Adventure Game Studio

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza

Okay seriously, what the fuck is going on here?

A bomb is a bomb is a bomb...to argue that this bomb crosses a line, is a fairly moot point. As far as civilian casualties...while it is indeed sad, the heart of the problem is the fact that the other guys like to hide their weapons in hospitals and schools. I'm not condoning the use of white phosphorous, but I don't condone throwing insults at one another either. What this article might be leaving out, is that Israel has been warning civilians before they bomb a building. This could be a case where they didn't, I don't know. Frankly, the other team tends to like getting in the way of bombs to collect their virgins, and ensuring that Israel constantly has bad PR.

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 16/01/2009 21:40:27
Frankly, the other team tends to like getting in the way of bombs to collect their virgins, and ensuring that Israel constantly has bad PR.

Yes, of course this is nothing to do with Israel's own actions. They'd have deliberately missed their targets if only those darn Palestinians didn't keep throwing themselves in front of the missles and bullets at the last millisecond.

I think Israel is consciously seeing how far it can cross the line, without causing an international incident. First the airstrikes, then the ground offensive, then the accidental bombing of civilian targets, then the UN, and now this.

Of course, if Hamas wasn't firing rockets into Israel in the first place...

Regardless, I think the Israeli government/military isn't totally adverse to the "accidental" destruction of Palestine, piece by piece.

And I think it's a shitty situation either way.

Can someone explain to me why this is happening? Obviously I know the basics but I feel like I must be missing out on some vital piece of information, because I don't understand what Israel are doing right now, with phosphorus bombs and what, 1000 civilian deaths or something? What's the point in this exactly?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are huge evils on the other side too... neither side is perfect in this... it just seems that what Israel is doing right now is a little uh... extreme and I'm not sure why they're doing it. So maybe I have missed a piece of information somewhere whilst I've had my head down in all this jobseeking business.

White phosphorus bombs are fucking cruel and I believe banned by the UN. They are surely also an impossible weapon to "control" in the same way as a gun. I mean, you can shoot someone fairly accurately with a gun, but a white phosphorus bomb:

Quote
Severe respiratory problems can result in anyone exposed to the smoke and burning chemical particles that rain down over an area the size of a football pitch.

They can also burn the skin to the bone....

Interested in hearing viewpoints from people of either side...

I understand that they're still firing rockets into Israel? Is this true? WTF is going on?!?

Quote
Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are huge evils on the other side too... neither side is perfect in this... it just seems that what Israel is doing right now is a little uh... extreme and I'm not sure why they're doing it.

But the terror bombing of Germany in response to their V2 rocket attacks of London and other cities wasn't extreme, right?

Quote
I don't understand what Israel are doing right now, with phosphorus bombs and what, 1000 civilian deaths or something? What's the point in this exactly?

According to the article you linked to they are not using the kinds of weapons that are banned.  The article says that they are using a phosphorous rounds as target markers and not as incendiary bombs, which is apparently what is banned by the UN.  Hamas purposefully launch attacks from private homes and heavily populated areas so as to maximize civillian casulties when Israel is finally proved to respond. 

QuoteYes, of course this is nothing to do with Israel's own actions. They'd have deliberately missed their targets if only those darn Palestinians didn't keep throwing themselves in front of the missles and bullets at the last millisecond.

I'm sorry, but if I was given a warning that 24 hours from now my building was going to be bombed. I think I'd be somewhat responsible for my death if I decided to stay. I'm not saying Israel is innocent, and that there aren't other options, but there is no amount of diplomacy that is going to fix some of these groups. And if we really want to talk about awful things, how about the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed MUCH more than a mere 1,000 civilians.

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: RickJ on Fri 16/01/2009 22:43:42
According to the article you linked to they are not using the kinds of weapons that are banned.  The article says that they are using a phosphorous rounds as target markers and not as incendiary bombs, which is apparently what is banned by the UN.  

What makes me laugh is that some guys in suits sit there and decided which bombs are the good bombs and which bombs are the bad bombs.

Heck, even Hitler had his boundaries.  He didn't allow the use of chemical bombs after having experienced mustard gas as a soldier during WW1.

No, he just ordered millions of jews marched into ovens and exposed to lethal gas and all sorts of chemicals to see how they would react. 

There's always a lot of talk from the "Israel can do no wrong"-crowd about the moral difference between the Israeli military, which insists it is trying to minimize civilian casualties, and Hamas, which launches attacks against civilians and uses women and children as human shields.

That's all well and good, but at some point you have to consider what the parties are actually achieving, not just what they're trying to do.

All the rockets launched from Gaza into Israel in 2008, all those attacks aimed at civilians, caused only 8 deaths (there was a seize fire in effect through much of the year, with a large drop in the number of attacks). In the current war, 13 Israelis, 3 of them civilians, have been killed.

In the same war, an estimated 1132 Palestinians have been killed, so far. More than half (about 700 according to Palestinian human rights groups) were civilians.

These numbers are shocking, but they are not surprising. Hamas knows how rarely their rockets actually manage to kill anyone, and the Israeli army are fully aware of the number of innocents they are going to kill in trying to strike back at the terrorists.

In some moral calculus, killing a hundred of "their" civilians for every victim on your own side is apparently proportional; balanced; just. Or maybe if someone does something bad against you, you have the right to use unrestrained force, do whatever it takes to get back at him, no matter who else gets hurt.

Quote from: Stupot on Fri 16/01/2009 23:05:50

Quote from: RickJ on Fri 16/01/2009 22:43:42
According to the article you linked to they are not using the kinds of weapons that are banned.  The article says that they are using a phosphorous rounds as target markers and not as incendiary bombs, which is apparently what is banned by the UN.  

What makes me laugh is that some guys in suits sit there and decided which bombs are the good bombs and which bombs are the bad bombs.

I don't think there are good and bad, but some are definitely worse. Some are just crap war weapons, but some are fucking intentionally the cruellest possible thing you could design.

Quote from: Quintaros

Heck, even Hitler had his boundaries.  He didn't allow the use of chemical bombs after having experienced mustard gas as a soldier during WW1.

I've never heard this before, have you got a link where I could read more? Hitler fascinates me. He was such an evil guy (obviously), but then he seemed to have loads of randomly 'soft spots'... like being vegetarian because he loved animals...? He'd kill millions of Jews, but wouldn't use chemical bombs for ethical reasons? Makes me wonder whether, if he hadn't been so hideously misled, he could have had potential to be a great and worthy leader instead of just... Hitler.

Would love to be able to explore his mind, psychonauts style...

I agree with you, Snarky, and I think Israel has enough power that it should be brokering peace rather than elevating hostilities between itself and its neighbors.  As a nation they seem all too eager to return hostility rather than seek peaceful resolutions, and as long as even one country has that mindset the middle east will never know peace.  I'm not saying Israel is the problem, but their actions are part of the problem.

Therefore, can Israel and Palestine co-exist? Israel seems to hold Palestine as the threat, rather than Hamas. :-\

Of course, that brings us dangerously close to accusations of genocide.

The truth is there is no peace, and there will not be peace. Not when  you have groups, like Hamas, whose ultimate goal is to eliminate Israel. Don't pretend Israel has never tried diplomacy. What diplomacy will work against groups like that?

It's not Israel who is constructing weapons manufacturing plants within the heart of civilians. If anyone is to be blamed for this, it's Hamas. It's not like Hamas doesn't know that if they launch a missile from a school, that there won't be repercussions. They want Israel to kill civilians. They want you to feel sorry for those people, and get angry at Israel.

They use the same tricks over and over and over again. Frankly, I'm sick of it. It sucks that civilians have to be put in harms way. But I think Hamas is 100% responsible for all civilian deaths caused by Israel bombing their military installations. I don't think Israel can do no wrong...but I don' think Hamas has done a single bit of good.

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: Meowster on Sat 17/01/2009 00:34:38

Quote from: Quintaros

Heck, even Hitler had his boundaries.  He didn't allow the use of chemical bombs after having experienced mustard gas as a soldier during WW1.

I've never heard this before, have you got a link where I could read more? Hitler fascinates me. He was such an evil guy (obviously), but then he seemed to have loads of randomly 'soft spots'... like being vegetarian because he loved animals...? He'd kill millions of Jews, but wouldn't use chemical bombs for ethical reasons? Makes me wonder whether, if he hadn't been so hideously misled, he could have had potential to be a great and worthy leader instead of just... Hitler.

Would love to be able to explore his mind, psychonauts style...

I'm glad you understood my intent. 

However, now I think the "fact" I presented might be a bit dubious.  While it is fact that he was exposed to gas in WW1 and they didn't use any in WW2, there isn't any documented evidence showing that it was his decision.  It may have been due to lack of resources to produce the gas at that time. 

There is something we must understand to go on with the discussion:

Israel CAN kill everybody in the Gaza strip. They just WANT to kill a portion (Hamas members).
Hamas (And Hamas is majority supported in the Gaza Strip) WANTS to kill everybody in Israel. They just CAN will a portion.

There are not "Good" or "bads". There is a side which is more effective than the other.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 17/01/2009 00:21:39
That's all well and good, but at some point you have to consider what the parties are actually achieving, not just what they're trying to do.

Precisely. We all know where good intentions are used as paving.

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing"

-Barack Hussein Obama.

But Nacho, if the Israels have killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, and Hamas has killed a handful of civilians in Israel, why are you using that quote to support Israel?

And no, it's not exactly the intentions that count, it's the actions. It would be a pretty darn strange world if you punished people for their thoughts and opinions and not their actions.

If someone throws a rock through your window, you don't bulldoze their house; and furthermore, if they hide in another house, you don't bulldoze that house too.

Truthfully, I'm completely appalled by some arguments used by Israel-supporters. "But we warn them before we bomb!" Wow, thank you, if only CIA had been warned before terrorists flew into the World Trade Center, it would have been all fine and dandy (oh wait, they were warned).

Lastly, Israel's attack is, as usual, counter-productive, since it will only increase the support for Hamas.

I can't understand why anybody does have to support one side or another (apart from those people who's business it it).  But as a normal citizen of this world, I'm neutral... They're all fucking idiots.  These are petty squabbles blown way out of proportion, over a mere peice of dirt.

I don't get it.

Why shoot rockets into Israel? Did REALLY any of Hamas/insurgents/whatevertheyrecalled think that it will do any good?
Yeah, someone feels oppressed, invaded, occupied. How could shooting border villages with rockets help? I find Hamas more responsible for civilian deaths than Israel. For stupidity. Although -- all sides in a war suck, and more powerful one should be also more reasonable one.

If I was leader/very influential person of occupied nation/group of civilians on the edge of genocide, responsibility for their lives and safety should be first thing in my mind, whatever else my political views might be. I wouldn't go and poke a sleeping bear with a stick! Exactly same can be used to being Israeli premier: Isn't Israel surrounded with hostile countries? Why provoke rest of the Middle East?

What if during Soviet Regime, some small country decided to stand near border and bombard Russia?
Or Mexico, over some issue, starts shooting US?

They would be minced, burned and buried instantly, whatever rest of the world would say.

Is it a hot sun or something that makes people go crazy over there?

Quote from: Andail on Sat 17/01/2009 12:25:13
But Nacho, if the Israels have killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, and Hamas has killed a handful of civilians in Israel, why are you using that quote to support Israel?

Hell, I wouldn't say that I support Israel, I just understand the damn people. If some guy with small growth and some malicious deformations decided to flick you in the balls with a fly-swatter, over and over again, would you let him? Although I never really fight and very rarely use force against anyone, I would probably get quite physical towards the guy if he didn't stop after asking/holding back etc.

I think both sides are dumbasses here, I just have more understanding for the Israeli goverment than the goddamn Hamas fuckers. Civillian losses are always horrible, but as many other people have said, Hamas are to blame for a whole lot of them.

QuoteIf someone throws a rock through your window, you don't bulldoze their house; and furthermore, if they hide in another house, you don't bulldoze that house too.

Do you really think this is an accurate analogy of what's going on in Israel. I sure as hell don't.

QuoteTruthfully, I'm completely appalled by some arguments used by Israel-supporters. "But we warn them before we bomb!" Wow, thank you, if only CIA had been warned before terrorists flew into the World Trade Center, it would have been all fine and dandy (oh wait, they were warned).

Truthfully, it offends me that you're appalled by this. Calling ahead and letting the civilians know, is definitely an indication that Israel wants to reduce the amount of civilians that are killed/injured. Many of these civilians choose to stay for martyrdom.

The CIA might have had information regarding 911, but it's not like the terrorist called them up, and told um. "Hey, we're going to destroy the your world trade center. You might want to let your employees take vacation time, or whatever..." No, because the terrorists didn't and don't value life the same way. They wanted as many innocent people killed, because to them, there are no civilians. Everyone of us is evil and needs to be destroyed.

When Hamas, or like minded terrorist organizations, kill, they don't give one iota that that person wasn't involved in the Israel government in any way. It's a victory! When Israel kills, they're aiming at military installations, not people. They're not cheering the fact that people died.

QuoteLastly, Israel's attack is, as usual, counter-productive, since it will only increase the support for Hamas.

Except, they've destroyed 30+ military strongholds in Gaza, and have been crippling Hamas. Will groups come back again? Yes. But most of the people who will support Hamas as a result of this, were probably supporting them already.

Now I don't pretend to be unbiased here. I'm Jewish and I went to Sunday school and have been taught Israel's history inside and out. I made my birth-right trip there 8 years ago. However, I do not necessarily think Israel should have been made into a Jewish state. It's not like we can pretend it was peaceful there before it was a state, though. It's been a bed of war and destruction for many years.

It's also not like the state doesn't want peace, though. But how can you maintain peace when groups only goal is your destruction. There is nothing you can give them. There is nothing you can say to them.

In these bombing you can evidently see that Israel values the lives and well being of their citizens. They're not willing to do more tactical missions that perhaps would save lives of the enemy, but extend their military and incur more of a loss from their side. Let's not pretend, though, that they just are bombing things left and right, without caring about civilian casualties. Yes, the casualties are uneven. But since when did having equal casualties make war and violence a just and right thing?

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: Nacho on Sat 17/01/2009 07:59:52
Israel CAN kill everybody in the Gaza strip. They just WANT to kill a portion (Hamas members).
Hamas (And Hamas is majority supported in the Gaza Strip) WANTS to kill everybody in Israel. They just CAN will a portion.

Actually, Hamas's stated goal is to destroy the state of Israel and drive the Jews away to somewhere else (probably Europe or the US). They don't say they want to kill them all. (I'm sure some Hamas members have said it, but it's not their official policy.)

Quote from: vict0r on Sat 17/01/2009 14:15:58
Hell, I wouldn't say that I support Israel, I just understand the damn people. If some guy with small growth and some malicious deformations decided to flick you in the balls with a fly-swatter, over and over again, would you let him? Although I never really fight and very rarely use force against anyone, I would probably get quite physical towards the guy if he didn't stop after asking/holding back etc.

So if you responded by beating him up so severely that he ended up in the hospital with serious injuries, that would be OK? (Not to forget that he started hassling you because you took his house and locked him in your yard, by the way.)

Quote from: InCreator on Sat 17/01/2009 13:50:51
I don't get it.

Why shoot rockets into Israel? Did REALLY any of Hamas/insurgents/whatevertheyrecalled think that it will do any good?
Yeah, someone feels oppressed, invaded, occupied. How could shooting border villages with rockets help? I find Hamas more responsible for civilian deaths than Israel. For stupidity.

Quote from: vict0r on Sat 17/01/2009 14:15:58
I think both sides are dumbasses here, I just have more understanding for the Israeli goverment than the goddamn Hamas fuckers. Civillian losses are always horrible, but as many other people have said, Hamas are to blame for a whole lot of them.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sat 17/01/2009 04:57:22
But I think Hamas is 100% responsible for all civilian deaths caused by Israel bombing their military installations.

I agree that Hamas shares responsibility for the civilian deaths in Gaza. They are clearly using a tactic to make it as difficult as possible for Israel to take out military targets without striking civilians.

You have to remember that Hamas and Gaza are in a desperate situation. Gaza has been almost completely blockaded by Israel (and Egypt), turning it into one big jail camp that often doesn't get water, food, electricity or fuel. Hamas is facing an enemy which is militarily far superior. I'm sure Hamas realizes that their strategy is going to involve massive suffering and deaths by their own civilian population, but they were already facing suffering, and any victory for them will inevitably be through huge sacrifice. (An outside observer would realize that victory through force is impossible, and negotiation the only possible path.)

Yes, we should condemn this. But given the treatment of the Palestinians, I think their rage, their reckless ruthlessness and their almost apocalyptic, masochistic self-destructiveness is understandable.

Quote from: Nacho on Sat 17/01/2009 09:39:56
"If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing"

Israel's attitude is understandable, just like the Palestinians'. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea (will ever lead to peace), or even morally justified. I think both sides regularly do evil--although Israel does it on a bigger scale. Therefore, the one-sided view taken by almost all American politicians, including Obama, is highly hypocritical.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sat 17/01/2009 04:57:22
I don't think Israel can do no wrong...but I don' think Hamas has done a single bit of good.

Actually, Hamas has for a long time provided schools, hospitals and other public services to people in the Palestinian territories, even before they took power in Gaza. Their popularity rests to a large extent on the fact that they were more effective than the Fatah-led government in providing such services and necessities.

In terms of the "peace process", they've consistently been an obstacle, definitely. Of all the parties, they are the furthest away from a reasonable compromise. (Though I have to say that when they were elected, Israel and the US should have accepted the will of the Palestinian people, and negotiated with them in good faith, without setting up preconditions like Hamas accepting the state of Israel: that should be one of the outcomes of negotiation, as it was with the PLO, not a prerequisite for talking.)

Quote from: Andail on Sat 17/01/2009 12:25:13
But Nacho, if the Israels have killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, and Hamas has killed a handful of civilians in Israel, why are you using that quote to support Israel?

And no, it's not exactly the intentions that count, it's the actions. It would be a pretty darn strange world if you punished people for their thoughts and opinions and not their actions.

If someone throws a rock through your window, you don't bulldoze their house; and furthermore, if they hide in another house, you don't bulldoze that house too.

Truthfully, I'm completely appalled by some arguments used by Israel-supporters. "But we warn them before we bomb!" Wow, thank you, if only CIA had been warned before terrorists flew into the World Trade Center, it would have been all fine and dandy (oh wait, they were warned).

Lastly, Israel's attack is, as usual, counter-productive, since it will only increase the support for Hamas.

I support Israel because I have more empathy with them than with the people in Gaza strip. ETA put a bomb one kilometer away from my home and they have killed two people in less than 20 kms. from my house.

One girl I knew was killed in the terrorists attacks in Madrid. I feel "similar" to the people who is getting attacked with Kassams. I could die by a terrorist attack.

I don' t feel I am in danger of being a collateral victim of a bomb thrown by a country in an attempt to deffend theirselves. I consider very unlikely that, let's say, France, kills me trying to kill a member of a terrorist group who attacks France with rockets. I find very unlikely that in Spain the political side of a terrorist group who deffends slaughtering France wins with 60% of the votes.

I am sorry. I tend to go with the sides I consider similar to mines.

Palestine people live in misery with bad social and health conditions. Only a few can reach knowledge as we understand as normal. The place is filthy and unhealthy. A few meters away you can find a totally different country, a rich and modern country.
How does the world look at this war? Well, except for some good natured people and the Church, nobody really cares. Why? Because it's too far away and those guys look so unfashionable that they're better off dead with bombs and heavy artillery over their houses.
------------------------------------------
Seriously guys, how can Israel continue to massacre innocent people when they have the means to stop it?
This so called terrorists are clearly being supported by some nation(s) and it's critical that we find out who.

Quote from: Nacho on Sat 17/01/2009 23:03:00

I support Israel because I have more empathy with them than with the people in Gaza strip. ETA put a bomb one kilometer away from my home and they have killed two people in less than 20 kms. from my house.

