Israel attack on Gaza: Fragile peace shattered again

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,881
Media
9
Likes
3,762
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
it would appear Bush's neocon cronies, with the fingers deeply entrenched in the CIA, have been busy of late.

financial ruination wasn't enough, they're going to leave WWIII on the front steps of the White House for President Obama to deal with.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Why is it disingenuous or inflammatory to use the term concentration camp? The Palestinians evicted from their homes have been concentrated in the Gaza Strip for the convenience of the militarily successful. The British used them in South Africa, the US used them for Japanese etc etc.. The Israelis have used them for Arabs. Though perhaps the Native American Reservations were the first example in modern history.

Tell me why one person is a great patriot and another a terrorist for fighting for their homes?

They have been allowed to have a government that openly avows its intention to see the Israelis driven into the sea ... hardly the normal stuff of concentration camps.
A concentration camp with skyscrapers.
A concentration camp that manages (rather incompetently) to send missiles into the cities of its 'occupiers.'
A concentration camp that would have no problems from the Israelis if they would only stop their own aggression. But if the Israelis never retaliated, that would if anything cause the level of Palestinian aggression to ratchet upwards.
One has to feel sorry for the Palestinian people ... they do indeed suffer more than anyone in this matter.
And one might also feel that the creation of the state of Israel was an unjust and ignominious historical error. (One might ... I don't say I do.)
But the fact is that Israel exists and is here to stay.
The fact is that the West Bank will likely soon have its own state. Everyone in the process basically wants that to happen, including a large number of Israeli leaders.
And then the Gazans, under the boot of Hamas, will have to decide, as they watch their West Bank brothers progress into prosperity and ripening democracy, whether they want to catch up with modernity, or continue to twist in the wind until the embers of Islamist extremism burn down to nothing.
Until that happens, Israel will occasionally punish them militarily ... never on mere whim, but because Gazans have been tweaking the nose -- indeed, killing the citizens -- of a vastly superior force.
Do you call the Israelis' actions 'terrorism'?
I call it tit for tat.
And the Israelis do what they do unwillingly, driven to moral compromise through the exigencies of defending themselves. They can only lose once.
The fundamental act of aggression here may indeed have been the rupture in 1948 when the world, through the United Nations, created the State of Israel.
But the fundamental aggressive impulse, through the ensuing six decades, has come from the Palestinians.
It's time they accepted reality and got on with building a better life.
Launching missile attacks and threatening a resumption of suicide bombings won't achieve any of that.
 

Maia

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Posts
135
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't agree with war, but I do agree that one country has the right to defend it's citizens from attack. It's about time Israel took action against these terrorists. The whole reason Gaza was returned to the Arabs was for peace. What have the Arabs done for peace in that time? Rained down thousands of rockets and mortars on Israeli towns and civilians.

Now I don't use the word "Palestinians" because there is no such a people or ethnic group. Before the 1945 founding of Israel these people were simply Arabs that were either Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or Lebanese. The term "Palestine" came from the British rule.

Any land that is taken in war to protect ones borders is fair game. Is the United States pressured into giving back land to Mexico that was taken in war? Most of the Southwest would be Mexico if that were the case.

I find it truly hypocritical to call the Israelis "aggressors" for defending their citizens while it is perfectly OK for Hamas to fire rockets at purely civilian targets in Israel, even after they have the land they wanted. Would the US government sit idly by if Mexican or Canadian forces were lobbing rockets over the border? Why should Israel? Israel went after military targets and of course there is going to be civilian Arab casualties since Hamas uses their own people as shields like a bunch of chicken shits.

Israel does not have to open it's borders in any way to Gaza. The border is their own and who comes and goes is their choice. The hardships are brought on by Hamas and their failure to live in peace within their borders. They want it both ways; they want their land and to be free to come and go into Israel, they want Israel to supply them with what they need but they don't want Israel to exist. An Arab can walk down the street freely in Israel and not be bothered. If I were to walk into Gaza I would be killed on the spot just for being a Jew.

Oh, and by the way, for anyone who doesn't know: Hamas means "Violence" in both Arabic and Hebrew. Yeah, so boo hoo for the poor Violence party in Gaza.

Leoboy, the problem with your position is that the United States stole land from the indigenous Americans and Mexicans before there were any international agreements and treaties about genocide and occupation. The United States spearheaded such notions after World War 1 and again after World War 2. So, now we have what we call the Modern Era, where the rules of morality and international exchange have been established for the participating nations.

The reason the Israeli regime is called the aggressors is because in the modern era they initiated the war and have repeatedly transgressed the UN agreements on "land grab" settlements during occupation. Thus most international observers see the Palestinians as responding to the occupation rather than instigating the whole war. (On a side note, even within the Bush regime labeling Israel the aggressor in this case would not be without precedent. Let us not ignore that the US called Russia "aggressors" during the Georgia conflict when the Georgian regime was shelling Russian citizens, and Russia responded with force.)

Palestinians did indeed exist as a people and ethnic group; as you stated you are someone of Jewish ancestry so I am not sure how you missed all of the mention of the Philistani in the Torah... yes, they are them. Though you have exposed that your Hebrew and Arabic aren't well studied as you said that Hamas means violence in those languages, which it does not. It means 'fervent fanatacism', which in my opinion is nearly as despicable as violence because it almost always leads to it. :frown1:
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,813
Points
333
Location
Greece
Yes and no Rubester. Israel controls Gaza's airspace, the majority of it's land borders, maritime access and the water supply and has effective control of all other resources including food and medicine, hence some of the chaos in hospitals at the moment. It has the sixth highest population density in the world, with those above being the City States like Hong Kong and Monaco. Oh and Israel destroyed their Airport in 2001. So I am sticking with the camp assertion.

Hamas is the duly and democratically elected government of Gaza. This is an understandable problem for Israel as Hamas' purpose is the destruction of the State of Israel. As far as I see the situation at the moment Israel is at full out war with Hamas.

The question isn't so simple. One issue is why now? One Israeli died in the recent mortar attacks and over 250 Palestinians were killed on day one of the reprisals with some 750 more seriously injured and facing poor hospital treatment. A large part of the casualties were civilian women and children.

Is this level of response and the continued destruction of Hamas and the infrastructure, as it is, being destroyed, proportional? Will it only serve (except to help the corrupt Olmert win the elections) to breed the next generation of Jihadis?
 
Last edited:

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Is this level of response and the continued destruction of Hamas and the infrastructure, as it is, being destroyed, proportional? Will it only serve (except to help the corrupt Olmert win the elections) to breed the next generation of Jihadis?

No (but such a response is all but impossible not to mention futile, as I'm sure you well know) and yes, quite probably.

I don't quite share your observation about Olmert - not that he's corrupt but that he will win the election, but February is a long way off yet.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Yes and no Rubester.

I could agree, with the proviso that there is a great deal of no.

Hamas is the duly and democratically elected government of Gaza.

They won, democratically, control of the legislature. They seized, by force of arms, executive control of Gaza, ending the coalition government.
They aren't really the duly and democratically elected government of Gaza.

The question isn't so simple. One issue is why now?

If not now, when?
Of course, I'm being facetious.
Those attacks by Hamas upon Israel had been going on for some time. At some point, the elephant will trample the mouse. That is life.
One must regret the outcome for the (largely innocent) people who were killed.
But the Israeli action was the direct result of what Hamas decided to do against equally peaceful residents of Israel.
They want the Israeli response, to harden international opinion against their sworn enemy.
That is why Israel most often holds back for a very long time before responding.
But respond, they eventually do ... and you can't blame them.

Is this level of response and the continued destruction of Hamas and the infrastructure, as it is, being destroyed, proportional?

No, of course not.

Will it only serve (except to help the corrupt Olmert win the elections) to breed the next generation of Jihadis?

Olmert has nothing to do with the next elections.
And you're right ... it may indeed serve to breed the next generations of jihadis.
But it's not like a peaceful strategy has ever worked.
Remember ... Hamas is working for the long-term extermination of Israel.
Its short-term pauses are only tactical.
Remember, in their own assemblies, they speak only of a 'hudna' ... a short-term ceasefire as part of a longer-term plan for eventual triumph.
Do many innocent Palestinians suffer as a result?
Of course.
And that is a scandal ... one that in my opinion, can be laid far more at the doorstep of the leadership of Gaza than at the Israelis', who are only defending themselves.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
But if the Israelis never retaliated, that would if anything cause the level of Palestinian aggression to ratchet upwards.

This is an important concept, and needs some debate.

There is an argument that Israel should accept continued rocket attacks on its civilian population and the deaths and injuries these cause because the alternative is an even greater level of attacks and deaths if they attack. Presumably an Israeli occupation of Gaza would result in more deaths. There is an argument that the present war will just create the next generation of terrorists. There is an argument that if Israel could just sit it out and not go to war then sooner or later there would be a change of administration in Gaza. All these arguments suggest that the present war is wrong.

But there is the point SR makes that if Israel does nothing then the position will simply get worse. Hamas do seem to be sausage-slicing - gradually increasing their level of aggression, seeing what they can get away with. Whenever Israel might decide enough is enough it will be perceived as being an over-reaction.

I would be interested to see an assessment of what might reasonably have happened if Israel had done nothing. Would Hamas have withered away? If it would then Israel has scored a terrible own goal. Or was it the case that Hamas was gaining in strength both in Gaza and elsewhere? If this is the case then Israel's actions become easier to understand.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,813
Points
333
Location
Greece
IThose attacks by Hamas upon Israel had been going on for some time. At some point, the elephant will trample the mouse. That is life.

Some rubbish grenade attacks do not threaten the State of Israel in any way. The response is an attempt to destroy further the Palestinian people in Gaza. Perhaps Israel has a policy at every opportunity to squeeze the will and life out of these people?

There were attacks before Hamas came to power, there will be attacks afterwards. Whay do you expect? What would you do if you had been forced from your land and made to live in a shit hole with virtually no autonomy?
 

Maia

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Posts
135
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
Israel cannot really do anything other than attack Hamas, unfortunately. Anything else gives the impression that Israel respects the legitimacy of Hamas.
Hamas cannot really do anything other than attack Israel, unfortunately. Anything else gives the impression that Hamas respects the legitimacy of Israel.

The past 60 years of Israeli regimes are guilty of a great many things, however the election of Hamas really doesn't do anything helpful for the Palestinian cause, and was the most disastrous path for the Palestinians to take. Rather like Bush 2004, when people are scared and angry enough you can get them to react in completely idiotic, self-destructive ways. Hell, I make terrible decisions when I am angry at my husband.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Some rubbish grenade attacks do not threaten the State of Israel in any way. The response is an attempt to destroy further the Palestinian people in Gaza. Perhaps Israel has a policy at every opportunity to squeeze the will and life out of these people?

Well, the same could reasonably be said of Tibetans and China could it not - yet you stood behind Chinese actions as I recall, downplaying them. They are not the same situations, but they have similarities, why the different stance from you? Anyway, I think you're missing the point, perhaps willfully that no nation will stand idly by for long while a neighbour takes pot shots at it, however 'rubbish' they may be - nor should they.

There were attacks before Hamas came to power, there will be attacks afterwards. Whay do you expect? What would you do if you had been forced from your land and made to live in a shit hole with virtually no autonomy?

I don't think the validity of the Palestinian cause is so much at issue, as their futile and (so far) self defeating tactics. While Israel remains the regional strongman, with the backing (tacit or otherwise) of the US such imbalances in response and thus perpetual tension and resentment on both sides, will remain.

For this to change, both sides need to step back (again), and I'd argue Hamas needs to so so first. I don't consider Israel right or wrong in what it's doing, but neither is Hamas, in fact, on one level I'd say they're both behaving like school children and, I think the world's patience with the squabble is wearing thin. Mine certainly is, not that that matters of course!
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
The reason the Israeli regime is called the aggressors is because in the modern era they initiated the war.

Which war, Maia? There were so many in the 20th Century.

Palestinians did indeed exist as a people and ethnic group.

Were they really ethnically distinct from the Arabs of the surrounding lands?
But your general point is valid.
There are many occasions of the Arab people of the area being called Palestinians, dating back to the Greeks.
(But the word eventually became hugely diluted in its meaning, referring to Arab and Jew alike from Palestine. The Jerusalem Post, for example, used to be called The Palestine Post.)
 
Last edited:

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Some rubbish grenade attacks do not threaten the State of Israel in any way. The response is an attempt to destroy further the Palestinian people in Gaza. Perhaps Israel has a policy at every opportunity to squeeze the will and life out of these people?

No, they don't really threaten the Israeli state. But they do compromise the quality of life of Israelis living near Gaza ... and occasionally leave entirely innocent Israelis dead.
Hamas encourages these attacks so that Israel will eventually have to respond.
Israel loses a bit in the court of international public opinion each time it does.
But if it doesn't respond, the terrorism of its own citizens continues.
It is between a rock and a hard place.
But the fundamental blame is on the provocative stance and policies of Hamas.

There were attacks before Hamas came to power, there will be attacks afterwards. What do you expect? What would you do if you had been forced from your land and made to live in a shit hole with virtually no autonomy?

I hope I would not worsen my situation by doing what Hamas is doing now.
I hope I would behave as the West Bankers are doing ... accepting the Israeli offer of peace and eventual integration into the Israeli economy, with help in establishing Palestinian businesses on the West Bank, and the chance, not necessarily too distant, of living in my own Palestinian state.

And why were they forced from their land? Because the day after Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence, Arab armies from five nations attacked. Their bark proved worse than their bite. And the consequences for the Palestinians were ruinous.
 
Last edited:

Maia

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Posts
135
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
Yes, they were definitely ethnically distinct, just like the Hebrews were distinct from the Egyptians were distinct from the Syrians were distinct from Arabians and so on. They all had different traditions, religions, languages, etcetera.
In the Roman Era there were barely any Arabs in Palestine, but there were lots of Palestinians. I don't really want to hijack the thread, but what people now refer to as Arab is mainly defined by language, not ethnicity. The language was spread as Islam became the predominate religion of the region, but most of the people have no Arab blood at all. To make it as concise as possible: the people from the Arabian Peninsula are ethnic Arabs, everyone else just speaks Arabic.
 

Elmer Gantry

LPSG Legend
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
48,180
Media
53
Likes
265,206
Points
518
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No, they don't really threaten the Israeli state. But they do compromise the quality of life of Israelis living near Gaza ... and occasionally leave entirely innocent Israelis dead.
Hamas encourages these attacks so that Israel will eventually have to respond.
Israel loses a bit in the court of international public opinion each time it does.
But if it doesn't respond, the terrorism of its own citizens continues.
It is between a rock and a hard place.
But the fundamental blame is on the provocative stance and policies of Hamas.
I hope I would not worsen my situation by doing what Hamas is doing now.
I hope I would behave as the West Bankers are doing ... accepting the Israeli offer of peace and eventual integration into the Israeli economy, with help in establishing Palestinian businesses on the West Bank, and the chance, not necessarily too distant, of living in my own Palestinian state.

And why were they forced from their land? Because the day after Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence, Arab armies from five nations attacked. Their bark proved worse than their bite. And the consequences for the Palestinians were ruinous.

So in other words, the Palestinians should lie down and accept that you've been conquered?

The "court of international public opinion" is a quaint notion that means absolutely nothing to the Israeli administration nor the factions in the USA that support it.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
So in other words, the Palestinians should lie down and accept that you've been conquered?

I didn't read it that way, merely that they accept the reality of their situation as it is, not how they would like it to be. Their current strategy doesn't appear to be working does it, so what would you advocate they do?

The "court of international public opinion" is a quaint notion that means absolutely nothing to the Israeli administration nor the factions in the USA that support it.

It's not quaint at all when the parties depend on third parties and other nations for support, tangible and intangible - which I believe they both do. To put it bluntly; support from victim status is more when one is seen to be a victim.

From a Palestinian perspective, the more Hamas is cast in the role of aggressor, the worse it may become for them, and not just because Israel is more likely to take a [more] robust military position. Sad to say; but IMHO Israel's most recent attacks have likely furthered Hamas' cause, not hindered it, at least in the short term.

The cynic in me doubts the recent provocation so soon after the expiry of the 'ceasefire' wasn't a direct invitation for Israeli retaliation - to refocus the international spotlight on the Palestinian situation. With the six month period of 'quiet' being, at least one Israeli Government official suggested at the time that it was in fact a ruse to allow Hamas to regroup, perhaps they were right.

I doubt the civilian casualties are of much 'concern' to Hamas' leadership, useful may perhaps describe them better. I may be doing them a gross disservice, but somehow I doubt it. Hamas may have misjudged the level of Israel's response, but when you play with fire ...
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
So in other words, the Palestinians should lie down and accept that you've been conquered?

No.
They should accept the Israeli offer of land for peace.
An offer that was made long ago and still stands.
An offer that the West Bank Palestinians are in the process of redeeming.

(Of course they were conquered. They started and lost, not one, but several wars. If you lose a war, you're conquered. If you're lucky enough to have the Israelis as your enemies, you may yet pull statehood, prosperity, even democracy from history's hat. But you won't do that through continual acts of aggression against a force that is outnumbered 50 to one in the Arab world but refuses to be obliterated.)

The "court of international public opinion" is a quaint notion that means absolutely nothing to the Israeli administration nor the factions in the USA that support it.

Nor should it mean anything to them.
Their survival must be their first priority ... and it is.
I repeat what I have said numerous times.
If the Palestinians and their sponsors put down the weapons, they would have instantaneous peace with the Israelis.

The Gazans should follow the lead of their West Bank cousins, who have accepted that Israel exists and, six decades after its birth, has a right to exist.
And then they can begin the process of accommodation ... on both sides ... that may finally bring peace to that star-crossed corner of the human world.
 
Last edited:

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I doubt the civilian casualties are of much 'concern' to Hamas' leadership, useful may perhaps describe them better. I may be doing them a gross disservice, but somehow I doubt it. Hamas may have misjudged the level of Israel's response, but when you play with fire ...

Bingo.
Their own casualties are the chip they play to gain support and international sympathy.
The strategem is callous, cynical and hypocritical.