snowychap Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Fortunately the Israeli's ... will do whatever they need to do to ensure the protection of their citizens, for which I applaud them. Just to clarify, is this carte blanche applause for whatever action Israel takes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Just to clarify, is this carte blanche applause for whatever action Israel takes? No, but when their cities, towns and villages are being bombarded (as they were before the latest Israeli action) then I think slating them for responding in defence of their civilians is preposterous. Given some of the other comments here suggesting that genocide against them would be a good thing, one might appreciate why the Israeli's are less prepared to take shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 No, but when their cities, towns and villages are being bombarded (as they were before the latest Israeli action) then I think slating them for responding in defence of their civilians is preposterous. So the no is about action(s) that may be taken in the future which may cross a line? Anything and all that they have done so far (which does include killing civilians - just like the other side) is applauded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I do find it strange how so many take such an anti-Israeli stance when in reality it's a two-sided conflict with neither side smelling of roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Both sides are Guilty here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smetrov Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I do find it strange how so many take such an anti-Israeli stance when in reality it's a two-sided conflict with neither side smelling of roses. Because Israel is a western backed state - built on the palestine peoples land. (Historically) - However the palestines missed a trick in the early 90's when a deal giving them 80% of what they wanted, was on the table - they didn't take it. Now the very just cause (imo) of the palestine people has been hijacked by people who just want the outright destruction of Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 So the no is about action(s) that may be taken in the future which may cross a line? No democratic state can tolerate its citizenry being bombarded by a neighbour. I applaud the Israeli's for not sitting back and letting that happen by taking the action necessary to reduce that threat. There is no panacea to the problem because Hamas will never make peace, but in the mean time proportionate action to protect their people is fair and I won't condemn it. During Cast Lead a few years ago I was condemning the use of WP shells by the Israeli's because it was a) not proportionate, and illegal. Should they walk into Gaza this time and start executing civilians then clearly no one in their right mind could support that action. Anything and all that they have done so far (which does include killing civilians - just like the other side) is applauded? It is unfortunate that civilian casualties are occurring in Gaza but when the alternative is doing nothing I don't see what choice the Israeli's have. Smetrov, You talk about the "Palestinian People's land" without acknowledging that the Jews have been there since the time of Moses. Strange how the Muslim invasion and occupation of the Holy Land is completely ignored and they are seen as the rightful residents. It smacks more than a little of taking a selective view of the region's history to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 16, 2012 I'd like to know what % of the Israeli population "have been there since the time of Moses", as opposed to being European Jews who survived the Holocaust (or, worse, Americans). Those people were still Europeans, and whilst I can understand them wanting to get out of Europe under the circumstances, they had no more "right" to set up a state there than British people claiming Norman or Viking descent would have to taking land in France or Denmark. Judaism is a religion, with adherents from many countries. A Christian American is an American, a Hindu Indian is an Indian. A Jewish Pole is a Pole - not a Palestinian. However, it happened, and there is no turning the clock back. People should get over the whole cultural/religious nonsense and just live there, instead of arguing over who "owns" it. They all do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I'm off to claim Ethiopia, my ancestors were there first. (although didn't i read a while ago some remains where found in Israel that pre-dated the Ethiopian fossils?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 16, 2012 Yes the claim to the land on the basis of the Jews having been there 'since Moses' is not one I'd stake my life on... It's not a particularly good/relevant justification. My surname is Old English, and has it's basis in Worcestershire, I'm off to stake a claim for the rightful home of my ancestors. And once I've got some poor sod's farm, I'll have some of Schleswig. I also don't think anyone is particularly in favour of Hamas (beyond some Muslim nutters). What people do tend to be in favour of, though, is the man on the Gazan street - your average Palestinian, who inside a couple of generations has been squeezed to the periphery and spend their days being treated like shit, then been put to the sword by a state of the art military force. Hamas are rocket polishers. That they have gained any form of authority in Palestine is terrible. Israel's military and it's politicians in power are also rocket polishers. They just happen to be rocket polishers that, on the world stage, commit atrocities with gay abandon - a nation that simply does not give a ****. They're indefensible - they do not attack Hamas, they attack a population, many of whom are innocents. And they continually squeeze that population, when they're not killing them. It's understandable that people don't like that. EDIT - It's worth noting that the modern Israeli state in part at the very least, owes it's existance to terrorism. Whilst under British control, Palestine had small cadres of the Jewish population running round bombing things. Apparently it helps you get your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Thumbs up again, Mike. Couldn't have said it better myself. You talk about the "Palestinian People's land" without acknowledging that the Jews have been there since the time of Moses. Strange how the Muslim invasion and occupation of the Holy Land is completely ignored and they are seen as the rightful residents. It smacks more than a little of taking a selective view of the region's history to me. The fact is that there is no objective evidence of the superiority or veracity of any religion over others. Therefore, there is no objective basis for acknowledging the territorial claims of the Jewish religion over those of Islam, and vice versa - there are no "rightful" residents, if one uses religion to back up his claims to land. As for the "I was here first" argument, CED said it best - not to mention that most of the Jews left before the Muslim conquests, so what gives them the right to suddenly annex land that was already supporting people? (FWIW, I think the two-state solution is the closest