Israel vs. Hamas

Remove all ads!

NOG, war is BAD, and it's evil, regardless of all your phony justifications about territory, in that Hitler was not evil because he simply invaded his neighbors. You know why? Because people die in them, a lot of people who could not care less about the ranting of some delusional leaders. I thought you had all this supposed respect for LIFE? I guess not. Sorry my mistake.

The Count's point is that you should never underestimate the desire of a people to be free of oppressors. It's not really about territory.

 

So there's racist, violent xenophobic idiots fighting racist, violent xenophobic idiots.

One side has numbers and one side has better equipment.

Frankly, I think we should just paint the area pink, declare it SEP and reply to anything leaking out with absurdly out of proportion force.

 

I notice this thread seems to be very passionate, mayhaps this isnt a debate, more a moral rant for some people.

 

More like people are quite sick and tired of the entire mess and all the morons perpetuating it. This tiny piece of not very valuable real estate is by far the singlest biggest reason for strife and suffering on our world. It is the root cause of a large chunk of the world's conflicts. Oh, and religion is at the bottom of it all, there now I got that in as well. The holy land, phaw, a butcher's yard is more like it. Should just flatten Jerusalem once and for all, if there is anywhere in the world which would be improved by being turned into a glass crater it is that city.

 

... and obviously some 'violent xenophobic idiots' who just enjoy hijacking a topic to insult its discussing people...

So you want to ridicule people to whom this topic matters and who are therefore willing to dicuss their point of views?

You don't even attempt to prove your argument.
So this small place is the biggest reason for the general suffering on our world...yeah, sure...
Really, this sentence of you sounds pretty stupid without any attempt to prove your point.

It doesn't help this discussion by calling for such inhuman demands.
Either your thinking is this cruel or you just want to provoke others, and I believe it is the latter.
I am not against hot tempered discussions as long as there is some reasoning behind it, but just postulating trivial provocations doesn't really help.

 

No, you are stupid Hannibal!







(Sorry, couldn't resist replying to the above poster on the same level.)
[Come now, you know better than to make a post like that. - BTA]

 

Chandos, we already know you and I disagree on wars. I believe that some of them can serve good purposes. They can prevent more death and suffering than they cause. They can improve the lives of many (in the long run). This won't happen with Hamas, though. I think we can all say at this point that Hamas can't win. All they can do is get themselves killed and cause more hate. Maybe if they cause enough hate they can start another war that will eliminate Israel, though I don't think that will reduce the suffering in the area one bit.

I understand Joacqin's post. The level of frustration that this conflict arouses for those of us not involved is enough to make one just want to wipe the area clean and be done with it. I'm not advocating this, by the way. It's just a frustration and anger response. That wouldn't end anything, really.

 

Freedom is almost always worth fighting for, and I'm not saying that there are not times that one has to fight for what he/she believes to be right. Nevertheless, we are speaking two different issues here. Your statement seems to imply that wars can be fought for conquest and expansion and those are good purposes, which is the opposite of those who believe that freedom is the final justification for the use of violence. By their nature, wars of conquest are a denial of the principles of freedom.

 

Actually hannibal, i don't think joacqin is that cruel or trying to provoke others.
He, just is like a lot(not all by any sense) of atheists in that he sees religion(all religions) as a curse upon humanity. Now i don't agree with this statement, however OTOH, a large amount of the suffering in the world is "justified" by the attacker under the guise of religion.
Again, this is just a smokescreen, as the real reasons are usually sheer pettiness, greed or just ingrained habit(palestanians hate israelis because they are brought up to hate them, certain arabic nations teach their children that the west is evil & wants to destroy their country & way of life, some groups in the US raise their kids to judge people by the color of their skin, you get the idea).

Yes, joacqin(as have many others here, myself included) has had a tendency to post what can be read as inflammatory(or a down right insult) occasionally.
That, actually should be expected when he discribes himself as a "confused jerk" in his avatar/name area

@chandos, your last post was excellent, the best description of war i have ever heard(& agree with 100%) is :
War is an abomination yet it is preferable to subjugation

 

NOG,
I have been lurking on your posts here for a while and find that you're remarkably lopsided, and remarkably ill- or uninformed on top of that. In particular it is your notion that Israelis were given the holy Land by God, and that all Palestinian claims are subsequent and thus irrelevant. That is a singularly outlandish and non-constructive notion. With that sort of argument Germany could justify fighting Russia and Poland all over again over Silesia, East and Western Prussia and Pomeria, or France over Alsace. But wait, that land wasn't given to Germany in the bible, which presumably makes a world of a difference.

Just before Christmas the ceasefire, that Hamas honoured, ran out, and Israel was unwilling to give Hamas anything. There was no deal in sight, and to ask Hamas for any concessions in face of this means asking them to surrender themselves and their people's interests. Such things don't happen.

You, quite reflexively, appear to know who's culpable - and that is the Palestinians which means that anything and everything the Israelis do is self defence or pre-emption or extended self-defence and thus just and good. What about settler provocations? What about the settler's land grabs? What about the wall? What about living conditions that Israel imposes on Palestinians? You don't bother informing yourself on those I presume. It's all justified, because the Palestinians, all of them, brought it on themselves? Because of the terror committed in their name? Or maybe because they obstruct the will of God, who after all gave the land to King David? That said, The Lord gave a lot more land to King David than Israel consists of today. Is the existence of Jordan, or Egyptian dominion over the Sinai thus irrelevant, too? Mind you, that are countries that Israel is at peace with. If you follow that argument consequently, in face of the will of the Lord there is no place for peace until His will is fulfilled.

I presume you did not notice the settler provocations that took place in late November and early December, which did a lot to fan Palestinian anger? The settlers movement is politically close to Netanyahu. If you ask those right wing settlers, the earlier Israel goes to war with Palestinians the better, and they are perfectly capable to start first skirmishes on their own. Asked whether they think Palestinians ought to live in the place there were born into they say no, they have to go away, to Jordan, to Egypt or to Lebanon or whatnot. They don't care. For them, Israel is for Jews only.

Realistically, to expect Hamas make concessions in such a context is to blame them for not bending over and asking for more. I also don't know from where you take your mistaken assumption that the Palestinians want war and the Israelis want peace. There are strong political incentives for war in Palestine for Palestinian, Israel and American politicians. Hamas knows that without costing Israel they will get nothing as Israel can rather conveniently, at little human cost to themselves, continue the blockade and escalate it into what we see right now. Their superiority makes them unwilling to make any concessions. The logic of that suggests the continuation of retaliatory missile strikes and perhaps suicide bombings in Israel, and further escalations from the Israeli side (mainly, bombing the rubble to rubble), until for both sides the price tag has become too high - but there won't be a decisive result from this. Fatah is for everything that hurts Hamas and tries to draw outsiders in because they themselves are too corrupt and inept and correspondingly weak to come to power on their own. What do you know about Elliot Abrams activities vis a vis Fatah? Anything? The Israelis have their incentive to go to war. Netanyahu is certainly welcoming this, he's a hawk and toughness is his political image. The settlers are jubilant, except that it's not enough. And then, the Palestinians are not one monolithic group. Israel itself isn't monolithic either. Questions of war or peace in the region are far more contested in Israel itself than in the US. Which suggests strongly that, judging by their political views, the 'Israel lobby' (AIPAC, JINSA and more recently the AEI) that quite successfully shapes public opinion in the US today not so much represents Israel but rather Israel's right wing, Likud, and as such the political views of one political party in Israel. To the Olmert's and the US interest in that I come below.

And then, I don't see Israel winning. They run down their aerial target list and hit mostly civilian infrastructure and make life miserable for every Palestinian (read: collective punishment). Now what about Hamas fighters? Hamas has grass roots support and leadership succession. Killing Hamas leadership will hurt and obstruct Hamas but not destroy them. I also don't see a true Israeli ground offensive coming, as that might call up Hezbollah on the plan in the north. Israeli mobilisations are IMO primarily posing. Probably there will be some armoured probes, but no all out invasion. The Israelis are quite happy to no longer have to occupy the territories with their own troops. Hamas has dug in, and as the Lebanon conflict of 2006 has shown, determined fighters with a plan and balls can exact a prohibitive price from Israel for any Israeli ground offensive. The Israeli public and soldiers will ask for what they fight. Palestinians (and by extension Hezbollah) don't have such doubts. If they had any, the regular bombings by Israel taught them that nobody is going to fight for them but they themselves. It was the Israelis who invented the armed drone for assassinations from the air ('occupation from the air').

IMO the current hostilities have quite a lot to do with pre-emptively destroying all incoming Obama peace plans for the region before they manifest, namely talks between Israel and the Palestinians and talks between the US and Iran, the two pillars of Obama's middle East policy (not uncontested even in Obama's own team). It is quite telling that in face of that, Olmert and Bush 'are on the same page'. I heard Israel's ambassador to the US just a few days ago blaming Iran for everything. Of course! It has a lot to do with binding Obama into the current policy, and with helping Netanyahu getting elected, and allowing defeat- and scandal-ridden lame duck Olmert a 'graceful' that is, 'heritageous' exit. I presume full Whitehouse support for that, after all the current violence and dysfunction is merely a continuation of Bush's general approach to the Middle East, and as such a vindication. I think the relevant people in the Bush administration believe they are right as strongly as they're wrong. The obvious political advantage at home: When Obama is bound into Bush policies that means Bush can point to Obama and say that he was right all along, after all his successor didn't do anything different.

 

Hey ragusa, where have you been hiding?
On Topic:
OK, first on the issue of the rights of the "palestinians" to the land(from wiki)

As you see even the other arab countrys never thought of palestine as a seperate country until the jews got involved.

Also the definition of palestinian refugees differs from ALL other refugee descriptions in that it counts all children(& their grandchildren) born to male palestinians as palestinian refugees no matter where they are born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
Notice that even the UN doesn't give the women any rights.( back to the kitchen woman!! oh thats just so wrong)
Know this is a blatant bias as no other group that has been born in another country & had children & grandchildren in another country has been allowed to do this.
An example, if you(ragusa) moved to ireland & had kids there who had kids there(all in ireland) & lived their entire life there, they would have no right to claim to be german citizens know would they?
Almost half of Jordans population is so-called "palestinians" & until his death king Hussien considered the west bank part of jordan, not palestinian property(not sure how abdullah feels yet)

I agree with your assessment of Fatah but i'm not sure about your assessment of the situation as to trying to limit Pres-Elect Obama however i may be wrong.

 

Many good points mentioned already.

Isreali and Palastinian civilians shouldn't be killed and some area should be set aside where they can go to in order to sit out the fight (and that neither side will either launch strikes on nor attack out of).

Perhaps the only other thing I can add is that there are elements within Isreal and Hamas that want war (they may not like it when I friend gets killed or hurt, but they want more fighting).

 

Christmas and New Year's land, and then Mass Effect land, Fallout 3 land and have for a week or so resisted an inner urge to reply on NOG's posts in favour of far more pleasant and interesting things.

Well, they live(d) there.

As a matter of fact they do, and as EU citizens they are even allowed to vote in local elections (~ city level) if they have their permanent residence there. Unlike in Israel, your Irish would be allowed to buy land in Germany.

It doesn't matter if they didn't have a historical identity in 1918. The last 60 years have given them one. That shouldn't surprise Americans, after all the 'melting pot' formed and still routinely forms new identities. Naturalised American citizens, take on an American identity and identify as Americans, by choice. In case of the Palestinians the last 60 years of struggle have defined their identity, not so much by choice but rather because of the lack thereof. The result is the same. They are Palestinians now. That is just reality, and I see it generally as beneficial to deal with the things as they are.

You are. I think you err.

 

Hamas now*plans major suicide attacks inside Israel. The group actually warned Muslims who are foreign citizens to leave Israel immediately: http://samsonblinded.org/news/hamas-warned-muslims-to-flee-israel-5473

 

Just the standart propaganda stuff.
That is not the first time they give that threat (and eventually will carry them out) nor will it be the last time, imho.

edit: spelling

 

I'm sorry, where did I say this? I don't think I ever actually said this. I think you're making up BS to attack me on. What I said is that conquests have happened on both sides and Hamas has no claim to 'justice' here. They're attempting a war of conquest just like what they condemn Israel for. On that note, I also don't believe that wars of conquest are inherently good or bad. It all depends on the situation.

No, they don't, though I'm not sure what all they asked for. As I've said before, many of the demands I've heard from them are entirely unreasonable in a practical sense. One thing to remember, though, is that trust is the basis for negotiations, and it isn't going to be built quickly. Hamas could cease fire entirely for six months and, while it would help, I still wouldn't trust them with free movement throughout Israel.

I've never said anything like that. I've said some things that they have done have been justifiable, under the circumstances, like building a wall to keep suicide bombers out of Israel, like bombing the buildings that have just been used to launch rockets into Israel. They aren't good by any means, but they are justifiable. Things like settler provocation and the living conditions aren't, and I'm not going to defend them. I'm also not getting into the origins of this conflict at all. It's complex, ancient, and everybody's been in the wrong at some point or another, most of them recently.

And people like that are as bad as Hamas.

Once again, you read heavily into my posts. I was talking about a way to achieve peace, if and only if both sides want it. That requires the assumption (for that discussion) that all sides want it. Yes, Hamas isn't the entire Palestinian people, nor is the Israeli government a single entity. The reality, though, is that Hamas has tactics they can use other than killing civilians. They have other ways to move against Israel. Israel doesn't really have that many.

I realize that Israel probably won't take the territory, ever. This is the very reason that bombings and missile attacks are the only reasonable response to Hamas's rocket attacks. They can't really put troops on the ground. The fact of the matter, though, is that Israel has the capability to utterly destroy Hamas (and everyone else in the area) if they choose to. Hamas can't do that to Israel. Hamas can't make any military moves that will really hurt Israel.

Ah, I was wondering when you'd get around to blaming this all on Bush. I had forgotten that Bush started the whole Israel-Hamas conflict with his 'general approach to the Middle East'. Get real, Ragusa.

You seem to have imbued me with all the positions you are most antithetical to, and then proceeded to attack them. You're wrong on about 90% of it, though. I'm not trying to say any particular group is in the right, or that X person started it. I base my only judgments (and they are few and far between) on this: Hamas has intentionally targeted purely civilian instillations, while Israel targets Hamas agents inside civilian populations. Now I'm not talking about the settlers here, and I'm not talking about the living conditions, or any of about a hundred other issues here that put Israelis in a bad position. The major movements of the Israeli government are understandable, though. Hamas's are less so.

So, wait, let me get this straight. They don't get a national identity until they loose their land and live in other nations? Did I get that right?

 

Anyone else get the feeling that Obama will not be happy with this protest sign?

 

NOG,
your sudden relativism puzzles me. Millennia and history don't matter any more because all conquest is relative, and depends 'on the situation'? So you're a relativist now? Quite the philosopher. What is 'It all depends on the situation' supposed to mean? If it's your team, it's ok, if it's the others it isn't? You certainly are less circumspect when judging political demands, where you come to a conclusion that Hamas' demands are unreasonable whereas Israel's are not, or about means of combat, where you state that Hamas' violence is indiscriminately targeted at civilians whereas Israel's is not. If you want to be relativist, you need to apply it consistently to be convincing. What it suggests to me is that you are defensive because you don't buy your own argument. Well, I don't either. I think you make it up as you go along, and do it poorly.

And I don't think I'm reading heavily into your posts. You write clear enough. I don't need to make up stuff to say you have a pro Israeli bias. It permeates passages like this:

This one here I found particularly telling in it's cheerful indifference.

The utility of protecting your troops is no justification for collective punishment, just as utility is not an excuse for torture. That would be moral relativism. Do you, as a relativist, argue that a suicide bomber is a poor man's armed drone, or armoured bulldozer for that, and that thus a bus bombing and an air strike are indifferent and the targets interchangeable. Do you think that? Or does that, too, depend 'on the situation'?

Every judgement is only as good as the information it is based on. Have you considered that you came to your judgements on how Hamas demands are not rational and practical based on your pretty complete ignorance of or indifference to either Arab and Muslim culture and history? Or by simply being incurious and gullible? I am quite tempted to presume that. In fact, that's pretty much the most annoying trait in your posts.

And as for Hamas wanting conquest, didn't you just say on a millennium scale all conquest is relative? How intellectually convenient. As a relativist, do you care? And conquest of what, of Gaza? That would be a start, because they're, you know, occupied, as in 'under israeli military occupation', or 'walled in and controlled by the Israeli military'. Their practical chances of ever putting into reality the frequently invoked spectre of the destruction of the state of Israel are zero, and they know it. They have to say it for ideological, theological consistency. To take them at their word means ignoring or not realising that.
Where we return to the issue of cluelessness. Do you even know why Hamas only wants a ceasefire and not peace and refuses an unequivocal recognition of Israel? Did you ever think about that? It is not because they are crazy or evil. And they do take their theology serious. It is because it is theologically impossible for them to accept that. The Israelis fully know that. To see the Israelis (and Americans) making such demands anyway, shows they are not seriously negotiating. A ceasefire is the best offer Israel will get from Hamas, and why not, historically such truces, or hudna, renewed numerous times, have held over centuries. Well, with the full and unlimited US backing Israel is in a comfortable enough position to refuse such truces.

I think that describes both the current Whitehouse's and the Israeli view on the matter.

As for US involvement, you again don't surprise me by showing your lack of knowledge. So what about Elliot Abrams? He is the Bush administration's point man on Palestine at the National Security Council. He was called by Jimmy Carter "a very militant supporter of Israel". In practice that militancy looks like this: After Hamas election victory, he was the guy who organised, with Saudi money, arms support and US training for Fatah, in hope of instigating an intra-Palestinian civil war. That was a hard pill even for Israelis to swallow - Abrams out hawks even battle hardened Israeli generals - and they advised against it. Not that they minded Palestinian infighting - they were concerned it would backfire. With the weight of the Whitehouse Abrams proceeded anyway. The critics were right. Hamas very successfully pre-empted Fatah in what amounted to a counter-coup, leaving Abrams efforts in tatters, and some of the the US supplied arms falling into Hamas' hands. It confirmed Hamas' leadership in the occupied territories.

And curious enough - what about Condi's recent statement? This morning she announced that no cease fire at Gaza would be "acceptable" to the US unless it results in a basic change in the situation with regard to Hamas' firing into Israel. Say what? "Acceptable" to whom? The US? That does mean that the US are a party to that war. That's apparently what Olmert calls to be 'on the same page'. I don't go out on a limp to assume that Whitehouse support for Israel is to serve political ends.

Finally, my point on national identities being formed is easy enough understood by re-reading my post. You should try that.

 

I'm not relativist, I'm rationalist. I didn't say the millenia and history don't matter, just that the situation isn't new and they're repeating what was done to them. As for 'depening on the situation', Hitler's conquest was evil, because he did it specifically to hurt people as the end result. The 'conquest' of Germany in WWII wasn't evil as it was done to protect people. At least the people under Western rule were treated well. Do you see the difference? What I said was that conquest isn't what determines if it is good or evil, other things do.

Israel letting a bunch of terrorists (with others mixed in) bent on the total destruction of Israel run free across their territories is unreasonable. If you disagree with that, you're a loon. Hamas no longer firing rockets into elementary schools filled with children isn't. If you disagree with that, you're a loon. Yes, there is a lot of grey zone in between, there are things Israel can do and things Hamas can't reasonably do, but those are much smaller things in the total picture.

Aha, I think I see your mistake. You are reading your own emotions on the topic into my posts. I assure you it isn't there. When I am emotional about killing, it is my emotion, and it is not cheerful. What I think confuses you is that, when I'm talking about practicality and rational approaches and what who can claim and what who can do, I'm not writing with any emotion at all. I'm analyzing the situation and disecting it, without feeling anything for any side. As for my 'pro-Israel' bais, did you notice when I laid out a plan for Hamas to potentially achieve many if not all of it's goals, quite possibly even with an eventual armed conflict with Israel that they would win (didn't get into that part, but it's reasonably feasible)? That's not much of a 'pro-Israel' bais, is it?

So you think Israel should, what, send a surgical ground team in to get slaughtered and achieve nothing? Let the rockets come and kill them without deterant action? Even today, the idea of 0 civilian casualties, especially in a civilian area, during a war is a pipe dream. I'm glad to hear you buy into it. As for my position on suicide bombers, yes actually. And if the drone is used to strafe a market place filled with shoppers, or the cruise missle is targeted at a school full of children, then the person behind it is a terrorist. If the suicide bomber (mentally able volunteer) targets military outposts and positions, like the Kamekaze pilots of WWII Japan did, then he/she is a soldier and has acted as such. You call that relativism, I call it a different definition. It isn't tactics that define a terrorist, it is targets.

Then correct me. If firing rockets into apartment buildings is some bizzare Arab greeting ritual, tell me so. I have based my analysis so far on a logical disection of the situation, one which tells me letting terrorists run free in your nation is national suicide, while staging non-violent resistance is guaranteed to develop international support.

No, that's what you read into my post. How intellectually convenient.

They have to say it to garner the support they want to garner. As long as they want to fill their ranks with suicide bombers and the like, yes, they have to claim this. In other words, they have chosen this tactic and are acting appropriately.

Oh, yes, because the Hundas so far have worked so well for them. Now, could you define what 'that' is that Hamas's theology demands that leads them to armed conflicts?

I'm not saying the US hasn't stirred the pot, but you said that Bush was responsable for all the current violence. That's ridiculous. The current violence has been going on for decades and I don't think Bush's absence would have allowed it all to disappear.

If both sides recognize the US as a party to the peace negotiations (a mediator or such), then the US has every right to claim such.

I did. It didn't help any. Did I get it right, or am I missing something? Seriously, please explain that as I would like to understand what you meant.