One girl I knew was killed in the terrorists attacks in Madrid. I feel "similar" to the people who is getting attacked with Kassams. I could die by a terrorist attack.

I don' t feel I am in danger of being a collateral victim of a bomb thrown by a country in an attempt to deffend theirselves. I consider very unlikely that, let's say, France, kills me trying to kill a member of a terrorist group who attacks France with rockets. I find very unlikely that in Spain the political side of a terrorist group who deffends slaughtering France wins with 60% of the votes.

I am sorry. I tend to go with the sides I consider similar to mines.

Do you know anything about the situation Palestines in Gaza find themselves in? How the area is effectively isolated by Israel, how they block resources, medicine and trade in general? It's not very far-fetched to say that it's the Palestines in Gaza who defend themselves against Israels.

I think you pretty much sign your own defeat in this debate when you say that you support Israel because you were in the proximity of an ETA-attack. It just shows that you don't think rationally. You hear the word "terrorist" and react impulsively. But two conflicts are never the same. There isn't a homogenous group of bad guys out there, everyone fight for their own reasons.

I'm quite surprised that some people, even though I know they are heavily biased, seem to hold the notion that Israel has thus far slept a peaceful slumber, only to be awakened by sporadic rockets from Gaza. Israel and Hamas/Palestine are both responsible for what's going on right now, the only difference is that Israel does far more damage.

Quote
But I think Hamas is 100% responsible for all civilian deaths caused by Israel bombing their military installations.

Come on, man, bias aside, this can't possibly be your opinion?

Edit: Oh and do read Snarky's post carefully, it contains facts and not just emotions.

QuoteGaza has been almost completely blockaded by Israel (and Egypt), turning it into one big jail camp that often doesn't get water, food, electricity or fuel.

I think that politics professors or whoever from this area of science (don't know how it's called) would say that in order to reduce aggressiveness, Quality of Life should be raised.

Sounds quite logical to me: The better people live, the more they value their life and peace. Maybe turning Gaza into a "jail camp" as you said wasn't that good idea. If civilian people of Gaza sector would live a better life, they wouldn't let insurgents/crazy radicals to ruin it neither, and maybe it would be talks and negotiations about the problem instead of firefights with Israel.

--

If I was leader of the world, I'd probably evacuate civilians from there and nuke the place. Palestinians would have to mince with whatever country they migrate then...
No land to live on, no conflict to drag through decades.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 17/01/2009 16:41:21

Quote from: vict0r on Sat 17/01/2009 14:15:58
Hell, I wouldn't say that I support Israel, I just understand the damn people. If some guy with small growth and some malicious deformations decided to flick you in the balls with a fly-swatter, over and over again, would you let him? Although I never really fight and very rarely use force against anyone, I would probably get quite physical towards the guy if he didn't stop after asking/holding back etc.

So if you responded by beating him up so severely that he ended up in the hospital with serious injuries, that would be OK?

After flicking me in the balls for eight years, yeah.

Quote from: vict0r on Sat 17/01/2009 14:15:58
(Not to forget that he started hassling you because you took his house and locked him in your yard, by the way.)

Whether or not I think Israel should be there in the first place isn't really the issue here, but an interesting point. I really don't know enough about what happened back there to say anything about that.

QuoteNo, because the terrorists didn't and don't value life the same way. They wanted as many innocent people killed, because to them, there are no civilians. Everyone of us is evil and needs to be destroyed.

You know Mills, I found your arguments for Israel to be quite moderate until I read this, and it says much about your way of thinking.  You don't actually think that terrorists label an entire people as evil, do you?  Couldn't it be that, maybe, possibly, they attack people because those people are interfering with their way of life, as America has done by meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for decades, including (but not limited to) the post-Desert Storm blockade of Iraq that has cost the country thousands (perhap millions) of lives from lack of food and medicine? 

This isn't meant to condone the evil of their actions, but really, do we need to demonize and dehumanize our enemies like Bush has?

Petter, I simply don' t agree ^_^. Gaza people simply elected a party who wants to destroy Israel. They chose war. They have war. I would be annoyed in a 2 meter high guy starts to beat an innocent 1,60 kid. But I see two big idiots happily running into a war. And now one is beating the other. One should have thought about it before start poking the eye of the other. I simply can' t have empathy for them.

People tell me: "Do you imagine Israel bombing your house?" How could I? The percentage of people voting to a party asking for the destruction of Israel HERE is 0.0%. In Gaza Strip it is 60%. I don' t see HERE 2/3 of the kids going to Hammas summer camps, with a signed paper by their parents accepting that by going to that camp they can be required to be suicide bombers in the future. Some pro-palestine basque friends I have tell me "Do you imagine your contry bombing mine?" How could I? In the Basque country there is a 5.5 % of people voting for a party who deffends violence to get independence. If that percentage changes to 60, and that party changes from "Violence to get the independence" to "Destruction of Spain", I would like my government to do something.

I can put myself in the side of both, Israelis and Palestinians, and I can say "If I was there, and I was Israelian, I would support what my government does". I can't say the same if I was an inhabitant of the Gaza strip.

Have you done the same? I think not. I think you have seen "Occidental, free market economy, belicist country attacks another". They must be evil. End of the discussion. Things are not like that... There are a lot of grays. I see the grays, and the conclussion is that Israel is "slightly" more right than the other side, IMHO.

Anyway, I concur that my opinion can be severilly biased in this topic. Since I was a kid I studied modern history of Middle Orient.

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 18/01/2009 08:39:53
The percentage of people voting to a party asking for the destruction of Israel is 0.0%. In Gaza Strip it is 60%.

I'm really not knowledgeable enough about the situation to make unbiased statements about it, but I just wanted to interject....didn't Hamas only get around 40% of the people voting (not 60)? Also, while they may have called for the destruction of Israel originally when they were formed (once again, I don't know), during the elections, I believe they removed this from their manifesto, and have since softened their stance even further.

Might be. I remember the cypher of 60%, and I am quite sure about that... It might be refering to approval percentages at a certain point, though, I have nothing to doubt about your word.  :)

And about the "destruction of Israel" thing... I don' t really mind if in the manifesto the sentence is still there or not. Papers are papers, and must be supported by actions. If there is a situation where you archieved everything you asked for in your manifesto (independence, autonomy, no hebrew settlers, etc...) and you still do something (lauch rockets) it means that, no matter what you have "in papers", you still want to archieve something else. Actions speak louders than written intentions, I think...

Anyway, this is a very sensitive matter, and I' ve expressed myself awfully. I think the "I support Israel" sentence can be observed as I had an orgasm of joy every morning watching the news and seeing palestine kids covered in blood. I do not. I think that every civilian casualty is a tragedy, and that my "I support Israel" must be severelly revisted. I just mean that I have empathy with the citicens of Sderot, etc. because I' ve been a "target" of terrorism as well, whereas I can't see myself in the place of a Palestine since I' ve never been a target of counter terrorism, or did anything to be so.

Fair enough, Nacho.

I think the most important thing is not to simplify things. It's a simplified notion that Israel was just minding their own business when islamic terrorists suddenly started launching rockets at them.
Likewise, it's a simplified concept that there is a homogenous group of bad guys out there who kill good guys, because, well, that's what bad guys do. It's a rigid and undeveloped worldview.

That being said, I agree that Hamas is doing a poor job on bringing the peace progress forward, and I'm convinced that many Palestinians in the area are quite obstinate when it comes to politics.

Sounds like a thread I can totally agree with.  :)

Quote
Actually, Hamas's stated goal is to destroy the state of Israel and drive the Jews away to somewhere else (probably Europe or the US). They don't say they want to kill them all. (I'm sure some Hamas members have said it, but it's not their official policy.)

Where did you get the "probably the US or Europe" thing; I think the "somewhere else" the Palestinians have in mind is the sea.

Quote
So if you responded by beating him up so severely that he ended up in the hospital with serious injuries, that would be OK? (Not to forget that he started hassling you because you took his house and locked him in your yard, by the way.)

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jordan#1920s_to_1930s)
With the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations and the occupying powers were required to redraw the borders of the Middle East. The ensuing decisions, most notably the Sykesâ€"Picot Agreement gave birth to the French Mandate of Syria and British Mandate of Palestine. More than 70% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan". Until 1921, the land was supposed to be part of the Jewish National Homeland, the land designated by the League of Nations to be the future Jewish State of Israel. In 1921, the British gave semi-autonomous control of Transjordan to the future King Abdullah I of Jordan, of the Hashemite family, after his failed attempt to take control of Syria when his brother King Faisal I became king of Iraq. This partitian was in breach of the British Empire's undertaking to make Palestine a Jewish state as was required under the terms of the mandate, and as such outraged the Jewish population, but pressure from the Arabs caused the British to acquiesce to the Hashemites' demands.

So now who took whoose home from whom?

Quote
You have to remember that Hamas and Gaza are in a desperate situation. Gaza has been almost completely blockaded by Israel (and Egypt),

If this is the issue then why isn't Hamas firing rockets into Egypt as well as Israel?  Could it possibly be that the Egyptians aren't Jewish?

Quote
Actually, Hamas has for a long time provided schools, hospitals and other public services to people in the Palestinian territories, even before they took power in Gaza. Their popularity rests to a large extent on the fact that they were more effective than the Fatah-led government in providing such services and necessities.

The charitable portion of Hamas is used to foster dependence and loyalty, it's used to to indoctrinate the young into their philosophy, fund terrorist attacks, and to payoff families of suicide bombers.  

Quote
Palestine people live in misery with bad social and health conditions. Only a few can reach knowledge as we understand as normal. The place is filthy and unhealthy. A few meters away you can find a totally different country, a rich and modern country.

They are surrounded on three sides by friendly Arab countries.  Over the years they have received billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid from both the West and other Arab countries.   They have had every opportunity to create a modern and prosperous country just as Israel has done but they have chosen another path.   Instead of building a future for their children they spent all that money on hating Jews.   Now they have only themselves to blame for their current situation.

