Israel vs. Hamas

Remove all ads!

Shoshino, no but you are saying that Israel isolating, walling in, humiliating, bombing, bulldozing, assassinating and so forth are perfectly accetable as it is all to defend themselves.

 

First off, The American Revolution was not an attempt at Genocide, but an attempt to gain freedom. Secondly, I don't remember the English having a high percentage of their forces in the Colonies. Third, Brittain didn't enjoy much foreign support during the war. The Americans were more than happy to end the war when they got independance.

In Israel, The vast majority of their forces are at home. There are some leaders in Israel's Islamic neighbours that want Israel eliminated. They consider the mere existance of Israel to be an abomination. Thirdly, how many countries stuck the Jewish survivors of WWII there so they could have their own home land without giving up anything important to them?

So you would support the indiscriminant killing of millions of people because you hate their religious beliefs and traditions? How is this better than what you rail against?

But is there a point where the price of freedom is a war of conquest? I'm thinking that this might be the case here. If Israel must live under constant threat of rocket attacks, and the only remaining solution is to invade the attacking country and either conquer it or at least destroy their military and current regime, at what point is that the lesser evil?

---------- Added 0 hours, 38 minutes and 17 seconds later... ----------

I freely admit that the Israelis were given the land by the European powers that had just won WWII, and they didn't take the desires of the Palestinians into account. Unlike Zionists, who believe that to be God's will, I view the Book of Revelation to be God showing John what would happen in the last days, not expressing his desires for that time.

TGS: You're right, he can't be thrilled with that...

Could Israel be getting it from both sides? After WWII, they were stuffed into the only part of the Middle East that doesn't have oil under it, and now they have neighbours that don't want them there...

Victim maybe. But I have trouble seeing anyone as a good guy in this case. I once had work power washing a pig barn. During each shift, I found myself getting covered in ****. Even though I showered upon entrance and exit, it was still over a week to get rid of the smell. I see this happening to Israel here. After WWII, they were thrust into their situation, and the resentment and hatreds have infected them, until they have two choices--become worse then the enemy or be destroyed. I still view Israel as the lesser evil in this situation, and hold out hope that they would be able to live in peace if the conflict were to end, but it will not be an easy process.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 13 seconds later... ----------

To continue the analogy of the pig barn for a moment, Joacqin and Ragusa are quick to call Israel on the things they do that are wrong, just as someone would point out the smell that lingered after working in a pig barn. But it does not help the matter when the cause cannot be undone.

 

I think everyone is in agreement on that one. I don't understand what genocide has to do with your point.

As to your second point, King George felt that the colonies had no chance against one of the superpowers of his day, England. So at first, he did not take them as seriously as he should have (that might sound familiar). Neverthelss, he had a fairly large army stationed on Staten Island (about 23,000 troops). The British standing army of the day was usually somewhere between 35,000 to 40,000 troops, but was increased during wartime. I'm not positive but I believe Howe was reinforced with some 10,000 troops which were supposed to invade from Canada. That one was mostly captured at Saratoga. That's a fairly large army for the times.

And your last point: A portion of King George's army fighting in the colonies was foreign, mostly hired guns. So it depends on what you mean by "foreign support."

 

You could move away the people first before you nuke the place and even and despite me not being completely serious in that suggestion I still wonder if nuking the place wouldnt save more lives in the long run than it would take.

As for your last point Gnarff I have adressed it previously in this thread but I can do it again. Israel is a democracy, they have a centralized command structure meaning they actually have some kind of control of their armed forces. The Palestinians don't, when all things are said and done it is a collection of desperate, extremely angry individuals loosely organised in political parties but no real unity or control exists (much due the work of Israel) meaning it is really hard for anyone to promise anything and keep it from their side.

To put it simply Israel has the ability and oppurtunity to take the moral highground but choose not to. Even if a group of Palestinians chose to take the moral highground and I am sure plenty have tried all it takes is for one angry young man to lob a rocket into Israel or possibly just a big rock for the retribution to be indiscriminate.

 

60+ years ago. Anyway, if you take a look at what land they were meant to get, according to the UN resolutions at the time (not to mention the British plans for the country), you'll see it's ever so slightly different from the current situation.

That's my feelings on the situation, entirely. If you look at the Palestinian leadership, even that is in splinters after the death of Yasser Arafat (who had officially recongised the state of Israel - a big step forwards, something that the current Hamas refuse to do). Unless I am mistaken(I'm no expert on the situation) there is currently a large powerplay between the executive - controlled by Fatah - and the legislative - controlled by Hamas.

It's also interesting to note that Fatah is, according to wikipedia, not currently considered a terrorist group by any big player in international politics, whereas Hamas certainly is.

 

Have I? Ive simply said that it is rediculus to believe that if you push someone they wont push back harder, I at no level believe that it is acceptable I simply have the ability to argue both sides of an argument.

For those debating the history of the area, this is a link to Wikipedias version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Jewish_History_in_Israel

History of Palestine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

 

I don't and never will understand Hamas and the Palestinians.

From the AP

Now everyone knows that the reason Israel has gone to war is because of rocket attacks. So what do these geniuses do, they continue to fire rockets into Israel.

Peace in the middle east will not be possible until the Palestinians give up their violent and idiotic ways.

 

It sounded highly emotional to me. Of course, forums are notorious for misunderstandings on things like emotion, satire, etc.

Joacqin, this is why we say you are pro-hamas: you take the slightest hint that there may be reasons Israel is doing any of what it is doing, or even a suggestion that the solution lies more with Hamas than Israel, and expand it to a carte-blanc approval of everything Israel has done in your mind. You have made wild accusations of people approving assassinations and the like when no one has said anything even close to that. You do nothing like that for Hamas. This shows a clear position of either pro-Hamas or anti-Israel. Both could have the same effect in this discussion. The reality is that just about everyone here has condemned Israel for some of it's tactics, and I think everyone has said they aren't helping the situation any.

 

well NOG, some people feel that by expressing their outrage on a public forum them are helping to fight the situation

and I agree with you, I am annoyed at these obviously pro-Hamas people who think they are making an argument by accusing anyone who doesnt agree with them of being pro-Israel

 

Both sides are guilty of vicious, violent, reprehensible actions. Both sides probably also see what they do as necessary for survival. But I want to look at this quote here:

I heard a Canadian muslim scholar talking about how the neighbouring Islamic nations could be doing a LOT more to help the Palestinians out in terms of food, water, fuel, sanitary supplies, etc. But they don't. They leave their own brethren hanging out to dry so they can vilify Israel more easily. THAT's pathetic and cowardly to boot.

Now perhaps the fellow I was listening to has some sort of axe to grind. But he's a practicing Muslim who loves his religion. It's hard for me to label him a Zionist whackjob with a pedigree like that.

My perspective (fed by the Western media, though) has always been that the Israelis have made several overtures of peace and reason (including the unilateral conciliation of some territories, IIRC) that have been totally ignored by the Palestinians. I am not sure, realistically, what Israel is supposed to do in response. I mean, striking back in some form is warranted, but is wiping out a whole village the best way to go? No matter what they do some people are going to say that they had no right to do ANYTHING in response to the attack, while others will say they should have used nukes instead.

The only option I see as working is a neutral third party forming an impermeable buffer between the two groups, but it's pretty crowded there and impermeable buffers are hard to come by.

 

Actually ragusa their belief in a rewarding after life & allah protecting them has caused more of them to be killed than anything else. It was only when they started to emulate the way that Israelis(& americans) fight, by utilising cover & body armor, that they even started to inflict casualties at more than a 100-1 loss to themselves.

A small history lesson, most islamics adopt a "spray & pray" philosophy when it comes to shooting the AK-47(standard terrorist rifle).
Spray & Pray - hold the weapon at about waistlevel, usuall canted to the right, & hold down the trigger to fire off an entire clip in the general direction of your enemy while praying that allah will guide your rounds to their targets.

This caused a fairly major complaint when the war in iraq started as there were so many headshots on islamic terrorists that some people thought that the americans were gathering up people & assassinating them at close-range.
It was proven that it was just the superior training & shooting style of the U.S troops that was allowing them to pop the enemies as they stood in the open shouting & shooting from the hip.
Buncha dumb@sses, shoot & move not shoot & standup to see if you hit anything.

Now it does help them to recruit suicide bombers as they are dumb enough to think blowing up innocent people will get them a pass to heaven(dumb@sses)

 

Isn't that what Hamas wants? Israel destroyed completely?

I don't think that Israel is that complacent...

The support of foreign powers themselves. If I remember correctly, France started helping the Americans in 1781. While Hamas might enjoy some support from their Islamic neighbours, if any of them actually try to interfere on their behalf, what percentage of the Western world would be in there to save Israel?

Funny thing about people--they don't like getting blown up. If the Rocket attacks start up, they want the Army to deal with it.

Once again, the Moral High ground makes them easier to target with rocket attacks...

 

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UN_warns_of_humanitarian_crisis_in_Gaza

I would be interested to know estimated deaths on the other side, if anyone knows where the figures can be found.

 

Actually, one of the main compaints from the US is that Hamas enjoys a great deal of support from Iran and Syria.

For you to comment that France helped America during the Revolution, would be the same as saying that US supports Israel. That's fairly obvious to everyone, so what's your point?

My point about King George III was that, much like you, he underestimated the desire of people to be free, and that a "small group of radicals," as he referred to them, could never stand up to the military force of a major superpower. They did, and they won.

Now, without derailing this topic any further, we can argue that without the help of France, would the Revolution have succeeded. That's another discussion we could have on another thread.

I also wanted to add that I could just as well argue that Israel is close to committing "genocide" and that it's leaders should be charged with war crimes, IF the situation gets worse for civilians. So you can quit the dramatics.

 

Why don't the Islamic countries supporting Hamas militarily try supporting the entire Palestinians with humanitarian aid? Or perhaps invite them to enter their territories and live peacefully there as immigrants? That's the real question, IMHO. I agree that the present Israeli approach is pretty brtual, but to blame the Israelis unilaterally for the plight of the Palestinians is unfair in the extreme. Countries like Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc could do a LOT more to aid the everyday Palestinian. Hamas hides behind civilians, which is about as cowardly as you can get. Palestinians could do a lot more to help themselves besides giving aid, comfort, and sometimes membership to Hamas.

 

I'm going to guess it is because they have no interest in doing so.

 

My understanding is that Hamas is the democratically elected party in power. I could be wrong, but I thought they were elected.

 

I thought Hamas fought its way to power? They dislodged Fatah through sheer force, not a vote. I could be wrong but I'm sure that's what I saw on the news at the time.

 

Hmm, Hamas may well be a legitimate legal / political entity in the sense that they were elected by the people. If that is the case, then that does lend them some legitimacy. However, the rocket attacks into Israel and persistent avowal that they will not recognize Israel's right to exist undermines the hell out of any legitiimacy otherwise gained. Also, I am not sure if the reports that they use / used strong arm tactics on the Palestinians to achieve power are true or not but it wouldn't surprise me.

Exactly. They are using the Palestinians as their proxy whipping boy in their never ending crusade / jihad to undermine Israel and the western interests it represents / is proxy for.

 

:edit: This wiki document on Hamas is kinda all over the place. I was correct in my initial statement.