we can get to fairness) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 The Zionists in Israel are at the very least as bad as the likes of Hamas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (although didn't i read a while ago some remains where found in Israel that pre-dated the Ethiopian fossils?) OT but Malapa Cave (in South Africa) seems to be the current leader , with 1.98m years ago ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 No democratic state can tolerate its citizenry being bombarded by a neighbour. In the case of tolerating any aggressive acts by a neighbour, I'm not really sure what democracy has to do with it. I applaud the Israeli's for not sitting back and letting that happen by taking the action necessary to reduce that threat. Are they reducing the threat? They may be reducing immediate capability but what they are doing to the threat overall is anyone's guess. There is no panacea to the problem because Hamas will never make peace, but in the mean time proportionate action to protect their people is fair and I won't condemn it. And it then becomes a subjective view about what you, personally, think is appropriate (and proportionate and so on). It is unfortunate that civilian casualties are occurring in Gaza but when the alternative is doing nothing I don't see what choice the Israeli's have. This with the preceding quote is the difficulty. Actions are proportionate up until the point at which they become disproportionate for each observer or participant; they are unfortunate for one observer and unnaceptable for another; firing rockets in to cities is seen as justifiable by the side doing it and a war crime by those on the receiving end; retaliating with apparent surgical strikes is seen as the necessary response by a side claiming to defend itself and more murderous retaliation by those claiming to be oppressed. In the end, neither side cares anything for who they kill as long as they think that it means one less of them may end up dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 There is a pretty good video here about the origins of the problem and why it is such a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 As for Israel status as bastards of the world, if it's not enough that they believe they can use assassination with impunity, and believe that using a **** missile is the best way to do it in the middle of one of the most overcrowded civilian populations in the world, they've also shot taxi drivers they suspect of being a danger while they had passengers in their vehicle. They don't care about civilian casualities (I would argue they actively want them). They bombed a building containing an Hamas leader, with a 1 tonne munition, successfully killing the man but also killing 16 others, including 11 children, and injuring another 140. Because the building was an apartment building. Of course they actively want them. Besides a bit of political embarrassment, which they clearly dont give a **** about, it is to their advantage that civilians die in this. The whole affair is a vicious circle, but the killing civilians as an almost perfect little microcosm of it. Israel want to encroach on Gaza, so they keep building settlements closer and closer to the border (how many UN resolutions have there been about this exactly?) so the Palestinians will fire rockets into these areas in the hope that it puts Israeli's off of living in these settlements and pushes the border back out from Gaza City, in turn Israel drop bombs on the areas rockets are being fired from probably in the hope that alongside killing the **** out of people who are firing rockets, there is enough social pressure put on them by the survivors who are sick of living with a huge target painted on them that they will force the Palestinian militia to give up. They wont of course, and it will just continue until everybody is dead or somebody runs out of ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 In the end, neither side cares anything for who they kill as long as they think that it means one less of them may end up dead. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." - Golda Meir I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I feel confident that if team A could just kill a few more of team B and create a bit more fear and a few more orphans and a bit more economic misery the situation will be resolved. murderous fucktards on both sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 16, 2012 Of course they actively want them. Besides a bit of political embarrassment, which they clearly dont give a **** about, it is to their advantage that civilians die in this. The whole affair is a vicious circle, but the killing civilians as an almost perfect little microcosm of it. Israel want to encroach on Gaza, so they keep building settlements closer and closer to the border (how many UN resolutions have there been about this exactly?) so the Palestinians will fire rockets into these areas in the hope that it puts Israeli's off of living in these settlements and pushes the border back out from Gaza City, in turn Israel drop bombs on the areas rockets are being fired from probably in the hope that alongside killing the **** out of people who are firing rockets, there is enough social pressure put on them by the survivors who are sick of living with a huge target painted on them that they will force the Palestinian militia to give up. They wont of course, and it will just continue until everybody is dead or somebody runs out of ammo. Yes Rev, I agree. My dissertation was about this subject, analysing whether you can describe Israeli actions as state terrorism, so I've looked at a lot of action in the conflict, particularly since the al Aqsa Intifada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Of course they actively want them. Besides a bit of political embarrassment, which they clearly dont give a **** about, it is to their advantage that civilians die in this. The whole affair is a vicious circle, but the killing civilians as an almost perfect little microcosm of it. Israel want to encroach on Gaza, so they keep building settlements closer and closer to the border (how many UN resolutions have there been about this exactly?) so the Palestinians will fire rockets into these areas in the hope that it puts Israeli's off of living in these settlements and pushes the border back out from Gaza City, in turn Israel drop bombs on the areas rockets are being fired from probably in the hope that alongside killing the **** out of people who are firing rockets, there is enough social pressure put on them by the survivors who are sick of living with a huge target painted on them that they will force the Palestinian militia to give up. They wont of course, and it will just continue until everybody is dead or somebody runs out of ammo. No offence but this stuff about there being UN resolutions against Israel building in their own territory is utter nonsense. I don't know if you've been to Israel but the place is about the size of a postage stamp in international terms. Have a look at this to give you some idea of scale: Where exactly do you want them to live in their own country (so as not to offend anyone)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts