presents the "arguments of kings." And things get done the hard way -- because the oppressor has too much of a taste for behaving in his sociopathic way.
This is something else that has to stay in view: in the small, shallower talent pools of Third World governance, a highly motivated sociopath can rise to head of state. Sociopathic rulers preside over sociopathic states, whereupon everything in the jurisdiction goes to shit. Where's the reason to let that happen? I've never heard of one that I thought was worthwhile. Prosperity is not found under sociopathic, all-powerful rulers. Prosperity is found where capital P Power is not the be-all, end-all, and where power's scope is strictly limited in both area and time.
I'm here to say that hard way or easy way, it must get done. Otherwise the body politic suffers from tumors, to say nothing of zits.
See, this is why Aliantha and I often disagree but never fight: she's got this knack. Me, seriously, not so much.
It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?
Because we have very little international interest in those places. Same reason we are not in Darfur. We learned our lesson in Somalia. Hell, even the Europeans can't police their own backyard. Why did we go into Bosnia? You have to pick and choose. You are right, I totally agree, we cannot and should not go in and police the world. Nor should we lay our lives down for these places that are just total shit. But don't turn around and ask us why we will not come and help anymore, because hopefully those days are over. Countries want us to help only when it is
their own self interest. Hey, that sounds just like the US.
It sounds like everyone really. I think everyone will be pulling their heads in over the next few years anyway. Who can afford to go to war atm?
Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.
The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.
Here is a nice video to explain the difference.
Thank you and goodnight.
Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.
The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.
Here is a nice video to explain the difference.
Thank you and goodnight.
You be highly mistaken if you believed that any of us don't know what we formed and why we dumped you.
:D
I think you only got to 9 on the condescending meter there UG. Have another go and see if you can do better. lol
Seriously though, sugarpop has a good point, and unlike yourself, I happen to agree that it's not the US's job to 'police' the world.
It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?
Because, it wouldn't be profitable for corproate America. We are so self-righteous, but if another country acted the same way we do, we would be all like, how dare they. They must be destroyed.
Our going around trying to "spread democracy" is no different from what Russia did, or Germany. And the truth is, if a country IS democratic, but unfriendly to our government or corporate America, we fund coups and install dictators. Hey, as long as they give us what we want. Only in the end, these things always come back and bite us in the ass, which is exactly what happened with Saddam Hussien, and also Osama bin Laden.
And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.
You?
Yes, they do, and we should act on behalf of those people. But not with war, and not under US military control. There are other ways. If there needs to be military action, it should be done by NATO, with cooperation of the world and the UN.
Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.
The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.
Here is a nice video to explain the difference.
Thank you and goodnight.
yea yea, I know. But we have this need to spread democracy, because we are supposedly a democratic people.
Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?
Then I'd have to agree with Radar.
So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sovereign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.
Nope, thats not what I'm saying, not by a long shot.
Nope, thats not what I'm saying, not by a long shot.
Please elaborate then. I'm interested in your opinion.
I honesty don't think there is any "one" answer to that question. Where is the line in a world of gray? I dunno. I don't believe there is any clear equation to the question. I think each situation needs to be evaluated on its own set of circumstances. It would be convenient if there were, but there isn't.
Hamas leader praises Iran's help in Gaza 'victory'
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal on Sunday praised Iran for helping Hamas achieve "victory" over Israel in Gaza, according to Iranian media reports. "The victory of the people of Gaza was a miracle of God and the Islamic Republic definitely has a share in this victory," Meshaal said after meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency.
Meshaal arrived in Tehran for his first visit to the country since Israel's recent military offensive on Gaza, Iranian media reported. He also met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Meshaal -- who lives in exile in Syria -- is the head of Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory of Gaza. Hamas has claimed victory over Israeli forces, saying the Jewish state failed to destroy its ability to fire rockets at southern Israel. But Israel has said it achieved its goal in Gaza, which was to change the security situation for southern Israel.
According to Fars News Agency, Khamenei congratulated Meshaal, saying, "The people of Gaza and the Islamic Resistance made us all proud and with their patience and perseverance successfully passed this very difficult test."
The Iranian leader stressed that that the war in Gaza has not yet ended, noting that "the Islamic Resistance must, with full alertness and in proper ways, prepare itself fully for the possibility of the beginning of another war," Fars reported.
Khamenei denounced some Arab countries for criticizing Hamas, and called for Israeli leaders to be tried for war crimes.
That'll help the situation - NOT.
You have forgotten where Hamas gets its support, Iran. Where do you think all that cash they have been handing out comes from.
How did I forget that?
Because we have very little international interest in those places. Same reason we are not in Darfur. We learned our lesson in Somalia. Hell, even the Europeans can't police their own backyard. Why did we go into Bosnia? You have to pick and choose. You are right, I totally agree, we cannot and should not go in and police the world. Nor should we lay our lives down for these places that are just total shit. But don't turn around and ask us why we will not come and help anymore, because hopefully those days are over. Countries want us to help only when it is their own self interest. Hey, that sounds just like the US.