Quote
No, because the terrorists didn't and don't value life the same way. They wanted as many innocent people killed, because to them, there are no civilians. Everyone of us is evil and needs to be destroyed.

Quote

You know Mills, I found your arguments for Israel to be quite moderate until I read this, and it says much about your way of thinking.  You don't actually think that terrorists label an entire people as evil, do you?  

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi#Beliefs)
"A study by the NGO Freedom House found Wahhabi publications in a number of mosques in the United States preaching that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake","

Quote
I don't get it.

Why shoot rockets into Israel? Did REALLY any of Hamas/insurgents/whatevertheyrecalled think that it will do any good?

Well let's see, what will Hamas get out of this?  

- International sympathy and attention
- Huge cash donations from wealthy Arab countries
- A more dependent and therfore compliant population
- More public support for their philosophy (i.e. jews == bad)
- International criticism of Israel

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 18/01/2009 14:37:40
They are surrounded on three sides by friendly Arab countries.  Over the years they have received billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid from both the West and other Arab countries.   They have had every opportunity to create a modern and prosperous country just as Israel has done but they have chosen another path.   Instead of building a future for their children they spent all that money on hating Jews.   Now they have only themselves to blame for their current situation.

Are you unaware of or unable to understand that Israel is making sure Gaza gets neither humanitarian aid nor even electricity?

This is how UN officials describe it:

"A senior United Nations official has issued an unprecedented appeal to British MPs to use their influence to try to alleviate the impact of "indiscriminate" and "illegal" Israeli sanctions in Gaza which display "profound inhumanity" and are "serving the agenda of extremists".

In one of the strongest attacks on recent Israeli strategy issued by a senior international official, John Ging, Gaza's director of operations for the refugee agency UNRWA, said that "crushing sanctions" imposed since the Israeli cabinet declared the Strip a "hostile entity" in September had contributed to "truly appalling living conditions.""

From the Independent.co.uk

Quote
Are you unaware of or unable to understand that Israel is making sure Gaza gets neither humanitarian aid nor even electricity?

Well there is a war on isn't there?  And cutting off the enemy's supplies is a legitimate tactic isn't it?  And as nacho says, Hamas's violent actions towards Israel enjoy popular support by a majority of the people, so what's going on now is an unfortunate consequence of their own deeds.   Apparently the conditions are not bad enough to make them see the error of their ways. 

[edit]
Why are you not also condemning Egypt?  Are we to believe that Israel has the ability to control the Egyptian government?   

Quote
They are surrounded on three sides by friendly Arab countries.  Over the years they have received billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid from both the West and other Arab countries.   They have had every opportunity to create a modern and prosperous country just as Israel has done but they have chosen another path.   Instead of building a future for their children they spent all that money on hating Jews.   Now they have only themselves to blame for their current situation.

You quoted this from my earlier post but apparently haven't read it.   Your response doesn't seem to be at all releated??

Quote from: vict0r on Sun 18/01/2009 07:16:27

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 17/01/2009 16:41:21
So if you responded by beating him up so severely that he ended up in the hospital with serious injuries, that would be OK?

After flicking me in the balls for eight years, yeah.

Again you're talking as if this has been a case of one-sided Palestinian aggression. Throughout that entire time, more Palestinian civilians have been killed by the Israelis than the number of Israelis who have been killed by Palestinian terrorists (this fact is a constant in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). And that's without taking into account the other violence and oppression, including the blockade, the roadblocks, the demolitions of homes, the raids, the denial of medical care, and so on and so on.

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 18/01/2009 08:39:53
Petter, I simply don' t agree ^_^. Gaza people simply elected a party who wants to destroy Israel. They chose war. They have war. I would be annoyed in a 2 meter high guy starts to beat an innocent 1,60 kid. But I see two big idiots happily running into a war. And now one is beating the other. One should have thought about it before start poking the eye of the other. I simply can' t have empathy for them.
[...]
I can put myself in the side of both, Israelis and Palestinians, and I can say "If I was there, and I was Israelian, I would support what my government does". I can't say the same if I was an inhabitant of the Gaza strip.

Have you done the same? I think not. I think you have seen "Occidental, free market economy, belicist country attacks another". They must be evil. End of the discussion. Things are not like that... There are a lot of grays. I see the grays, and the conclussion is that Israel is "slightly" more right than the other side, IMHO.

First of all, I think it's pretty insulting of you to assume that people who disagree with you aren't informed, haven't thought about, and not personally weighed both sides of the conflict, but are simply applying knee-jerk prejudice. Especially when (in my subjective opinion) those on the other side of the issue have up until this point been far more moderate and ready to see both sides of the issue.

Secondly, it doesn't really sound like you can put yourself in the Palestinians' shoes. How do you think you'd feel if the descendants of the Muslims who were driven out of Iberia in the Reconquista decided to return and set up an Islamic state in Granada? If you tried to fight off the invaders, lost, and they occupied all of Spain? If they drove you out of your homes, leaving you only the worst land, or to refugee camps in Portugal? If they denied most of your people citizenship (and treated even those with it as second-class citizens), but offered a general invitation to all Muslims in the world to come settle? If there was no Spanish government so that you were stateless? If the leaders of your people, naturally hostile to the occupying power, were called terrorists and assassinated? If Islamic extremists deliberately and strategically encroached on more and more of the land left to you through illegal settlements, with the tacit support of their government? If Islamic security forces demolished your homes, made night raids to arrest your friends and family, put them in jail without trial, without communication, without you even knowing what had become of them, and where they were regularly tortured? If roadblocks and security checkpoint made travel and trade almost impossible, and wouldn't even let ambulances through in medical emergencies? If there were no jobs, no functioning economy, nothing to do all day except sit and talk about the reasons for your misery?

Don't you think you'd hate the people who had done this to you? Don't you think you'd want to hurt them? Seeing all the injustice and suffering inflicted on innocents on your side, do you think you'd have much sympathy for the innocents on the others'? (And even if you, personally, wouldn't, don't you think it's understandable that some others would? You would still have to suffer the reprisals for their actions.)

You could tell a story from the Israeli point of view that makes their actions understandable, too. Understanding the psychology of the parties doesn't excuse the morality of their actions. The terrorist attacks are still wrong. But I think an even-handed assessment of the conflict would have to conclude that the Palestinians are terrorized by the Israelis to a much greater extent than the Israelis are terrorized by the Palestinians.

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 18/01/2009 12:17:43
And about the "destruction of Israel" thing... I don' t really mind if in the manifesto the sentence is still there or not. Papers are papers, and must be supported by actions. If there is a situation where you archieved everything you asked for in your manifesto (independence, autonomy, no hebrew settlers, etc...) and you still do something (lauch rockets) it means that, no matter what you have "in papers", you still want to archieve something else. Actions speak louders than written intentions, I think...

Fair enough, but it's not like the Palestinians have achieved anything close to those things. Just to take the last point, settlements continue to grow and multiply, as they have done both during peace process and Intifadah.

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 18/01/2009 14:37:40
Where did you get the "probably the US or Europe" thing; I think the "somewhere else" the Palestinians have in mind is the sea.

Take this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14goldberg-1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) op-ed article, for example, which can hardly be called pro-Hamas: "Hamas and Hezbollah also share the view that the solution for Palestine lies in Europe. A spokesman for Hezbollah, Hassan Izzedine, once told me that the Jews who survive the Muslim 'liberation' of Palestine 'can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from.' He went on to argue that the Jews are a 'curse to anyone who lives near them.'"

Hamas "just" want the Jews out of Israel/Palestine, permanently. They don't care what happens to them or where they go.

Quote
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jordan#1920s_to_1930s)
With the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the League of Nations and the occupying powers were required to redraw the borders of the Middle East. The ensuing decisions, most notably the Sykesâ€"Picot Agreement gave birth to the French Mandate of Syria and British Mandate of Palestine. More than 70% of the British Mandate of Palestine was east of the Jordan river and was known as "Transjordan". Until 1921, the land was supposed to be part of the Jewish National Homeland, the land designated by the League of Nations to be the future Jewish State of Israel. In 1921, the British gave semi-autonomous control of Transjordan to the future King Abdullah I of Jordan, of the Hashemite family, after his failed attempt to take control of Syria when his brother King Faisal I became king of Iraq. This partitian was in breach of the British Empire's undertaking to make Palestine a Jewish state as was required under the terms of the mandate, and as such outraged the Jewish population, but pressure from the Arabs caused the British to acquiesce to the Hashemites' demands.

So now who took whoose home from whom?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. A promise by the colonial powers to take Palestinian land and give to Zionist settlers that was only partially fulfilled would hardly strengthen you case. However, I believe this is moot, because the text you quoted is misleading. If you see the article on Transjordan, you'll see that the British from the beginning exempted that region from their commitments to a Jewish National Homeland.

Quote

Quote
You have to remember that Hamas and Gaza are in a desperate situation. Gaza has been almost completely blockaded by Israel (and Egypt),

If this is the issue then why isn't Hamas firing rockets into Egypt as well as Israel?  Could it possibly be that the Egyptians aren't Jewish?

I'm not saying it's the issue, I'm saying it's one of the reasons they are desperate. The Palestinians' primary beef isn't with Egypt, it's with Israel.

Quote
The charitable portion of Hamas is used to foster dependence and loyalty, it's used to to indoctrinate the young into their philosophy, fund terrorist attacks, and to payoff families of suicide bombers.

Sure, you could argue that, and I don't dispute that there's calculation behind it. (Though to assume that no Hamas members care one bit about the welfare of the Palestinian people--even if on the leadership level, this concern takes second place to hatred for Israel and personal ambition--and genuinely want to help them out, is to deny humanity to your enemies. Which I'm sure is a very convenient rationalization.) It doesn't change the fact that they do do some good, even if it's just to ingratiate themselves with the people.

Quote
They are surrounded on three sides by friendly Arab countries.  Over the years they have received billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid from both the West and other Arab countries.   They have had every opportunity to create a modern and prosperous country just as Israel has done but they have chosen another path.   Instead of building a future for their children they spent all that money on hating Jews.   Now they have only themselves to blame for their current situation.

The accomplishment of the Israelis in building a rich and modern nation, and a partial democracy (for Israeli, and primarily Jewish, citizens), is extraordinary. There's no doubt that they have been more effective and more successful than not just the Palestinians, but pretty much all other countries in the region. (Since you bring up foreign aid, though, it's worth mentioning that Israel gets more aid from the US than any other country--possibly now with the exception of Iraq.)

That said, do you honestly think that the misery and dysfunction of the Palestinian territories has nothing to do with the restrictions on travel, the security fence, the blockade, the demolitions, the targeting by the Israelis of Palestinian political leaders, police and security forces, and all the other things listed above? Foreign aid, even billions of dollars in foreign aid, cannot make you prosperous. Only a functioning economy can do that. And I cannot imagine how you could build a functioning economy under such conditions.

QuoteWhy are you not also condemning Egypt?  Are we to believe that Israel has the ability to control the Egyptian government?

Sure, I'll condemn Egypt, too. They have their own reasons to oppose Hamas. But the blockade is primarily led by Israel. And of course Israel can, directly and indirectly, pressure Egypt. For one thing, Egypt gets the second most aid US aid of all countries after Israel, and Israel "supporters" (meaning hardliners) wield great influence over US mid-East policy.

Quote
I think the answer is pretty obvious. A promise by the colonial powers to take Palestinian land and give to Zionist settlers that was only partially fulfilled would hardly strengthen you case.

I think you are missing the fact that at that point in time England owned of the whole area.  As the legitimate sovereigns they could do with that land whatever they wanted and eventually they partitioned off a piece of it and created the country of Israel.  This is pretty much the way Iraq, Jordan, and a number of other countries in the area came into being.     

Quote
That said, do you honestly think that the misery and dysfunction of the Palestinian territories has nothing to do with the restrictions on travel, the security fence, the blockade, the demolitions, the targeting by the Israelis of Palestinian political leaders, police and security forces, and all the other things listed above? Foreign aid, even billions of dollars in foreign aid, cannot make you prosperous. Only a functioning economy can do that. And I cannot imagine how you could build a functioning economy under such conditions.

Yes I do!  The Palestinians practice a flawed philosophy of death and violence.  All the things you listed above are the result of 50+ years of violence and war directed at Israel.   Has Israel ever launched an unprovoked attack on anyone?

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 18/01/2009 17:19:43
I think you are missing the fact that at that point in time England owned of the whole area.  As the legitimate sovereigns they could do with that land whatever they wanted and eventually they partitioned off a piece of it and created the country of Israel.  This is pretty much the way Iraq, Jordan, and a number of other countries in the area came into being.

If Israel agreed to return to the borders set up by the UN and the British when the nation was created, and let the Palestinians have the rest as a free state, I think we wouldn't have a problem. A vast majority of the Palestinians would accept that as a negotiated compromise, and extremists calling for the destruction of Israel would lose almost all of their support.

Quote

Quote
That said, do you honestly think that the misery and dysfunction of the Palestinian territories has nothing to do with the restrictions on travel, the security fence, the blockade, the demolitions, the targeting by the Israelis of Palestinian political leaders, police and security forces, and all the other things listed above? Foreign aid, even billions of dollars in foreign aid, cannot make you prosperous. Only a functioning economy can do that. And I cannot imagine how you could build a functioning economy under such conditions.

Yes I do!  The Palestinians practice a flawed philosophy of death and violence.  All the things you listed above are the result of 50+ years of violence and war directed at Israel.   Has Israel ever launched an unprovoked attack on anyone?

You can say that all the things the Israelis have done and continue to do to the Palestinians are the Palestinians own fault if you like. (To that I would respond: Please! Let the Israelis take some responsibility for their own actions!) But you cannot deny that those factors are a major cause of the poor quality of life in the Palestinian territories.

You have only responded to two small and fairly unimportant parts of my post.

Snarky, you can save your energy if your threads are directed to me, I simply ignore them... I just know you did because I saw my name in a quote when I was scrolling down, but nothing else... Write to those who want to read what you say.

RickJ, I really don't think you mean what you said about Palestine having bilions of dollars to spend on their development. That is a wrong notion. No money at all arrives at any door in Palestine.
Please turn on your TV and look at how they live and the means they have to fight back, because if they don't they will be exterminated until the last man carrying an Hamas flag is killed.

Who cares what Hamas means or is? Was the IRA ever better or worse than ETA? Only the people that died for a cause care.

Why are the British treated like monsters when they fought the Irish and Israel treated like terrorism-fighters when they fight Palestine?

Is not Israel the main American military base in the Middle East? Aren't they the ones that are given billions of dollars in weapons from the US?

I respect your wisdom RickJ but you should start treating us like informed people and stop the established clichés that are normally told when debating this war that has gone forever.   

All it is, is fundamental perspective. Their ideas of freedom fighters/terrorists are obviously different to ours. Who are we to judge the situation? "Who is bad?" "They are both bad" these are conclusions we are drawing from half truths and edited footage from the media. We will never have a valid opinon, just our ignorent perspectives. I'm not shooting anyone down here but unless we are a fly on the wall inside the house of the Israeli leaders and Hamas, we will never know who is the "dumbass" or idiot.

We say they are dumb for fighting, they say we are dumb for being ignorant of their affairs. Who is right?

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sat 17/01/2009 16:18:04
the terrorists didn't and don't value life the same way.

This is a classic look of western debate. How do we know whos life they value and who's they don't.

Now we can look at it the other way. They see us as the enemy (not their only one) and declair their hate for us. Then they blindly jump to conclusions about our way of life and our values just as we bag theirs.

I am from New Zealand which is an anti war country and I (and everyone I know) were raised not to judge peoples value just because they differ from our own. Arn't we just as bad as each other if they sit in their home yelling AMERICAN INFIDEL and we sit in ours saying TERROIST.

Anyway back to the point. We know only a little about what is really going on between these two enemies so maybe we should stop trying to impose our values on their.

Yes civilian cassualties are bad, but who said they are civilians and why do we believe that source? Do you believe everything that you are told?

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." - Malcom X

Do terrorists hunt sea kittens?

Miguel, Palestine is the country in the world which receives more euro per inhabitant in concept of aids from the rest of the world, 260 euros/inhabitant per year. 500 from Europe, approx. 200 from the US. If that is "no money at all" for you...

And now, please, explain me how the "you are uninformed" that "my side" use against "your side" is so evil and you haven't complained a bit when "your side" constantly says that "My side is obviously biased"... I think it's basically the same....

Nacho, you have expressed that you don't wish to participate in this debate.

It's not good faith to openly ignore arguments of the opposition (like you expressively did with Snarky) and then keep posting your own arguments.

Nacho has a point (someone pass that message along). I'm sorry to say I think most of your "facts" are pretty much wrong, Miguel. For example, I'm (almost) certain that the US does not have any military bases in Israel. The main US bases in the Middle East are in Saudi Arabia. (Permanent bases, that is. Currently I'd imagine there are more army personnel in Iraq.) And my experience has not been that Israel gets more sympathy than the UK did in its struggle against the IRA, except perhaps here in the US.

Edit: Andail, as far as I'm concerned, Nacho is free to read or not read my posts as he chooses. It won't make a difference to what I choose to reply to. If he doesn't want to respond back, ever, I think that speaks for itself.

If there's some particularly good point I've made that you think cannot be overlooked going forward in the discussion, feel free to quote it without attribution.  ;D

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 18/01/2009 16:26:33

Quote
They are surrounded on three sides by friendly Arab countries.  Over the years they have received billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid from both the West and other Arab countries.   They have had every opportunity to create a modern and prosperous country just as Israel has done but they have chosen another path.   Instead of building a future for their children they spent all that money on hating Jews.   Now they have only themselves to blame for their current situation.

You quoted this from my earlier post but apparently haven't read it.   Your response doesn't seem to be at all releated??

I did respond to it. I said that Israel is controlling the land, air and maritime borders of Gaza and purposefully works to impede any sort of development therein. Therefore it is wrong to claim that Gaza has any opportunity to grow and prosper, but chooses not to. That's a very narrowminded and cynical view.

You (and many others) seem to ignore that by most standards, Israel is an occupying power in Gaza. Both UN and Human Rights Watch assert this (though I guess you, Rick, don't care much for UN and what they call things).

In addition to a very stubborn desire to control and close the Gaza borders, Israel uses far too much violence and illegal weapons.

From Wikipedia:

Quote
The Times Online carried out an investigation that "revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious injuries from the substance, which burns at extremely high temperatures,"[385] and that the evidence that white phosphorus shells have been used is so compelling that the Israeli denial have increasingly lacked credibility.[386] On January 15 a UN aid agency accused Israel of firing white phosphorus shells at its compound, causing a destructive fire.[387]

Edit:
Another interesting point that has to do with how Israel accuses Palestinians of using human shields:

Counting casualties, Israel has killed more UN-staff and medical workers than Hamas has killed Israels.
In fact, Israel has killed more of its own soldiers during the invasion, than Hamas did with their rockets.
Excessive force, anyone?

This time the glance has been a little deeper... "Nacho has a point" was bright as a light house.

Snarky, I appreciate your comments and your threads, they are interesting and give lots of information. But you do not only debate, you look more "how something is said" than "what is said", and use any dialectic slip to accuse your "rival" of being a bad person. Sorry, I don' t like that. That's what you did with me with my "Georgia is not Europe" (Nacho, you are a racist) with Darth's "Black people tend to majoritary vote Obama" (Darth, you are a racist) and with RickJ' s "You must learn more about the situation" (Rick, you are insulting your debate partners). Curiously, when the same thing is done by the side you are supporting at that time (for example, "Israel is bad, and if you don't agree with me it' s because you are severally biased") you say nothing.

It' s very usefull tactic to win debates, I know it because I used it a lot before, but doesn' t really contribute to the debates... It simply closes them.

If you tell me "Nacho, I wasn' t aware of that, I won' t do that with you again" or simply "Nacho, I think that your conception of what I do is wrong, I do not do that, but I you really think that I do that, I will be more carefull with you from now for the shake of frienship and good debating" I will start debating you again, "e-shake" your hand, and doing "tabula rasa", considering all I said to you, or what you said of me, forgotten.  :)

And sorry, Petter... I said I was going to get out of this debate, but if I see something, not only manifestly false, but also something which is totally the opposite to truth (It' s not only that Palestine DO NOT receive money, but also it' s the country which receives MORE MONEY) I think I should be allowed to make a little post. Similarly, something that has been said is also true (Israel's  settlings are growing); Israel is dismantling its settlings in Cisjordania (Since lots of years ago, 8 or 10...) and in Gaza (since two or three years ago, I think, when Sharon was the PM)

And well, Petter... You seem to mantion UN a lot. Palestines never give a fuck about the UN during 60 years. When they thought they were going to "stain the mediterranean in red with the blood of the Israelians" they didn' t had the UN resolutions in mind, I think... The UN had the opportunity to grant Israel's existance and did nothing else than "warnings", "severe warnings", "extremelly severe warnings" and "Extremelly annoyed and severe warnings" to its enemies. Israel has been figthing, receiving bites, low hits, splittings... and the "referee" (UN) has been watching the fight, seeing Israel' s complains about unfair game doing nothing with a half smile in its face. Now Israel said "Ok... I will play dirty as well!"

And it' s is preciselly now when the referee comes running to stop the fight? I can't understand (maybe not endorse, but understand) that Israel turns to the referee and says "You know chap? Fuck you, I will finish this alone!".

That' s why Israel, as well, doesn't want to give back to the first UN resolution and give back to the muslims what was told there to belong to them. Israel' s opinion there is clear "They did want war? Okay... so be it". Look that people showing no desire to fight with Israel has no problem at all with them. 30% of the Israel population were muslims who did not fled Palestine when the Arab community made a call to abandon the place because they were going to invade Israel. Israel has no problems (nowadays) with Jordan or Egypt. Not even with Cisjordania... Israel attacks those which attack it: Lebanon and Gaza. And has an eye with those which might want to attack as well... Siria and Iran.

I perfectly understand it. It has been proved to be a sensible tactic. 60 years ago no arab country wanted Israel to exist. Nowadays very few are still beligerant with it. Israel tactic' s working.

Look, I don't want to derail this with our own issues. I'm leaving in half an hour to go see the Inauguration, so I won't be online again until Wednesday.

I don't think I generally attack people. I attack statements. I use things people have said to argue that those things are incorrect. This seems to bother you. If I can speculate a bit, maybe that's because you (in my view) tend to be careless about the facts and about what you say. For example, none of the three examples you point to are correct: In the Georgia debate, I repeatedly explained that I didn't think you were racist. The argument with Darth wasn't even about what you say (it was primarily about how the electoral college works), nor did I ever for a moment suggest he was racist, and in the example from this thread, you seem to have glommed on to a statement that was in response to you, not to RickJ. In the last two cases, I strongly suspect that you've got my posts mixed up with someone else's.

As for a double standard in staying silent, I can't say I've noticed anyone saying those things you paraphrase in this thread. Again, I think you're being careless in how you characterize other people's statements.

Arguing against things people say that I think are wrong, and things I disagree with... that's a big part of what I think a discussion is. I don't think I could try to stop doing it. And being accused of saying things I haven't said, and doing things I demonstrably haven't done, doesn't make me inclined to apologize to you. I'll continue reading your posts. If I disagree, or if I agree, I may respond. Whether you read what I write or choose to reply is entirely up to you, and if you don't find it worthwhile there'll be no hard feelings.

I've said as much as I'm going to say about this. I'm not interested in more debate over the debate. I wrote a couple of lengthy posts back there, with what I thought were some good points about the situation for the Palestinians, and the balance of victimhood in this conflict. No one has responded to the substance of any of that.

Have a good debate, everyone.

Your post basically say: "I do what I do because I am right..." So, more of the same... Pitty, my finger was in the "reset button" already. I don' t really mind, there are other 4,332 AGS members here to discuss with ^_^

And about the double standard in staying silent, read Andail' s posts again and notice that he made exactly the same you accussed me and RickJ to do. There is a post where he mentions "bias" not only once, but two... :)

Nothing I really care, because the king of picking something unconnected and make a big mountain of it it' s you, though...  :D

And now... Again to [Ignore Snarky] status.  ;D

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 18/01/2009 14:37:40
Well let's see, what will Hamas get out of this?  

- More public support for their philosophy (i.e. jews == bad)

I can't speak for anywhere except the people I know, but they seem to have swayed more to the "Israeli government == bad" rather than the racist "jews == bad". As has been seen the the UK and US during Iraq, what a government does is not necessarily representative of what their people want, and nor is "Israeli citizens" the same thing as "Jews". I don't think its helpful to try and turn this into, or accuse anyone of, anti-semitism (especially as arabs are semites too!)

Snarky, the US don't have an 'official' military base over there, I thought you'd understood, although Israel are their closest economical and military allies on the region. As for the Israeli sympathy over the English I think that it's very clear that Israel are still seen on a WWII bases and the common European feels sympathy for them. The English, I'm sorry to say, and with the help of films like Braveheart or Michael Collins are pretty much seen like an invading country.
Now, this does not mean it is the reality of things, does it?

Dear Nacho, do you really think any of the people you see on television earn/get those two hundred and something Euro you spoke off? C'mon, most of them eat bread and water and they feel lucky!

It's not about land or money any more, people are being killed, not soldiers or terrorists (what a vague notion this is)!
What I know is that there is a risk of ethnic extermination. How many kids whose parents were killed by Israeli will seek revenge? Many, I believe.
This war will end in a tragic way or remain like this, an eternal war were the strongest side slowly gets what they want. Death by death.   

Quote from: MillsJROSSNo, because the terrorists didn't and don't value life the same way. They wanted as many innocent people killed, because to them, there are no civilians. Everyone of us is evil and needs to be destroyed.

Quote from: ProgZMaxYou know Mills, I found your arguments for Israel to be quite moderate until I read this, and it says much about your way of thinking.

You don't actually think that terrorists label an entire people as evil, do you?  Couldn't it be that, maybe, possibly, they attack people because those people are interfering with their way of life, as America has done by meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for decades, including (but not limited to) the post-Desert Storm blockade of Iraq that has cost the country thousands (perhap millions) of lives from lack of food and medicine?

I think you're over-generalizing what I'm saying, or rather taking the term Terrorist to mean Palestinians. I'm positive there are plenty of people in Gaza who do not label all of the Israeli people as "evil", and have a strong desire for peace that entails living side by side. Just as I know that there are plenty of people in Israel who feel the same way.

However, the action of Hamas sending in bombs to purposefully hit civilian targets...not military targets, not an area that poses a physical threat to them...shows, to me, that they must not value life the same way. Maybe they don't think of the Israeli's as evil, but they definitely don't seem to be valuing the people they're bombing at all.

Quote from: MillsJROSSBut I think Hamas is 100% responsible for all civilian deaths caused by Israel bombing their military installations.

Quote from: AndailCome on, man, bias aside, this can't possibly be your opinion?

I'm not really sure why you don't understand how that is my opinion. I understand that there is a plight in Gaza. I understand they live in squalor. I understand that they're angry at Israel's existence. I do have mixed feeling as to whether or not Israel should have become a state. But if I started shooting people, with a gun, and someone cut off my hand in the exchange. I can blame the person who cut off my hand till I'm blue in the face, however, if I didn't start shooting...I'd still have a hand. I'd hold myself responsible for the lost appendage. 100% responsible.

When we look at the death toll, it is lopsided. I don't disagree. However, it's not like Israel is surrounded by friends, and just has one neighboring country that it's at war with. It has to defend itself off from many countries. So, when they bomb military targets, they have to think how good their defenses will be after a military strike. Will they have enough resources for this or that. It's not like this is a short term war.

Israel is playing a long term game. They can't just send in a "strategic" attack that reduces lives if it entails weakening their military force the next time around. It's far more "strategic" to use long-range weapons that damage military targets quite well.

As I said before...it's awful that innocent people are dieing. It is. I don't think Israel is absolved of all guilt. However, I'm far more angry at the people who build bombs and military manufacturing plants near civilians, than the people who are destroying those buildings. There's a deep history to draw blame for or from either side in this conflict. Whether or not Israel should have been made a state or not is irrelevant in that it did and is. I just think that people are villianizing Israel's actions, in this one exchange, without a thought at a bigger picture. That Israel doesn't have the convenience of longer military attacks that save as many lives as possible, isn't considered, or is just thrown out the window. Both parties share responsibility and blame for this war, overall. But the civilian count would be a lot less if there weren't military installations built within civilian hot spots. So in the context of the original post...I see exactly why Israel is doing what it's doing, and I object to comparing a death toll to determine blame.

War sucks.

-MillsJROSS

Well actually my response was more to your comment about the trade center combined with the 'terrorists see us all as evil'.  It just greatly simplifies (and distorts, in my opinion) what's actually going on.  It doesn't appear to be what you meant, which is good, but I'm personally annoyed by the way the media and the previous US Presidency went to great efforts to demonize these people with the excuse that they simply attack us because they're evil/see us as evil/because we're prosperous. 

There's simply more to it than that, and that was my point, really.  If you agree then we're on the same page :).

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Mon 19/01/2009 23:32:20
However, the action of Hamas sending in bombs to purposefully hit civilian targets...not military targets, not an area that poses a physical threat to them...shows, to me, that they must not value life the same way. Maybe they don't think of the Israeli's as evil, but they definitely don't seem to be valuing the people they're bombing at all.

But can you really claim that Isreal is only attacking military targets in Gaza?
The pictures here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838618.stm) don't seem to indicate that a military base has been destroyed.

And just looking at the statistics, surely this can't be justified:

* More than 1,300 Palestinians killed
* 13 Israeli deaths
* More than 4,000 buildings destroyed in Gaza, more than 20,000 severely damaged
* 50,800 Gazans homeless and 400,000 without running water

Looks like a pretty one-sided war so far...

The problem with your justification are that you're distilling context to present hard facts, and drawing a conclusion from a comparison of numbers. When the truth is you need to take away the filter and look at why things are happening.

Say I tell you that you kill 1 billion germs every time you brush your teeth. But, in your life, they've only caused a few cavities and some sore gums. Without any context one might side with the germs. Until one observes, that the germs are going to always, always, always eat and cause decay to our mouth. So we need to take harsh action to make sure our mouth stays intact. Because, with clean teeth and a healthy mouth we have the potential to live longer. I'm not trying to say Hamas are germs here, that would be erroneous. What I am trying to show is that without any proper context one can draw a bad conclusion.

What truly can't be justified is putting military offensive facilities near and around populous civilian areas. Bombing another country, and trying to get sympathy for your cause because of the death count. Justify that for me and I might agree with the numbers you've provided.

-MillsJROSS

Well, I think a strong argument can be made for any underdog nation applying less-than 'honorable' tactics in order to sway the battle in their favor; they are, afterall, heavily outclassed.  For years the British harbored very deep grudges against America for employing guerilla tactics in the Revolutionary War to even the odds.  There's this strange idea some people have that in war you shouldn't be underhanded or cheat, when in fact there are no rules in warfare and innocents on both sides always suffer the results.  This isn't condoning someone who sets rockets to fire from a civilian population into a civilian population any more than it condones a blockade of an entire nation resulting in thousands of deaths from starvation and sickness.

But that's war.  There are no rules or justifications.  It's an unpleasant business all around.

Quote from: miguel on Mon 19/01/2009 22:58:34

Dear Nacho, do you really think any of the people you see on television earn/get those two hundred and something Euro you spoke off? C'mon, most of them eat bread and water and they feel lucky!

And? Go to Hamas and complain to them for buying rockets to Iran in spite of bread for their kids...

I agree.  There's no such thing as fair warfare (although bodies like the UN do have lists of what they deem as 'acceptible' war, like a teacher saying to two kids in the playground 'okay, you can beat him him up, but just don't steal his milk money').

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Tue 20/01/2009 02:32:28
Say I tell you that you kill 1 billion germs every time you brush your teeth. But, in your life, they've only caused a few cavities and some sore gums. Without any context one might side with the germs. Until one observes, that the germs are going to always, always, always eat and cause decay to our mouth. So we need to take harsh action to make sure our mouth stays intact. Because, with clean teeth and a healthy mouth we have the potential to live longer. I'm not trying to say Hamas are germs here, that would be erroneous. What I am trying to show is that without any proper context one can draw a bad conclusion.

But 99% of the residents of Gaza are not terrorists and don't shoot missiles at Israel.
Just like 99% of the residents of Iraq are not terrorists and had never done anything to hurt the US/UK.

While it's easy to understand the reasons behind Israel's decision, what they have done seems completely disproportionate and heavy handed -- and will only encourage more hate, more terrorists, and lead to more Isrealis being killed.

Just like the war in Iraq has done for the US/UK then, really.

But Gaza' s population put Hamas in the government...

And about the "It will bring more hate, more terrorism...": Well... The Israelis did something similar in South Lebanon to stop Hizbullah' s attacks two years ago, and they succedded; So, maybe it's not "Hey! Israel is bombing us! Let' s reply with more bombs!" but "Hey... these Israelians fire back, let' s stop bombing them..."

What happened in Gaza has been a calculated and meditated hit in the table by Israel. Look, when the Al-Kassam' s started to fall in Sderot, after Hamas broke the cease fire unilaterally, Israel had two options:

A) Another selective killing, maybe ask for help to the UN or the international community and then more Al-Kassams. More of the same.
B) Do something else. Do a long, bloody (even assuming Israelis casualties) campaing. Try something else.

Israel even consulted the Egypt diplomatic party that was in Tel-Aviv trying to re-start the ceasefire. The official posture of these party was "No! No war!!!" but it is certain that the egyptian military aggregate said something like "Those Hamas guys deserve a lesson..." (It was published in DebKa file BEFORE the campaing started). 

That' s what Israel is doing: A lesson. It' s telling the world: "I don't mind what the UN says, what Amnisty International, the Human Rights or the international community say about the civilian casualties or what our own populations says about our dead soldiers... We will do what we consider necessary to stop those Al-Kassams or those Al-Khuds falling in our land".

The Hamas ceasefire break was coward and calculate: "There are elections soon in Israel, Ehud won't get into a campaign... Obama is going to enter in the White House in a month... Israel weon't do anything: We can lauch kill Israelians for free" Israel is saying "No, you won' t".

Does that I "like" seeing dead civilians? No. Does that mean that I support Israel? Not really, no... But I "understand" what they do. Here, comfortably sitting in my home, I could even say that I don' t support what Israel is doing. Maybe in Sderot I wouldn' t.

Even if you can't acknowledge that Israel did wrong by isolating Gaza and turning it to a humanitarian disaster-zone (which happened prior to the rockets by the way; it was simply a response to Hamas taking power there)...

...let's at least agree that Israel is using excessive force.
A full-scale military invasion, killing more than a thousand civilians and laying waste to tens of thousands of buildings, as a response to home-made rockets that all-in-all killed 8 people?

I mean, 8 people...come on.

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 20/01/2009 18:49:59
And about the "It will bring more hate, more terrorism...": Well... The Israelis did something similar in South Lebanon to stop Hizbullah' s attacks two years ago, and they succedded; So, maybe it's not "Hey! Israel is bombing us! Let' s reply with more bombs!" but "Hey... these Israelians fire back, let' s stop bombing them..."

No, it was TWO israeli soldiers being kidnapped by the Hizbollah which led to that overreaction of the israeli government.

But counting up the numbers of people being killed on both sides doesn't really help. The point is that the paranoid Olmert-government should realize that thowing bombs on everything and everyone who seems to be hostile doesn't solve anything (something that the USA should learn too).

Instead of supporting both Hizbollah and Hamas by leading an uncompromising war against a whole poulace they should treat palestinensians just like Israelis or any other people, tear down the wall, start a Marshall Plan for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and I promise all of you that the people would immediately stand up against the Hamas (or at least the rocket attacks) and those wouldn't be a power anymore.

Why did the palestinensians vote the Hamas? Not because all of them are fundemantalists who want to see Israel destroyed. No, but because they are imprisoned, have nothing to eat and because there's just nobody left they could trust and gather behind. What are they supposed to do?

It's a fairly shitty situation on both sides in the conflict, but I doubt that the current Israelian government has a genuine concern in a permanent peace with palestina. If that would be the case they'd obviously just be plain stupid and naive.

QuoteThat' s what Israel is doing: A lesson. It' s telling the world: "I don't mind what the UN says, what Amnisty International, the Human Rights or the international community say about the civilian casualties or what our own populations says about our dead soldiers... We will do what we consider necessary to stop those Al-Kassams or those Al-Khuds falling in our land".

What you're saying Natcho is that there's one more country besides US that can and will ignore UN recommendations: Israel.

The world is trying to focus on peace at the moment, there is a new hope, and the country and the man that agreed to lead it took that brave mission today in his hands. I'm sure that what he has to say about Israel acts of abusive violence will give or not credit to his legislature.

People in the Middle East are very proud of their families and land, and will most certain avenge the death of their relatives, that is a cultural fact that we must understand. Bombing Gazza will probably add more supporters to the Hamas cause, an institution that is (regardless of what we think their intentions are) official and legitimized by the UN.   

You know why there are countries (US and ISRAEL) which do ignore the UN?

Because when Israel was 1 day old, Egypt, Siria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a Palestinian militia (Called the "holy Arab army") ignored the most important UN rosolution at the moment and attacked Israel with the determination of slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors.

What did the UN? Watch... and complain... Complain loudly, maybe. And nothing else.

That are the "neightbours" Israel has. That is the help Israel can expect from the UN.

Apparently, they learned the lesson. ^_^ And they learned it so well, that from those days come nowadays problems...

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 21/01/2009 07:15:51
Because when Israel was 1 day old, Egypt, Siria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a Palestinian militia (Called the "holy Arab army") ignored the most important UN rosolution at the moment and attacked Israel with the determination of slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors.

I think "slaughtering a tiny population of holocaust survivors" is a strange way to put it, when that particular war resulted in 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fleeing or being expelled.

The huge influx of Jews into Palestine began before the UN decided to re-draw the map. For a Palestinian at the time, and for that entire generation, what happened was:
1. Huge amounts of Jews immigrate to Palestine and Jerusalem.
2. UN says "Ok, you guys shall all live here. Try to live peacefully together".
3. They try to live peacefully for a while.
4. The Jews proclaim independence and suddenly the whole country is called "Israel".
5. A war breaks out because the Arabs wonder what the heck happened to their country. (This is definitely something I condemn, since I think a war is virtually always the wrong solution.)
6. Israel "wins" the war and the Palestinians get some minor territories annexed by surrounding countries.
7. In the end, another 700,000 Arabs has fled the country.

I'm aware of how the history stretches back further, indefinitely, but for any given time in history, it's impossible to tell who's got the right for what.

And Nacho, I asked a question in my previous post.

Can we agree on that whoever is right in whatever point, Israel is currently using excessive force? I'm going to repeat the numbers until you reckognize them. (Or am I on your ignore-list as well?)

A dozen killed Israels, a portion of them killed by friendly fire.
Over thousand killed Palestinians, and tens of thousands of buildings destroyed in Gaza

How is this justified?

That' s incorrect. The UN resolution made two countries, one for Arabs, one for hebrews. Israelis accepted the existance of the arab state. Arabs did not accept the existence of Israel... Anyway, hebrews called everybody, even Arabs, to stay and live peacefully (Actually, 30% of the nowadays population is arab, they are integrated and participate as "normal first class" citizens in the life of Israel). What Ben Gurion did on the 14th of may was declaring the independence of that Israeli country, so, doing what the UN told him to do. The "war" started on 15th, 6 hours later.

Do you really mean, Petter, that the Egyptian, Sirian, Transjordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi Arab, Yemenie and a Palestinian militia "magically appeared" in the boarders of Israel in 6 hours? Wow... I know you have arab culture in great reputation, but I didn't  know you thought they had teleporting...

The "Palestines" are the people who abandoned the, let' s call it "Hebrew contry according to UN resolution", expecting for the arab army to win, and come back as a conquerors to a "sionist blood" clean palestine. They lost the bet... Sorry!

And, let' s remember it... "Palestines" were not the owners of that land. Brits were. And brits told: "This land for hebrews, this for arabs". Who was not happy about it? Correct!

Be pacifist... But be it allways. Criticise the arab attack on the one day old Israel.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 21/01/2009 08:46:19
That' s incorrect. The UN resolution made two countries, one for Arabs, one for hebrews. Israelis accepted the existance of the arab state. Arabs did not accept the existence of Israel... Anyway, hebrews called everybody, even Arabs, to stay and live peacefully (Actually, 30% of the nowadays population is arab, they are integrated and participate as "normal first class" citizens in the life of Israel). What Ben Gurion did on the 14th of may was declaring the independence of that Israeli country, so, doing what the UN told him to do. The "war" started on 15th, 6 hours later.

Let's say that Moors suddenly immigrated en masse in south of Spain, and settled there. It would be comfortable for them, and rather provokative for the people of e.g. Cadiz, if they just looked around and said "let's now all live in peace!"
I know the stories are not related, but you need to try and take the perspective of the other side.

Quote
Wow... I know you have arab culture in great reputation, but I didn't  know you thought they had teleporting...

I don't hold Arabs very dear, but I sometimes manage to think with my brain and not with my heart. My biggest bias towards Arabs come from my girlfriend, who's Persian, and more or less hates Arabs.

Quote
And, let' s remember it... "Palestines" were not the owners of that land. Brits were. And brits told: "This land for hebrews, this for arabs". Who was not happy about it? Correct!

But in a Palestinian's point of view, this cookie is pretty hard to digest. Brits "owned" the country because of the results in the war, and had no history, interest or legitimate excuse to be there. They said Jews could be there because of a European holocaust-related guilt trip. But it was not the Palestinians/Arabs who gassed millions of Jews, all that happened in Europe. A Palestinian could easily argue "let the Jews get a free state in Europe!"

Quote
Be pacifist... But be it allways. Criticise the arab attack on the one day old Israel.

I did.

And I'm eagerly awaiting your response to my question about Israel using excessive force.

Sorry for the long post :(

I start from the finish: Replying to your question about "excessive force": I thought that Israel is using excessive force was out of discussion because it' s pretty obvious they are  :) I thought we were pressuming things, and this things are:

A)Civilians casualties are a tragedy.
B)Israel is going too far away.
C)We do not like wars.
D)Israel is playing dirty.

I thought that the discussion was more about "who really is more responsible". For me, if a boxer gives a severe beating to another in a fight, using dirty tricks, the cheater boxing is responsible of unfair play... BUT... if that boxer tells me "Hey! Have you seen the combat? The other guy bite my ear! I complained to the referee, he made nothing, after that, he threw a low punch, referee did nothing again, and then he hit my head with his, and the referee did nothing again... Who is responsible then?

The only possible replies to that boxing are:

A) You could go on fighting according to the rules, and try to win even against the dirty fight of the other (What Israel did during the ceasefire... a ceasefire Hamas broke coward and unilaterally) A tactic Israel used with Cisjordania, and worked well...

A-B Works.
A-C Does not work.

Who is the responsible then? According to ceteris Paribus condition, it must be C (Gaza).

OR

B) Hey... You are right. The other guy did not like rules? The referee did nothing to make the other guy following the rules? Congrats, well done with the dirty firghting...

I don't  know if I specifically mentioned that I endorse "B" (If I did it was a mistake, because I don't really do...) But I understand B, and I am so in the middle between A and B that it makes me not wanting to move a finger, or feel excesivelly bad when Israel took "B".

Now, example 2: You put the example of moors coming to Cadiz, settling there, and ask them "We will settle here, can we live in peace?" Well...

A) They are already doing it. Spain was the european country with less inmigrants 10 years ago. Now it's the first... So, to the "offer of living in peace together" we said "yes". Palestinians did not to Isralis. Israelis did with the muslim pupulation who remained on its terrain.

Side note: We are eving considering turning the Cathedral of Cordoba into a Mosque. (Which is silly, because, whereas it originally was a mosque, it became a cathedral and then, for years... A MUSEUM!)


B) You can't really compare. Spain is a sovereign country and "has allways been". Palestina didn' t. Allow me to paint the scenario to make they match competelly: If we lost the 1812 war and Spain was under France government, and in 1049 France said "Hey, Spaniards... We leave: Live in peace with this moors in am bringing to your land" I REALLY DOUBT we had called 6 or 7 friend countries to help us kill all the moors. (Something the arabs did).

So, as you can see, I put myself in the arab's shoes... and I simply think that they acted poorly.

And about your "great reputation" for arabs, I was not meaning nothing about Azadeh, I talked with her and I know she considers herself "Historically Persian", with everything it means toward Islam and the Arabs.  :) What I was really meaning is that I *think* (I can' t be sure because I never asked, now I am doing it...) that you must be inconsciently balanced to the arabs in the arab-israeli country because Israel means anything you dislike.

They do not believe in diplomacy, multi-lateralism, they trust on its alliance with the US, they are bellicistic and support free-market. I have the feeling that seeing how Israel exist must be a big "I was wrong" to any "let' s not deppend on the US", multilateralist pacifist socialdemocrat.

At least, if a socialdemocrat, multilateralist pacifist country survives and developes better without the help of the US than it's free market, belicists, US-friends neighbour counties I would think "Hey! My ideas about bellicism, unilateralism, alliance with the US and capitalism might be wrong..." and I would feel very insecure about that imaginary country...  :)

But I recommend you to ask yourself if your support of Gaza is because of that... I don' t know, maybe you are a bit balanced to support them because of that. I did the same, and I must recognise that I have allways been balanced to Israel because of similar reasons.  :(

(damn, I could be correcting tests during these coffee breaks....)

Fair enough, I think we have settled on a few topics then. I'm happy that you have acknowledged Israel's responsiblity, and faults, in the conflict.

Some more points:

Quote
You can't really compare. Spain is a sovereign country and "has allways been".

I brought up Spain and the Moors just because Spain was muslim during the late middle ages, and muslims today could use that as an argument to re-settle on a territory historically theirs.

Quote
They are already doing it. Spain was the european country with less inmigrants 10 years ago. Now it's the first

But muslims don't proclaim Spanish territory their own nation. And some random Arab state doesn't suddenly decide that Andalusia should belong to the Moors, because they need a free state of their own, since they're being persecuted back in Africa.
Just painting up an allegory here, don't take it literally.

I don't think I'm being particularly pro-Arabic in general, but I think people in the "West" have a tendency to dehumanise them and lump them together as "terrorists" far too easily.

Hehe, the "interesting thread virus attacks again", eh? :)

Again, your example is flawed, so, it falls into (Imho) phallacy. Muslims don' t proclaim spanish territory their own nation, BUT nor did the Jews. What happened is that a sovereign country said, "This, the land that was mine, it' s now yours. I want it to be half arab, half Israelian. Israel said "coolio! A land for us... I proclaim this my country. Israel. The arabs who want to live here will be able to do it, they will be allowed to talk arab (It' s official in Israel) and practise their religion freely, if they want"

And a percetage of that arabs left Israel, thinking "Well... In two months this jews will be history, I will be back to my country, 100% free of Jews".

But that never happened... I understand that the Jews there, when the people who left the country with the desire of coming back soon in a "Jew free land" said "Hey, you know what, chap? You are not welcomed here". Even muslims Israelis do that.

It' s not that the Jews went there, and said "Hey! This is mine... Those who were here before, fuck you". It is that the previous owner said "I am leaving... share this land as good brothers while I am outside, eh?" and the brothers started to fight... and one won.

Quote from: Andail...let's at least agree that Israel is using excessive force.
A full-scale military invasion, killing more than a thousand civilians and laying waste to tens of thousands of buildings, as a response to home-made rockets that all-in-all killed 8 people?

That's exactly what we (at least you and I) disagree on. I think we can both agree that the loss of life, no matter the number, caused by war is sad and unfortunate. Where we differ is that you attribute the 1000+ lives that were lost in Gaza as Israels fault. I put the brunt of the blame back to Hamas.

Quote from: AndailI mean, 8 people...come on.

This is exactly the argument I don't like. You can repeat a number as many times as you want. The number of people Hamas killed is irrelevant. Their actions, sending bombs into civilian targets, is what is relevant. It's not like if Israel killed the same number of people as Hamas does, that everything is OK. Israel is defending its borders from a threat that could kill more of their own citizens if left unchecked. Should they let some number of their own civilians die, just so we can have even numbers?

Quote from: PumamanBut 99% of the residents of Gaza are not terrorists and don't shoot missiles at Israel.
Just like 99% of the residents of Iraq are not terrorists and had never done anything to hurt the US/UK.

Israel isn't bombing 99% of Gaza. Their aim is at military targets that are embedded in civilian hotspots. While drawing a comparison between the U.S. and U.K. seems to make parallels, it fails to really encompass one thing. The reason I don't like our (US/UK) involvement in Iraq, is we are defending ourselves from a vague enemy with the threat of some unknowable future attack. Israel is fighting a more tangible enemy where the threat of attack is today or tomorrow, and the means of that attack is starring them in the face.

Quote from: ProgZMaxWell, I think a strong argument can be made for any underdog nation applying less-than 'honorable' tactics in order to sway the battle in their favor; they are, afterall, heavily outclassed.

I'm not arguing whether the tactic is honorable or not. If they want to continue using that tactic at the cost of lives of their own people, then that is their decision to make. My argument is only that when those civilians are killed, we should be laying blame on the people who decided to put a buffer of innocent people between them and enemies.

-MillsJROSS

We must fight against the idea of every Arab being a terrorist... I 100% agree...

But this kind of things do not help...  :-\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers)