israel / hamasFollow

Sure, but at least I'm capable of having a mature conversation.

At most.

And yet amazingly enough, they still manage to find places from which to fire rockets. The land invasion occurred one week after the initial air strikes began and was a surprise to absolutely no one. You act like Gaza City was surrounded overnight and nobody knew it was coming.

And if we're talking about Gaza as a whole here, it's more like

WWWWWIIIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWGIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWGIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWGIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWGIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWIIIIIIIIIII

Maybe they should build more boats.

Edited, Jan 5th 2009 5:30pm by BrownDuck

Maybe they should build more boats.

The ports have been blockaded for years, simpleton.

It's all about the Castilian wedge baby.

And Galicia has 1st dibs on Tras os Montes and Alentejo

At the risk of responding to something posted (gasp!) yesterday:



It's applicable in all Democracies. That's the whole point. The whole nation acts based on the majority position (however that's determined procedurally). The whole nation is therefore responsible for the choices made by that majority. The responsibility of the citizens to make good choices is part and parcel of the entire concept. You can't have responsibility if you don't also have consequences if you get it wrong.


Or are you suggesting that I may choose to deduct from my income taxes the portion that's being taken to pay for things I don't agree with? Someone in the military may just choose not to fight because congress voted to go to war? I'm free to smoke anywhere I want because I didn't vote for the anti-smoking laws?


We're all held to the decisions the majority make. I'm not specifically saying your wrong, just that this is a ****-poor argument to use IMO.




Children always suffer for the decisions made by their parents. Always have. Likely always will. This is another non-starter IMO.


And Israel wants to *win*. What's amusing is you talk about whether Israel wants "peace". But if there's one thing history has shown is that no amount of negotiating and making deals has or likely ever will result in peace for Israel. It will either result in continuous conflict, or the destruction of the state of Israel. That's it. To understand their position, you first must understand that fact.

Israel really has two options:

1. Keep playing whack-a-mole forever, hoping that someday the opinions of those in the regions surrounding them will change. I think we can all agree that this is unlikely.

2. Use their military and just take out every single Palestinian territory. Wipe out the leaders. Expel the citizens, and fill those territories with friendly Jewish families. They'll hate them, but they'll be farther away in Jordan, Syria, and/or Egypt.


They'd love to do option 2. Heck. They're working to try to manipulate things so that they can do that. But the international worldview of the situation doesn't allow them to do this, so they end up stuck doing number 1.


It's interesting that the issue of WW2 and bombings in Dresden and Nagasaki/Hiroshima came up. Israel is basically facing a situation just like that. But the world opinion doesn't view it that way (or doesn't want to). If Israel were able to just conduct a single military operation and accomplish goal number 2, it would be painful, but it would be over. It's the insistence that they not do this by the world community that forces this conflict to continue on and on. And yes. I get the legal and political reasons for this. I'm not arguing about what is "right" from an international relations point of view. I'm talking about what would result in the least number of people getting killed over the long term that doesn't result in Israel's destruction (since this is from Israel's point of view, right?).


Obviously, the Palestinian view is similar, but opposite. I just point this out because it seems like many people approach this issue by assuming that the one course that would resolve this (in either direction) shouldn't be taken. So Palestine can't wipe out Israel, and Israel isn't allowed to wipe out Palestine. The result is eternal conflict. I'm not sure when that got redefined as "peace", but that's what you're really supporting if you keep trying to keep them separate and support the cease fire of the moment. If you truly care about total number of casualties and "innocent children", you'd realize that mathematically, the best course is to just stand aside and let Israel steamroll over the Palestinian territories and expel everyone they don't want. There'd be a lot of death and a lot of displaced people, but in a generation or three there will be a lot less violence in that region.

No 3rd option then gbaji?

Like. . . y'know. . . using neutral intermediaries to broker a cease-fire, then diplomacy to marginalise the terrorists by giving the populace concessions that make them more likely to shun the bombers and gunmen?

I know it worked in Ulster & Cyprus, and is making a massive difference in Northern Spain & Italy.

But you may be right. When Israel has USA's unconditional support no matter how genocidic its over-reaction, why would it bother?

Ummm reports all week are that more Aid is getting in via the Israeli military direction than was getting through under the aid agencies.

Just Sayin'

So 3 Israeli artillery missiles have hit a United Nations School killing over 30 refugees sheltering there

UNRA has said that:
a) They had supplied Israel with GPRS Co-ords of their civilian shelters (including the school)
b) This is the 3rd UN School hit by Israeli armaments
c) The school was full of refugees who went there on the advice of advance warnings from Israel
d) Israel had agreed (2006) NOT to attack any UN refuges as the collateral damage would outweigh any miltary validity
e) Israel maintain that the school 'must have' been a Hamas base used for mortar launches despite denials from the UN and a lack of any corroboration from their own miltary.

For shame.

Isn't it possible to condemn Hamas AND this butchery?

I so wish I could hear that from the Capitol

That's option 1. What do you think they've been doing for 50+ years? It's the "neutral intermediaries" who've mucked up the whole thing in the first place.



The differences between those situations and that between Israel and the Palestinians are massive. Every attempt at cease-fires and negotiations have resulted in more armed and aggressive Palestinian attackers, not fewer. Every effort to moderate their leadership has resulted in spin off groups breaking off from the moderates, becoming even more violent and radical, and ultimately taking greater control.

That's not to say that Israel can't try those methods. However, when you've got a group like Hamas running things in Gaza, the solution is to defeat Hamas militarily just as you would any other aggressive enemy regime. And yes. Just as with every other time in history when this sort of thing has occurred, civilians will get hurt and killed. We didn't not attack German cities because not all Germans hated us. We didn't not attack Italian cities because not all Italians hated us. And we didn't not attack Japan because not all Japanese hated us. The unfortunate fact is that their leaders choose a path that lead to war. Just as Hamas has done...

Just because Nexa is leaving you to go to France is no reason for you to join Hamas.

Yup

I had you more as a "Fatteh-Nouveau" Ramallah apparatchik.

SHows what I know