Completely agree. If a country is ready to become a democracy, they can do it themselves.
How did I forget that?
Because it is a fact completely ignored in this situation. Not only ignored, it is down right denied. The fact that Iran is the fuel of the fire needs to be repeated hourly.
Yes. Iran supports Hamas. US supports Israel.
Kind of like a mini cold war...
Yes. Iran supports Hamas. US supports Israel.
Kind of like a mini cold war...
Sorry, that dog does not hunt. You are supporting Hamas and it is obvious in your posts. Iran does not admit to their support of Hamas, even though the wold knows that is bull fucking shit. SO do you support Hamas? Please tell us where you stand on this issue. NOW.
There is no doubt where the US stands. Fuck Hamas.
What is obvious is that I do not support Israel. That does not equate to being pro-Hamas.
What is obvious is that I do not support Israel. That does not equate to being pro-Hamas.
Come on bro. Don't blow smoke up our skirts. You have not said a damm thing that went against a Hamas position since you have been on here.
Why would I say anything against Hamas besides showing you guys that I can be anti-Hamas as well. 95% of this forum is very pro-Israel so I'm never going to argue against Hamas on here. I have argued against pro-Hamas with many other people. Their stance doesn't make any more sense to me, hence why I always say that BOTH sides lead to this problem and that it is a power problem, not moral.
Hmm - I'm with Ali - Parking Lot!
Why would I say anything against Hamas besides showing you guys that I can be anti-Hamas as well. 95% of this forum is very pro-Israel so I'm never going to argue against Hamas on here. I have argued against pro-Hamas with many other people. Their stance doesn't make any more sense to me, hence why I always say that BOTH sides lead to this problem and that it is a power problem, not moral.
I don't buy it. You have defended the actions of Hamas repeatedly.
So? I will defend numerous groups I don't support.
So? I will defend numerous groups I don't support.
Good enough. I respect that. Defend the terrorist organizations. I would be interested in your defense.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
None of us are there. We are all outsiders to this bloody mess. The news we watch is skewed (whichever direction) and the situation so mind-numbingly complicated with politics, personality, vengeance and power (on both sides) that we cannot hope to have a clear picture until the history books are being written in fifty years time, or a hundred.
It is good that pierce will come here and state the other side of the argument. Were it not for Pierce and a couple of others, we would only see one side here. That cannot help anybody's understanding. In such a fraught setting, there are no clean hands. All we are doing here is arguing gradations of blood and dirt. Those who are truly friends to Israel should hear what the Palestinians are screaming. Those truly friend to Palestine, should listen to Israeli cries.
It is not yet time for them to hear each other. Those of us outside and removed have a duty to hear them both.
And that really is the last thing I post in this thread.
Can't hear the Palestinians because Hamas is blocking them out with their noise.
Yes. Iran supports Hamas. US supports Israel.
Kind of like a mini cold war...
Exactly.
I don't buy it. You have defended the actions of Hamas repeatedly.
So have I. But you know me, and you know I don't support Hamas, exactly...
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
None of us are there. We are all outsiders to this bloody mess. The news we watch is skewed (whichever direction) and the situation so mind-numbingly complicated with politics, personality, vengeance and power (on both sides) that we cannot hope to have a clear picture until the history books are being written in fifty years time, or a hundred.
It is good that pierce will come here and state the other side of the argument. Were it not for Pierce and a couple of others, we would only see one side here. That cannot help anybody's understanding. In such a fraught setting, there are no clean hands. All we are doing here is arguing gradations of blood and dirt. Those who are truly friends to Israel should hear what the Palestinians are screaming. Those truly friend to Palestine, should listen to Israeli cries.
It is not yet time for them to hear each other. Those of us outside and removed have a duty to hear them both.
And that really is the last thing I post in this thread.
Well said. And the people we should actually be listening to, are the ones in the middle. There are LOTS of Israeli Jews who do not support what their government does, just as there are lots of Palestinians who do not support what Hamas does.
Good enough. I respect that. Defend the terrorist organizations. I would be interested in your defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I defend what I believe to be true. It has been shown that Hamas stopped firing rockets after the ceasefire and that Israel did not fully open trade routes in response. Hamas has admitted that they started firing rockets because of the blockade (November 4th is just a catyalist). Hamas has admitted that they will be willing to accept a two state solution on certain terms. These are facts that can be backed by evidence. I am not supporting Hamas by making those statements, or even purposely defending a resistance movement/terrorist group, I am laying out the facts and what I believe.
But, as I said many times before, those arguments don't really mean much to me besides proving that Israel has some fault in this conflict as well. In reality, I see both Israel and Hamas as two groups that are forced into situations where they will naturally choose the "immoral" route, the difference being that Israel has massive amounts of power while Hamas does not. Both sides are willing to kill civilians. Both sides have made decisions that have led to further conflict. Both sides will fight until their terms are met.
