Israel in the Gaza Strip

[rowie]

What if evil is at the root of most human beings?

Why does it have to be goodness?

Kenna, I have in the past considered that evil is at the root of most human beings but based on my experiences I feel that on the whole humans feel alot better about themselves when they carry out acts of goodness. I have associated myself on more than 1 occassion in the past with what we would consider bad people who have carried out acts of goodness and found a whole lot more fulifillment from it. So I feel it is in fact at the core of all humans, but many cant find it or get lost in theyre own egos etc. But really this is a debate for a whole new thread, but I get what your saying.

 

[slim pickins]

One or a few of them together could.

Unfortunately you leave out Israel's allies who must be considered as part of their defence....

well yes. i guess so. i have just included those with enough nuclear material to create a few nukes. i mean even without any scientists kazakhstan has had enough nuke tests (maybe a thousand or something) that it should be glowing from radiation. all they have to do is bomb someone with the contaminated dirt and its game over.
even if usa was to retaliate against kazakhstan it would kill the 5 milion russians that live there and then usa is toast from russia.

turkey, in its 1000 year history, has never been conquered by anyone. its army has never capitulated. (in fact when it controlled the middle east the palestinians and jews got along quite well.)

iran is debatable. but there is lots we dont know yet.

pakistan is armed and ready to fire off in a minutes notice. but yes it is succeptible to a counterattack by israeli allies.

but as you have said, its implausible that these coutnries would ever fight, and turkey and kazakhstan are evry close allies to israel anyway. and rightly so.

i am just trying to debunk the other posters comment comment about the islamic world failing to destroy israel. which is just worng and inaccurate in so may ways.

in fact israel has many friends in the islamic world.

 

[chops_a_must]

If you insist on players a numbers game UB, you will have to factor out the number of children that would not have been killed had Hamas not deliberately shielded themselves from attack with children.

But you ought to be able to see why such arguments are ultimately futile and deliberately provocative. They certainly come nowhere towards proving one side more evil than the other*. It isn't that kind of war.

* other arguments might, but not the dead kids one

Like has been discussed earlier in this thread, it is almost impossible to leave Gaza. So the human shield argument is one of the most nonsensical I can think of in these circumstances.

A more simple formulation for a basis of sympathy: If you had a kid, on purely safety reasons, would you prefer him or her to live in Gaza or Israel? Why one or the other?

 

[gordon2007]

If you had a kid, on purely safety reasons, would you prefer him or her to live in Gaza or Israel? Why one or the other?

Thats a fair question chops. I can understand your concerns. It's pretty fair to say people living in gaza are doing it hard.

For me the argument is not really who is right or wrong in this war. Personally i think everyone is a loser in war. I think you agree to a point on that too.

My biggest peeve is the way UB just makes up information. For example he keeps saying 800 are killed in this round of the war, he posts a link to support his views, yet the very link he posts has nothing to do with his facts and numbers.

then when he does respond, he doesn't respond with new facts or data, just with some bizarre responses that have no bearing and make no sense.

 

[lucas]

Well, we should begin by differentiating between a "human shield" tactic and a government shielding itself from attack by installing its offices, bomb-making factories etc. deliberately amidst civilians. But let's take your argument seriously. If it is impossible not to do so (which I doubt, but for argument's sake will assume), isn't that all the more reason to take a different tack to that which Hamas has taken?

I think it is somewhat simplistic to argue that Palestinians cannot - just simply cannot - take better care of their children when they deliberately bait an "oppressor" - not necessarily my word but it's been used often enough to warrant consideration.

At what point does responsibility for one's own kind come into play? I don't side with Israel incidentally, but logic will inform anyone that if you are seriously concerned for your welfare and the welfare of your children, you sign up to a peace process not antagonise the enemy.

 

[chops_a_must]

Thats a fair question chops. I can understand your concerns. It's pretty fair to say people living in gaza are doing it hard.

For me the argument is not really who is right or wrong in this war. Personally i think everyone is a loser in war. I think you agree to a point on that too.

I agree. There has been far too much blood spilt over this tiny bit of land. And any more fighting ensures more for the future.

Israel think they will win, by their measures; increasing territory, securing settlements, weakening Hamas. But they are losing massively internationally, and are only strengthening the resolve against them they are trying to eliminate.

My biggest peeve is the way UB just makes up information. For example he keeps saying 800 are killed in this round of the war, he posts a link to support his views, yet the very link he posts has nothing to do with his facts and numbers.

I would take the numbers from the NGOs in Gaza over Israeli figures any day of the week. And they aren't good if you want to defend Israel. All that they are needed for is to demonstrate the complete over reaction, and disproportionate response to the threat they face.


The only way Israel can win is if they restore some humanity to the areas they control, thereby reducing the animosity towards them.

 

[chops_a_must]

Well, we should begin by differentiating between a "human shield" tactic and a government shielding itself from attack by installing its offices, bomb-making factories etc. deliberately amidst civilians. But let's take your argument seriously. If it is impossible not to do so (which I doubt, but for argument's sake will assume), isn't that all the more reason to take a different tack to that which Hamas has taken?

Mate. Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. What do you want them to do?

But hey, Swanbourne barracks is in Perth. I reckon that's a human shield tactic.

It was indeed the same rhetoric we heard from Israel when they were attacking Fatah on the West Bank as well. At some point you have to call BS, and question it.

I think it is somewhat simplistic to argue that Palestinians cannot - just simply cannot - take better care of their children when they deliberately bait an "oppressor" - not necessarily my word but it's been used often enough to warrant consideration.

What do you honestly expect them to do? THEY CANNOT LEAVE! That is a point that I don't think anyone gets. Israel closed their airport, has closed all their borders, has crippled their economy, long before Hamas was in power. So what do you HONESTLY expect them to do?

At what point does responsibility for one's own kind come into play? I don't side with Israel incidentally, but logic will inform anyone that if you are seriously concerned for your welfare and the welfare of your children, you sign up to a peace process not antagonise the enemy.

You obviously don't read what I say in this thread. Israel is in violation of every agreement it has signed up to over the last few years. It has done nothing to step the aggression. Hence the rise of Hamas, as more peaceful initiatives did absolutely nothing.

 

[lucas]

What do you want them to do?

I would like them next time they are at Camp David or its equivalent, to say YES to the peace process, and by so doing start to enlist the sympathy of more reasonable human beings. Then we can get tough with Israel with right on our i.e. peaceniks' side for once. But it is impossible to side with a people who take up armed struggle in preference to peace.

 

[chops_a_must]

I would like them next time they are at Camp David or its equivalent, to say YES to the peace process, and by so doing start to enlist the sympathy of more reasonable human beings. Then we can get tough with Israel with right on our i.e. peaceniks' side for once. But it is impossible to side with a people who take up armed struggle in preference to peace.

Ah yeah.

"The first step on the road map was the appointment of the first-ever Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen,) by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The United States and Israel demanded that Arafat be neutralized or sidelined in the road map process, claiming that he had not done enough to stop Palestinian attacks against Israelis while in charge. The United States refused to release the road map until a Palestinian Prime Minister was in place. Abbas was appointed on March 19, 2003, clearing the way for the release of the road map's details on April 30, 2003.

On May 12, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected Israel's main road map requirement, a settlement freeze, as "impossible" due to the need for settlers to build new houses and start families. Ariel Sharon asked then US Secretary of State Colin Powell "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?".[2]"

 

[lucas]

Arafat failed to sign. Practically everyone in the world gave up listening after that.

If they want the world to get tough with the likes of Sharon et al, they will enlist our sympathy. That did not and is not happening.

 

[chops_a_must]

Arafat failed to sign. Practically everyone in the world gave up listening after that.

If they want the world to get tough with the likes of Sharon et al, they will enlist our sympathy. That did not and is not happening.

No. You are completely and utterly wrong.

Arafat had little to do with the 2003 process. What you are referring to is the 2000 Camp David Summit.

The only step Arafat had to take in 2003 was to implement the structure for democracy and appointment of a prime minister that could then be dealt with by Israel and other international bodies. That happened.

 

[lucas]

I think you have just argued my case for me.

 

[chops_a_must]

I think you have just argued my case for me.

How?

The Palestinians did what was required of them.

As that quote above shows, Israel did not.

Kind of damming that Abbas was appointed on request by Israel, because they could deal with him, yet not prepared to listen or implement any necessary steps proposed by him.

 

[lucas]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

My point is not to claim this as truth, but to proffer (again) the point of view that trying to pull everyone over to one side of the issue and one side alone - regardless of the strength of some of those arguments - is to inevitably drag out the conflict for ever more.

This is folly.

 

[chops_a_must]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

My point is not to claim this as truth, but to proffer (again) the point of view that trying to pull everyone over to one side of the issue and one side alone - regardless of the strength of some of those arguments - is to inevitably drag out the conflict for ever more.

This is folly.

Come on mate. You can do better than to reference The Jerusalem Post.

The real problem with the peace process was the assassination of Rabin, and with it the real death of the Oslo accords, as the Israeli right have had control ever since.

I have no doubt we would not be having this discussion had that not happened.

 

[lucas]

I'm not trying to do better, I'm making a point about bias.

But let's end this by agreeing on your last point. Well made.

 

[Go Nuke]

Unfortunately I think the killing of people in Gaza is going to acheive nothing but breed hatred in people towards Israel.

I'm not sure when this long standing conflict will end.
Even if the Palastinian were ever squashed, it would just force the die hards underground.

"War is not about who is right....but who is left"

 

[gordon2007]

I have no doubt we would not be having this discussion had that not happened.

Sure, it's easy to say that because you cannot change history. You cannot possible be 100% sure of that.

You may wish and feel strongly of something, but you cannot go back into history and say if abc did or didn't happen then xyz would not of happened.

If you were driving down the road and turned one way, and got into an accident, you can't say for sure you would not have gotten into an accident if you had chosen a different road.

You're passionate on this subject chops, and that is a good thing. But there is a fine line between being passionate and blindly obtuse.

 

[roland]

Rather than get in amongst the debate on who's right or wrong, I'm having trouble understanding something.

If you were a parent, and your city was under attack with bombs, missiles, tank mortars, armed soldiers shooting at stuff - would you be sending your kids out to school?

Knowing that Hamas are drawing fire onto sensitive targets with firing missiles from school grounds etc, wouldn't you be doing something a little different in protecting your loved ones?

 

[slim pickins]

Rather than get in amongst the debate on who's right or wrong, I'm having trouble understanding something.

If you were a parent, and your city was under attack with bombs, missiles, tank mortars, armed soldiers shooting at stuff - would you be sending your kids out to school?

Knowing that Hamas are drawing fire onto sensitive targets with firing missiles from school grounds etc, wouldn't you be doing something a little different in protecting your loved ones?

Amazing point. Just goes to show the blatant disregard for human life by the Palestinians. You have to blame their leaders for that.

We need sensible palestinian leaders who will say we are beat, let's make the best peace we can. Hey at least they are offering us peace.

So what if you lose some land. Austria lost 80% of it's land after ww1. I bet every Palestinian would love to live in Austria. Are austrians doing that badly?

Look at england, it lost an empire that spanned the world. It now occupies a little rock in the north Atlantic that it has to share with Scotland and wales. Are the English doing so badly.

Make peace!