Going back to the choice argument, one can say that one side does have a choice but those are usually idealistic at best and will only accomplish goals that the person who is speaking wants. If one thinks that peace should occur right now with the current situation, Palestine (Hamas to be more specific) will naturally be blamed. If one thinks that peace should occur with in a situation that is more favorable to Palestinians, Israel will naturally be blamed.
Hamas has admitted that they will be willing to accept a two state solution on certain terms.
I urge you to read the
Hamas charter. It starts about a quarter of the way down the page, with the heading "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement".
After you do, you will understand, and you will never make the above statement again.
You are right if we are defining Hamas as the movement that existed over 20 years ago. The PLO was the leading resistance movement for over 20 years and now they are seen as "being in bed" with Israel by many of the hardliners.
Corruption will overcome Hamas in time and as I said earlier, they are dependent on the population around them. Eitherway, Hamas is reactionary and easily replaceable. I would be more scared of what comes after Hamas (another party or evolved group) then what it is now.
Oh holy crap. Then go and fucking read the Current Positions section, about a tenth of the way down the page.
[FONT=Arial]"We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity" stated Hamas leader Fathi Hammad in Gaza on Friday January 2nd 2009.[/FONT]
Yeah? So we have two contradictory quotes. How can we tell what the official position of Hamas is? And by official, I mean what they will do not what they say. These politicians should never be trusted.
Hamas is most likely littered with scattered views. Some will be willing to accept 1967 borders, some will never accept Israel as a state. Which side has the most power in the end is which matters.
Yeah? So we have two contradictory quotes. How can we tell what the official position of Hamas is? And by official, I mean what they will do not what they say. These politicians should never be trusted.
Hamas is most likely littered with scattered views. Some will be willing to accept 1967 borders, some will never accept Israel as a state. Which side has the most power in the end is which matters.
Those with the most guns makes those decisions. Hamas has made that point quite evident. Peace with Israel is not one of thier goals. How to get the Israelis to stop bombing the hell out of them is a short term goal IMHO. And they will say any thing to the international press to do it. Other than that my expectations for them to seek a unified peace plan is very low to non-existant.
Those with the most guns makes those decisions. Hamas has made that point quite evident. Peace with Israel is not one of thier goals. How to get the Israelis to stop bombing the hell out of them is a short term goal IMHO. And they will say any thing to the international press to do it. Other than that my expectations for them to seek a unified peace plan is very low to non-existant.
And peace with Palestine is obviously not one of Israel's goal either.
And peace with Palestine is obviously not one of Israel's goal either.
ok I'll bite - Why do you say that?
ok I'll bite - Why do you say that?
Because. They consistently do things that are not in the spirit of peace. Israel has broken ceasefires as much as Hamas has. Israelis bulldozed Palestinian houses and claimed the land for themselves so they could build more settlements. Israelis arrest Palestinians and put them in camps. They block food. They make it almost impossible for Palestinians to move around. etc etc etc.
As I've said before,
both sides are at fault. We really need to get out of it (stop funding Israel) and let them solve it on their own, with their own money. Either that, or force Israel to be more reasonable.
Sugarpop, you're trying to tell us the Israelis have no right to survive. Stop such genocidal nonsense yesterday if not sooner. Antisemitism rubs Adolf Hitler's runny mental shit all over your soul, and you can't get clean.
The Palestinians are being used as catspaws by the Muslim nations in the Middle East to fight a proxy war with Israel, over a land the Jews were in before ever there was a Muslim. If it was just between the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews, the fight would have been over by the 1956 Suez Crisis. Blame Jordan, Iran, Egypt and Syria: these are the nations that either still don't want peace, valuing their feud with the Jews over any peace and prosperity, or acted that way at one time -- Egypt's cleaned up its act most.
Consequently to all this, my sympathy for the poor Palestinians remains just about zip. They have to hang all their assholes, yesterday. They aren't doing that. What do you say about people who refuse to hang their assholes? Does the idea that asshole-sympathizing may be in play here come in at all, do you suppose?
As Allison and I drove around, lost at times, we came across Chinese laborers. She said the Palestinians are angry because the Chinese and other foreign laborers imported from abroad have taken the construction jobs that once belonged to the Palestinians. After all of the suicide bombings and other attacks, Gaza has been essentially sealed to stem the violence, a tactic which has been effective except for the rocket strikes.
Yet world sympathy seems to rest with the terrorists, and Israel is condemned for ‘trapping’ the Palestinians inside Gaza and for any retaliation for the missile attacks.
Europe, for instance, was nearly unanimous in its condemnation of Israel after the Israeli Defense Forces finally counter-attacked in Operation Cast Lead.
I considered going to Gaza, to hear the other side of the story, but after having seen so many terrorists attacks up close, there seemed little value in taking such a chance with my life, just to hear ramble from a leadership that condones and executes terrorism and launches thousands of rockets at school kids.
It makes no sense to risk life and limb only to allow people who intentionally target children to talk through my pen. Not until they stop the terrorism. Those members of the press who transmute Hamas’s crocodile tears into ink only exacerbate the disease.
It simply does not make sense for us to support a Palestinian state, when at every turn they demonstrate that they will simply become more powerful, richer terrorists, with longer range rockets.
Very good Bruce- another somber read from a very credible resource.
Sugarpop, you're trying to tell us the Israelis have no right to survive. Stop such genocidal nonsense yesterday if not sooner. Antisemitism rubs Adolf Hitler's runny mental shit all over your soul, and you can't get clean.
No I'm not. Show me where I said that.
And I'm not antisemite, I'm antiZionist. There is a big difference. HUGE.
The Palestinians are being used as catspaws by the Muslim nations in the Middle East to fight a proxy war with Israel, over a land the Jews were in before ever there was a Muslim. If it was just between the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews, the fight would have been over by the 1956 Suez Crisis. Blame Jordan, Iran, Egypt and Syria: these are the nations that either still don't want peace, valuing their feud with the Jews over any peace and prosperity, or acted that way at one time -- Egypt's cleaned up its act most.
That is not accurate. As others have pointed out, Jews were not the first people on that land. It sounds to me like you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about with regards to the rest.
Consequently to all this, my sympathy for the poor Palestinians remains just about zip. They have to hang all their assholes, yesterday. They aren't doing that. What do you say about people who refuse to hang their assholes? Does the idea that asshole-sympathizing may be in play here come in at all, do you suppose?
Whatever. I came to the conclusion that you and I will NEVER see eye to eye... on anything.
It's just a big fat mess over there. Leave them be and let them destroy one another.
If Israel should be condemned for oppressing the Palestinians by cutting them off from the world, what about their neighbor Egypt?
Many antisemites attempt to cloak themselves under the allegedly more respectable mantle of antiZionism -- but their fraud is transparent. Frankly, I reckon antiZionist Jews to be completely out of touch with their own people's interests: it is manifest that statelessness is a very dangerous condition to be in in Europe. With a Jewish State around, abuse of Jews has much declined -- is that not historically demonstrated?
As for yelling about "show me where I said that," SP, need I tell you that when you write words, there are thoughts behind the words -- whether these thoughts are acknowledged consciously or not. Ideas birth words -- and it is not difficult to see what those ideas are. Nor is it very complicated in your case to see that your words leave a scent of the anti-Semite on you. Anti-Zionism is, well, the realm of two schools of thought, and I wouldn't give two bits for the both of them taken together: stupid, unpractical Jews who can't see their own people's best interest in the mortal world, and stupid and brutal bigotry against Jews from outsiders. I'd not ally myself with either silly bunch.
As others have pointed out, Jews were not the first people on that land. It sounds to me like you don't have a clue. . .
Here you show a mighty misreading of what I actually said -- you're listening too much to what you were unfortunate enough to think I said, instead: I did not say "first people," I said "the Jews were in before there was ever a Muslim." The Jews have a defensible prior claim, if you want to assign sacredness to who's there before whomever else. Stop kidding yourself, or I will both chew on you like a dog toy and insult your intelligence the while. You aren't winning this. Not ever.
Here you show a mighty misreading of what I actually said -- you're listening too much to what you were unfortunate enough to think I said, instead: I did not say "first people," I said "the Jews were in before there was ever a Muslim." The Jews have a defensible prior claim, if you want to assign sacredness to who's there before whomever else. Stop kidding yourself, or I will both chew on you like a dog toy and insult your intelligence the while. You aren't winning this. Not ever.
So by your logic here UG, you'd support indigenous American people blowing up non-indigenous simply because they have a 'defensible prior claim' to the land?
It's raining.
And so, this Michael Yon article sets forth yet another exigesis on just how those in authority in Palestine remain spherical assholes on the grandest scale available to them. To support this kind of behavior over that of the Israelis, whose forbearance should be the stuff of legend, shows you in the worst possible light, SP: as a complete whore for all that is evil.
{Edited at Classicman's suggestion: and before you blow up at me, read the rest of this thread, particularly post #268. Remember which contender in this strife is the democracy, and which are not.}
"Whore for evil" is something none can say of me. There are those, yet swimming in the great darkness, even yet unenlightened, who will complain about me all afternoon long, with an appendix after supper -- but one thing they cannot say is that UG attaches to evil. I scourge it. You don't feel like being scourged, then don't even be mistaken for an evildoer.
Now tell me: was this really what you set out to do??:eek:
Aliantha, just why do you insist that somehow I have to be as rigid and bullheaded as Radar??
Just a simple question UG. ;)
as a complete whore for all that is evil.
Edit that before its too late. That is/was completely uncalled for.
As an east coast liberal Zionist Jew, I am totally with UG on this one.
The creation of state of Israel was recognized by the international community with the partition of Palestine.
And the state of Israel has attempted to make peace with its neighbors for 50+ years and has succeeded with its more moderate Arab neighbors - Egypt and Jordan.
It sought a two state solution with the Palestinians in the 90s, only to have Arrafat kill the deal.
It sought to make peace with the Hamas by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza as a first step to a broader solution, only to be faced with 3 years of continuous rocket attacks into its southern cities.
Hamas exists solely to continue to wage war against Israel. It is at the very heart of its existence.
I would agree that Israel's response was heavy handed and did not help create an environment that could bring the parties to the negotiating table.
When Hamas is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist and disavow terrorism, I think they and the Palestinian people will find a willing partner.
And both sides will need to make hard choices and compromises.
Perhaps Hamas is just a willing pawn in a very ugly game.
Edit that before its too late. That is/was completely uncalled for.
I know I'm speaking harshly. I'm trying to tell her, in the strongest possible terms, not to be one of
those. It would not be acceptable conduct. She can, I think, still pull back.
And to Redux: thanks.
Just a simple question UG. ;)
And my simple answer, as you're probably figuring, is "No." Now how 'bout my simple question? :cool:
It might be noticed that the overall pattern of these brawls is the Palestinians-in-charge-of-carrying-on-a-pointless-feud fire the first shot. Looks like picking a fight, no? Anybody think too highly of that? Anyone praise it? Anyone believe in it, or that good will come of it?
My very personal opinion is that both sides are out of line and even though the Jewish nation might have a valid claim to the land, obviously someone else thinks they don't.
Thousands of years of fighting over it haven't managed to change a thing.
I don't think it's working for them. They all need to find a better answer, unfortunately, I don't believe either side really wants to when it's all said and done. I think this war has become a way of life and will never end. Debating the issue is pointless because words mean nothing compared to the number of lives lost over long held bitterness and hatred.
My point however was that if Israel can say, 'We were here first, so it's ours', then there are many other nations who have the same claim over land which has been taken from them and yet I don't see too many other countries jumping to their defense. Even my own country could have the same issue but we're not blowing each other up, even though we don't share the same religious beliefs. Not by a long shot.
Perhaps Hamas is just a willing pawn in a very ugly game.
IMO, the Palestinian people are the pawn. Their fate is in their own hands.
A quote from Golda Meir says it all for me:
[INDENT]“
We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.[/INDENT]
Redux, let us continue: these ignorant people need to get punted around the playground a while until some fucking light breaks through. Poster DanaC has already left the fray with egg, or worse, on her face, for her non-enlightenment.
If Israel should be condemned for oppressing the Palestinians by cutting them off from the world, what about their neighbor Egypt?
Why should we even be involved in the politics of nations halfway around the world? I understand we want to promote democracy and human decency and all that, but frankly, those countries have their own cultures, cultures that are
very different from our own. Who are we to judge another culture? We cannot simply judge those cultures by our standards. It isn't right to do that. And how is our intention to "spread democracy" any different than Russia trying to "spread communism" during the cold war? We cannot just go around forcing our way of thinking and being on everyone else.
I personally believe in the whole Star Trek creed of not interfering in the development of other cultures, other than offering certain kinds of aid. We certainly shouldn't be fighting wars for people, giving them weapons or funding wars. Yes, we should work with groups like Amnesty International and the UN to fight genocide, and use NATO to help establish and keep peace in volatile regions, but more than things like that, I think we should mind our own business.
What are you going to continue with UG? A mutual admiration society? lol
Please don't call me ignorant and I wont call you an arsehole my friend. ;)
Ali, in those moments when you are ignorant -- and if I'm not -- I'll tell you so. If you're going to be an arsehole -- not likely, as you have a knack for avoiding that -- I promise I'll call you on that too.
Well, some people think I'm an arsehole that's for sure. Lucky I don't give a shit about that though (pardon the pun). ;)
I just don't think it's fair to suggest someone with a different opinion is ignorant. Perhaps they see facts from a different perspective or have different motivations, but that doesn't make them ignorant. It makes them different, and possibly helpful in situations which require diplomacy, which is what I think is sadly lacking in this instance.
Many antisemites attempt to cloak themselves under the allegedly more respectable mantle of antiZionism -- but their fraud is transparent. Frankly, I reckon antiZionist Jews to be completely out of touch with their own people's interests: it is manifest that statelessness is a very dangerous condition to be in in Europe. With a Jewish State around, abuse of Jews has much declined -- is that not historically demonstrated?
And what is really ironic, is they are doing to others similar things that were done to them for generations.
AntiZionist Jews are not out of touch. Why can't you recognize they have a right to their beliefs as well? That is the whole thing with you, it is your point of view, or none. All others are wrong. I reject that very narrow focus. There can be more than one right answer, more than one way to do things, or to look at things.
As for yelling about "show me where I said that," SP, need I tell you that when you write words, there are thoughts behind the words -- whether these thoughts are acknowledged consciously or not. Ideas birth words -- and it is not difficult to see what those ideas are. Nor is it very complicated in your case to see that your words leave a scent of the anti-Semite on you. Anti-Zionism is, well, the realm of two schools of thought, and I wouldn't give two bits for the both of them taken together: stupid, unpractical Jews who can't see their own people's best interest in the mortal world, and stupid and brutal bigotry against Jews from outsiders. I'd not ally myself with either silly bunch.
Wow. So you think you have some kind of magic mirror that allows you to look into my soul, and my brain, and know what I'm thinking? Then why am I bothering to open my mouth? In the same vein, it isn't hard at all to see where YOU are coming from. You have the same attitude bush had, egomaniac. You're always right. Your opinion is the only right one. Only your answers are the right ones for any problem. It must be really nice to be right all the time, and to know that you are so superior to the rest of us. Better watch out up there on that pedastal...
Here you show a mighty misreading of what I actually said -- you're listening too much to what you were unfortunate enough to think I said, instead: I did not say "first people," I said "the Jews were in before there was ever a Muslim." The Jews have a defensible prior claim, if you want to assign sacredness to who's there before whomever else. Stop kidding yourself, or I will both chew on you like a dog toy and insult your intelligence the while. You aren't winning this. Not ever.
How can you possibly know that? You can't. No one can. And what does Islam have to do with the people who live there? Islam is a religion. The
people in the Middle East predate religion... ALL religion, including Judaism. Just because Judaism predates Islam does not mean the people who are there (and happen now to be Muslim) don't have roots that go back in time to before Israel's first incarnation.
And so, this Michael Yon article sets forth yet another exigesis on just how those in authority in Palestine remain spherical assholes on the grandest scale available to them. To support this kind of behavior over that of the Israelis, whose forbearance should be the stuff of legend, shows you in the worst possible light, SP: as a complete whore for all that is evil.
{Edited at Classicman's suggestion: and before you blow up at me, read the rest of this thread, particularly post #268. Remember which contender in this strife is the democracy, and which are not.}
"Whore for evil" is something none can say of me. There are those, yet swimming in the great darkness, even yet unenlightened, who will complain about me all afternoon long, with an appendix after supper -- but one thing they cannot say is that UG attaches to evil. I scourge it. You don't feel like being scourged, then don't even be mistaken for an evildoer.
Now tell me: was this really what you set out to do??:eek:
So you are calling me a whore for evil? Nice. I'm done with you. You're an asshole, in the worst possible way.
As an east coast liberal Zionist Jew, I am totally with UG on this one.
The creation of state of Israel was recognized by the international community with the partition of Palestine.
And the state of Israel has attempted to make peace with its neighbors for 50+ years and has succeeded with its more moderate Arab neighbors - Egypt and Jordan.
It sought a two state solution with the Palestinians in the 90s, only to have Arrafat kill the deal.
It sought to make peace with the Hamas by unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza as a first step to a broader solution, only to be faced with 3 years of continuous rocket attacks into its southern cities.
Hamas exists solely to continue to wage war against Israel. It is at the very heart of its existence.
I would agree that Israel's response was heavy handed and did not help create an environment that could bring the parties to the negotiating table.
When Hamas is ready to recognize Israel's right to exist and disavow terrorism, I think they and the Palestinian people will find a willing partner.
And both sides will need to make hard choices and compromises.
I understand your point, and I agree with you up to a point. But both sides are at fault.
And to be clear, I remember reading an article, and seeing a documentary on PBS (maybe it was Frontline?) or somewhere back in the late 90s/early 2000s, where Clinton had said he was frustrated with Israel because they were the ones who were being unreasonable when he was trying to broker peace between them. And I know for a fact that Israel has broken many cease fires, as well as Hamas. So, while I understand your point of view, and I agree somewhat, it isn't the whole truth, and isn't completely accurate.
Yes, Hamas uses horrific fighting techniques, and I do not condone them. They are fighting an enemy that has unlimited resources, while they have very few. So they resort to techniques that most people think sickening. Yes, their thinking is very backwards, but I do understand how certain things (like oppression) can drive people to do the unthinkable. It's human nature, psychology.
And let's not forget that Israel used terrorism, and had terrorist organizations, well before the PLO was in existance. Yes, it's in the past, but their hands are not completely clean, like you make out. Terrorism is nothing new. It has been around for a very long time. You cannot win against terrorism fighting with conventional methods. Usually, it needs diplomacy, not weapons. (ftr, I always thought Britian should leave Ireland to the Irish, and that would have ended the actions of the IRA. In cases of terrorism, it is almost always a very strong country trying to force their will on a weaker one, in many cases using force to take over their country.)
Why should we even be involved in the politics of nations halfway around the world? I understand we want to promote democracy and human decency and all that, but frankly, those countries have their own cultures, cultures that are very different from our own.
What we see with democracy (I speak in a loose sense) is that it's simply better than autocracy or oligarchy: democracies are slow to war and powerful to prosperity, both of which are very good things, acclaimed by anyone not a sociopath. A culture with an oppression enshrined within it is a culture that is sick, cancerous, bad -- and if its sickness is infectious, this is very bad.
Who are we to judge another culture? We cannot simply judge those cultures by our standards. It isn't right to do that.
Ah, yes: moral relativism. You've been persistently schooled in it, I see. Your education will no longer be impeded by your schooling, SP, when you abandon this philosophy -- for until you do, you will not be able to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil. That's whatcha call dumbth. Somebody wants you incapable of moral choices, and that incapability will screw your entire life up. Hey, when I was a college frosh, I had some of these ideas too. But I haven't been a college frosh these thirty years now; and there's been some growing up done. I gave up any trace of moral relativism when I noticed I couldn't distinguish good from evil by those means. I've never had cause to return, either.
So, in the end: Why do we make moral judgements? It's because we
are moral beings, however imperfect, however perfectible. They of the leftward lean would like us not to be so, that they may the better perform the hemipygian deeds, adhere to the ill-thought philosophies, that their baser natures accustom them to. It ain't for me, Sugarpop. For me, it's been,
Been there, did that maybe a little, and eww.
And how is our intention to "spread democracy" any different than Russia trying to "spread communism" during the cold war? We cannot just go around forcing our way of thinking and being on everyone else.
When democracy is spread abroad, prosperity follows, oppression recedes. Where was there prosperity in the Soviet bloc? Was there anyone not oppressed? Even the Party animals and the
nomenklatura could end up shot or in the Gulag. (Holding unpopular opinions/being not politically correct in a nondemocracy is very bad for your health. Here in a democracy, it just gets you into internet flamefights.) There's your answer for how very different we are from those. You have not been taught our quiet nobility yet, SP, and you need it now.
As for "forcing:" we don't force, no matter what the anti-American Left will repetitively say. There are approximately eleven million people in the States right now who personify my argument. These are the illegal immigrants. They want to partake of our way of thinking and being so badly
they break in to get it. Quite illegally. Think about that for a minute. They're here because they want what we do and how we do it more than anything else, including not getting arrested. Add to these eleven million the ones who ARE here legally, and you've got quite an example. Show me another nation with that kind of attractiveness. Again, how many nations are getting their doors kicked down and fences climbed over, to partake at literally any price? I can think of some other places that are really really nice; I've seen a few of 'em; but I can't think of one to compare with our City on the Hill for sheer mass of people trying to get in.
I think we should mind our own business.
I say all this
is our business, and unless we turn into a hermit kingdom, it will remain our business. We are the most successful capitalist democracy ever seen, anywhere on the globe. We achieve that by our global reach, and we cannot do without it. Humanity will prosper all the better the more it imitates our best features. All of humanity's androgenic woes come from not practicing America's ways, but sticking with ancient despotisms and oligarchies. The wisdomless invertebrates who taught you do not comprehend this -- their bowing before ancient despotisms and oligarchies is not understandable, except in terms of closet fascism for the braver/more crazed ones and abject cowardice for all the rest.
The Left would very much like you not to understand any of this, Sugarpop, for once you do, you turn away from the Left as an aggravating aggregation of egregious dweebs -- a committee with three or more legs and no brain. The leftwards people do not value general prosperity, nor good conduct. They are the Left because they value only Power, with a capital P. They are the latterday Ebenezer Scrooges, monomaniacally fixated on but a single thing. Scrooge illustrates how it's the dose that makes the poison -- and hints that you'd have to be absurdly lucky to fully learn his lesson as late as he did.
Your life's education begins with an openminded reading of Russell Kirk -- though Robert A. Heinlein isn't bad this way either, only he wrote fiction and Kirk's an essayist.
AntiZionist Jews are not out of touch. Why can't you recognize they have a right to their beliefs as well?
Because on the whole, their beliefs are destructive of Judaism. That seems to me too much wrongfulness. See above about moral relativism -- it cuts no ice.
Wow. So you think you have some kind of magic mirror that allows you to look into my soul, and my brain, and know what I'm thinking? Then why am I bothering to open my mouth?
Magic? Why, none whatever. You write; I read, I get your ideas -- and thus, I see into your soul. Your ideas are exactly what you're thinking, no? While you're bothering to open your mouth, I'm bothering to look inside. And I've probably got twenty or thirty years of life's experiences on you, which does rather help to clarify the view.
Yes, I know what you're thinking.
I read your posts.And to be clear, I remember reading an article, and seeing a documentary on PBS (maybe it was Frontline?) or somewhere back in the late 90s/early 2000s, where Clinton had said he was frustrated with Israel because they were the ones who were being unreasonable when he was trying to broker peace between them.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2004/0621/world/kfojmhmhidey/
Bill Clinton held Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat responsible for the collapse of Middle East peace efforts, and told him so, the former president said in an interview published ahead of his new book’s release.
Clinton said that as he was preparing to leave the White House, Arafat thanked him for his work and called him a great man.
"I replied: 'I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one,'" Clinton said.
He said then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was ready to make major concessions for peace in 2000 but Arafat was not able to "make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman … he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes".
Magic? Why, none whatever. You write; I read, I get your ideas -- and thus, I see into your soul.
You are the debbil
(runs and hides)
Can't hide from me! (runs after Classic)
ok, now the mental image I have is of classic running around the couch being followed by UG in chainmail carrying a horse whip. lol
Trust me, it's funny!
It also sounds like "shingshing shingshing shingshing shingshing!" Somewhere between pocket change and the rustling of leaves.
lol...thanks for that. The image is so much better now.
BTW, I think classic is getting tired. Keep running UG. :D
ok, now the mental image I have is of classic running around the couch being followed by UG in chainmail carrying a horse whip. lol
Trust me, it's funny!
Don't forget the bagpipe. :cool:
Bruce! You're killing me!!! A girl can only take so much you know. lol
:lol2: ok, now it's just too funny.
THAT'S ENOUGH!!!
IMO, the Palestinian people are the pawn. Their fate is in their own hands.
A quote from Golda Meir says it all for me:
[INDENT]“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.[/INDENT]
Well said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barak-shares-blame-for-camp-david-failure-says-clinton-aide-678667.html
Writing in the New York Review of Books, Robert Malley, who was Mr Clinton's special adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs, claims that Mr Barak failed to honour previous Israeli agreements – assurances which Mr Clinton had been personally guaranteed to Mr Arafat. Mr Barak, the author writes, failed to fulfil promises to withdraw from three villages around Jerusalem and to release Palestinian prisoners – provoking an angry confrontation with Mr Clinton...
...In reality, Palestinian officials and American sources – the latter wisely avoiding Israeli condemnation by talking anonymously – have pointed out that the figure of 96 per cent represented the percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate – not 96 per cent of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem – illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War – the huge belt of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.
Along with the obligation to lease back settlements – built illegally under international law on Arab land – to Israel for 25 years, the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46 per cent – a far cry from the 96 per cent touted after Camp David.
http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2001-07/18/article18.shtml
WASHINGTON, July 18 (IslamOnline) - In a new revelation that disputes a widely held U.S. view that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat caused the breakdown of U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace talks last year, a report in The Washington Post said that former President Bill Clinton was in fact exasperated at former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's strategy during the talks.
Though President Clinton publicly blamed the Palestinians for the failure of the Camp David peace summit last July, privately he became exasperated with Barak's negotiating tactics, according to a key White House adviser, The Washington Post said.
The paper also said that at the close of Camp David, a frustrated Clinton blamed Arafat for missing a chance for a "historic deal", thus breaking a pledge to the Palestinian leader that he would not be faulted if the summit failed. it is manifest that statelessness is a very dangerous condition to be in in Europe.
Anyone read "Bury Me Standing" by Isabel Fontescu?
The Roma are stateless, and atrocities against them are legalized and encouraged across most (if not all) European countries, from Germany to Russia.
They have been compared to Jews before Israel.
I'd heard of this, which is why I spoke of statelessness.
Don't forget the bagpipe. :cool:
Don't forget playing Monty Python's
The Lumberjack Song on the bagpipes. It does fit. :eyebrow: It will have to wait, though, until I've finished chasing Classic around the sofa. Puff puff puff.
Then we can refresh ourselves with the haggis and the whisky and the bashed neeps. Sort of a post-Burns Night supper.
I never realised you were so into role playing UG. lol
There's a turn up for the books. ;)
It will have to wait, though, until I've finished chasing Classic around the sofa. Puff puff puff.
OK, you are creeping me out now - A LOT!
Whaddaya mean, creeping? I'm running! Aren't you running...? :p
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3669623,00.html
Amnesty International on Tuesday accused Hamas of waging a campaign to kill or maim scores of Palestinian opponents in the Gaza Strip since the end of December.
The human rights group said in a report that at least two dozen men have been shot dead by gunmen from the Palestinian militia that governs the Gaza Strip since December 27.
"Scores of others have been shot in the legs, knee-capped or inflicted with other injuries intended to cause severe disability, subjected to severe beatings ... or otherwise tortured or ill-treated," it added.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee
It's Bush's fault :eyebrow:
Actually, for once it isn't. :haha:
Actually, for once it isn't. :haha:
Ok it's Gore's fault.... wait, wait... no I mean Obama.:o
Amnesty International on Tuesday accused Hamas of waging a campaign to kill or maim scores of Palestinian opponents in the Gaza Strip since the end of December.
The human rights group said in a report that at least two dozen men have been shot dead by gunmen from the Palestinian militia that governs the Gaza Strip since December 27.
"Scores of others have been shot in the legs, knee-capped or inflicted with other injuries intended to cause severe disability, subjected to severe beatings ... or otherwise tortured or ill-treated," it added.
Wouldn't it be great if the people rose up against their corrupt and abusive leadership and chose a government that didn't use them to fund a long bloody war and subject them to abject poverty?
Too bad the Palestinians won't do it either.
