scorpio Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 One example is the Camp David summit in 2000, where Arafat rejected a seemingly good offer brokered by Clinton. Then you keep talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/7843307.stmIf the implication is that the IDF is helping, how is shooting children at close range "helping"? Seeing that this reporter wasn't witness to this, how this girl was injured is up for debate as 'Palestinian sources' have shown to be falsified in the past. For all we know, Hamas shot her by accident then the blame was shifted to Israel...they've tried in the past. The ol' Blood Libel...Jews kill kids...then make Motza. ------------------------------------------- C'e la luna mezz'o mare --- Mamma mia me maritari, Figghia mia, a cu te dari --- Mamma mia pensaci tu. O Mamma, piscia fritta baccala O Mamma piscia fritta baccala. Edited February 13, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/7843307.stmIf the implication is that the IDF is helping, how is shooting children at close range "helping"? I'm curious to know, by what possible stretch of the imagination could you have interpretted my message to imply "that the IDF is helping"? You've missed the point in spectacular, record-breaking fashion. I suppose congratulations are in order. Eyeball started this thread 2 weeks ago to say that the tactics Hamas has chosen are not serving their cause. And the results of the Israel election appear to perfectly illustrate why. Hamas has harrassed Israelis to the point of electing a parliament where the leader will be either tough or tougher, and the balance of power is held by an ultra-nationalist party. What outcome could possibly have been *worse* for the people Hamas claims to represent? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) Hamas has harrassed Israelis to the point of electing a parliament where the leader will be either tough or tougher, and the balance of power is held by an ultra-nationalist party. What outcome could possibly have been *worse* for the people Hamas claims to represent? -k Not much I'm afraid, the election of far-right ultra-nationalist governments is bad news for everybody no matter where they're elected. Of all the people on the planet Israelis should know this better than anyone. Edited February 13, 2009 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm curious to know, by what possible stretch of the imagination could you have interpretted my message to imply "that the IDF is helping"?You've missed the point in spectacular, record-breaking fashion. I suppose congratulations are in order. Eyeball started this thread 2 weeks ago to say that the tactics Hamas has chosen are not serving their cause. And the results of the Israel election appear to perfectly illustrate why. Hamas has harrassed Israelis to the point of electing a parliament where the leader will be either tough or tougher, and the balance of power is held by an ultra-nationalist party. What outcome could possibly have been *worse* for the people Hamas claims to represent? -k If Hamas' actions brought about a "tough" Israeli parliament, the actions of Israel's IDF have likewise caused the rise to power of militant Hamas. It's a no win argument - works both ways. Just sayin ... it's a non-'point'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Seeing that this reporter wasn't witness to this, how this girl was injured is up for debate as 'Palestinian sources' have shown to be falsified in the past. For all we know, Hamas shot her by accident then the blame was shifted to Israel...they've tried in the past. The ol' Blood Libel...Jews kill kids...then make Motza.------------------------------------------- C'e la luna mezz'o mare --- Mamma mia me maritari, Figghia mia, a cu te dari --- Mamma mia pensaci tu. O Mamma, piscia fritta baccala O Mamma piscia fritta baccala. eewww! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Think about what type of human being scampers towards the glory that political authority has to offer. Usually the self centred - insecure and dellusionally ambitious...much like film actors. Hamas is no different. When it gets to a point where you desperately holding on to a failing and fleeting career becomes so intense that one forgets to maintain the facade that was neccessary to present in order to get elected...If Hamas can muster up some courage and real care for the people that for all intent and purpose they took advantage...they would pull up their tents and get out of the way and leave. The road to hell was paved with good intention...*It may have started off well but is now ending badly ---- but if they go will the Israelis do what is right and not operate in continued spite anger and out of a sense of justified revenge? Hamas has outlived it's usefulness. They could have continued as in the begining to operate as a social charity - but not as a military force - you can not mix a charitably organization with a military one...It has to be one or the other...so who was Hamas to begin with - benevolent care taker - or glory seeking warrior at the expense of the civilian population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 eewww! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews Go 'ewwww' all you want. Some dorks think it's true. --------------------------------- Altogether, there have been about 150 recorded cases of blood libel (not to mention thousands of rumors) that resulted in the arrest and killing of Jews throughout history, most of them in the Middle Ages... In almost every case, Jews were murdered, sometimes by a mob, sometimes following torture and a trial. ---Walter Laqueur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_JewsGo 'ewwww' all you want. Some dorks think it's true. --------------------------------- Altogether, there have been about 150 recorded cases of blood libel (not to mention thousands of rumors) that resulted in the arrest and killing of Jews throughout history, most of them in the Middle Ages... In almost every case, Jews were murdered, sometimes by a mob, sometimes following torture and a trial. ---Walter Laqueur dorks will be dorks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Even if it was true that they practiced ritual vampirism - what's the big deal. America and Britian drank the blood of all to install empires. Behind all great fortunes are great crimes and I don't see one single innocent person concerning the premise that you must consume others to survive - America is now offically in a state of auto-cannibalism. It is where once the body has eaten the fat - the blood and muscle are next..then the body and empire disappates into history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 dorks will be dorks! Care to expand as that made no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Even if it was true that they practiced ritual vampirism - what's the big deal. America and Britian drank the blood of all to install empires. Behind all great fortunes are great crimes and I don't see one single innocent person concerning the premise that you must consume others to survive - America is now offically in a state of auto-cannibalism. It is where once the body has eaten the fat - the blood and muscle are next..then the body and empire disappates into history. America and Britain have done more for the Third World than we seem to be able to recall at times. Type in 'cure for polio' for one. 'Variola vaccine' might be another. Use your imagination. ------------------------------------------ It's a Daisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 dorks will be dorks! I think he may mean that some people learn and other are not capable of positive change. It may also be a life lesson that explains the fact that there are dull people that we foolishly assume are reasonable and we will wishfull attempt to negotiate a reasonalby that will never come....dorks will be dorks..but we are trained to believe that all people are equal and equally smart..then we get old and figure out that it was a waste of time explaining things to those that choose not to know or can never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_JewsGo 'ewwww' all you want. Some dorks think it's true. --------------------------------- Altogether, there have been about 150 recorded cases of blood libel (not to mention thousands of rumors) that resulted in the arrest and killing of Jews throughout history, most of them in the Middle Ages... In almost every case, Jews were murdered, sometimes by a mob, sometimes following torture and a trial. ---Walter Laqueur dorks will be dorks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Fine, I'll just ignore you opinion. No loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 If Hamas' actions brought about a "tough" Israeli parliament, the actions of Israel's IDF have likewise caused the rise to power of militant Hamas.It's a no win argument - works both ways. Just sayin ... it's a non-'point'. It's not a non-point. You can't ignore the link between the rocket attacks and the worst-possible election results for Palestinians. Hamas made Avigdor Lieberman famous. You can't get around it. You say "yeah, but the IDF made Palestinians militant too!" Ok, I can accept that many many Palestinians have decided they have to do something because things can't get any worse. Absolutely, do something. But, why do the dumbest possible thing you could do? I can understand the average idiot on the street wanting to hit out against their enemy, but I would think that their leadership would be a little smarter. I would think the leaders should be able to understand how utterly moronic the rocket attacks are. There is not a *single* possible positive outcome from the rocket attacks. -the rockets are too random to be of any strategic value. -the rockets are too small and weak to be an effective tool of terror. The rocket attacks only accomplish two things: -they make Israelis angry. -they make people lose sympathy for the Palestinians. Both of those things are exactly the *opposite* of what Palestinians need to do to improve their situation. Even suicide bombings make more sense than the rocket attacks (not that I would ever advocate for suicide bombings!) At least the suicide bombings scared the hell out of people, which could conceivably make them demand some sort of peace be arranged. Possibly, at least. As eyeball suggested earlier on, hunger strikes would have been a much better idea. Rocket attacks make international observers feel contempt for the Palestinians. A hunger strike would make international observers feel sympathy for the Palestinians. Rocket attacks make Israelis citizens feel the military action in Gaza was justified. Hunger strikes would have made the military action in Gaza unnecessary. If Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes, I don't think the IDF is going to barge into Gaza with tanks to jam sandwiches down peoples' throats... if Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes, I don't think Avigdor Lieberman's campaign would have resonated with Israeli voters. Maybe if Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes instead of rocket attacks, the more moderate parties would have had a chance in the election. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) It's not a non-point.You can't ignore the link between the rocket attacks and the worst-possible election results for Palestinians. Hamas made Avigdor Lieberman famous. You can't get around it. You can't ignore the link between the Israeli blockade of the borders and the rockets. You say "yeah, but the IDF made Palestinians militant too!" Ok, I can accept that many many Palestinians have decided they have to do something because things can't get any worse. It's true, things can't get (much) worse for them, living in a concentration camp as they are without proper food and water supplies, children anemic from hunger. That was before the bombing started: Thursday, 6 March 2008, 09:15 GMT Gaza conditions 'at 40-year low' The groups say a battered, starved Gaza cannot be a peace partner Conditions in Gaza Gaza's humanitarian situation is at its worst since Israel occupied the territory in 1967, say UK-based human rights and development groups. They include Amnesty International, Save the Children, Cafod, Care International and Christian Aid. They criticise Israel's blockade on Gaza as illegal collective punishment which fails to deliver security. Absolutely, do something. But, why do the dumbest possible thing you could do? I can understand the average idiot on the street wanting to hit out against their enemy, but I would think that their leadership would be a little smarter. I would think the leaders should be able to understand how utterly moronic the rocket attacks are.There is not a *single* possible positive outcome from the rocket attacks. -the rockets are too random to be of any strategic value. -the rockets are too small and weak to be an effective tool of terror. The rocket attacks only accomplish two things: -they make Israelis angry. -they make people lose sympathy for the Palestinians. Both of those things are exactly the *opposite* of what Palestinians need to do to improve their situation. Even suicide bombings make more sense than the rocket attacks (not that I would ever advocate for suicide bombings!) At least the suicide bombings scared the hell out of people, which could conceivably make them demand some sort of peace be arranged. Possibly, at least. As eyeball suggested earlier on, hunger strikes would have been a much better idea. That's hilarious ... in a really sick way. (See above re children starving because of Israel's blockade.) Rocket attacks make international observers feel contempt for the Palestinians. A hunger strike would make international observers feel sympathy for the Palestinians. Rocket attacks make Israelis citizens feel the military action in Gaza was justified. Hunger strikes would have made the military action in Gaza unnecessary. If Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes, I don't think the IDF is going to barge into Gaza with tanks to jam sandwiches down peoples' throats... if Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes, I don't think Avigdor Lieberman's campaign would have resonated with Israeli voters. Maybe if Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes instead of rocket attacks, the more moderate parties would have had a chance in the election. -k Israel doesn't care if they go on hunger strikes. Israel is depriving them of food, medicine and water. At least the rockets let the world know they are still there. Without that, they'd just starve quietly. What would you do in their place? Conditions in Gaza ... Canadian Health Professionals statement of concern for public health in Gaza 2006 Edited February 21, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 You can't ignore the link between the Israeli blockade of the borders and the rockets. As far as the Israelis are concerned, the blockades are justified by the ongoing threat of violence from Gaza. The blockades would become much harder to justify if the rocket attacks were stopped permanently. All the rocket attacks do is give the Israelis an excuse to continue their actions. At least the rockets let the world know they are still there. Without that, they'd just starve quietly. I challenge you to name even one possible way in which the rocket attacks could yield an outcome that is beneficial to the Palestinians. Yes, the rocket attacks bring attention to the Palestinians. They bring exactly the wrong kind of attention to the Palestinians. I honestly can't think of a stupider possible strategy for the Palestinians to pursue. What would you do in their place? I can be Hamas leader? The first thing I would do, for certain, would be to *stop* doing the stupidest possible thing they could do. Then, I would take stock of my situation and recognize that my best chance to improve the situation for my people would be to gain the sympathy of others. Nobody has any sympathy for terrorists, so I would completely abandon terror. I would explain in great detail that we're renouncing violence, to everyone who would listen. I'd have a representative in Washington explain that to the media there, and in London, and in Paris, and on Youtube, and anywhere else. I would explain that the only kind of aid we want from Iran, or anywhere else, is humanitarian aid. I would work ruthlessly to find any underground Palestinian groups who wished to continue violence, and I would end them, because they would only be undermining what I was trying to accomplish. Then I would say "the blockades were supposed to keep weapons out. We have abandoned violence. There are no more weapons to smuggle. When will you take the blockades down?" With the excuse of rockets and terror attacks gone, Israel still might not improve the situation in Gaza, but if they didn't they would find themselves isolated and under pressure from their allies. It's not people like you that the Palestinians need to win over. It's people like me: people who would have some sympathy for the living conditions there but can't blame Israel for acting the way they are in the face of violence. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) As far as the Israelis are concerned, the blockades are justified by the ongoing threat of violence from Gaza. The blockades would become much harder to justify if the rocket attacks were stopped permanently.All the rocket attacks do is give the Israelis an excuse to continue their actions. I challenge you to name even one possible way in which the rocket attacks could yield an outcome that is beneficial to the Palestinians. Yes, the rocket attacks bring attention to the Palestinians. They bring exactly the wrong kind of attention to the Palestinians. I honestly can't think of a stupider possible strategy for the Palestinians to pursue. I can be Hamas leader? The first thing I would do, for certain, would be to *stop* doing the stupidest possible thing they could do. Then, I would take stock of my situation and recognize that my best chance to improve the situation for my people would be to gain the sympathy of others. Nobody has any sympathy for terrorists, so I would completely abandon terror. I would explain in great detail that we're renouncing violence, to everyone who would listen. I'd have a representative in Washington explain that to the media there, and in London, and in Paris, and on Youtube, and anywhere else. I would explain that the only kind of aid we want from Iran, or anywhere else, is humanitarian aid. I would work ruthlessly to find any underground Palestinian groups who wished to continue violence, and I would end them, because they would only be undermining what I was trying to accomplish. Then I would say "the blockades were supposed to keep weapons out. We have abandoned violence. There are no more weapons to smuggle. When will you take the blockades down?" With the excuse of rockets and terror attacks gone, Israel still might not improve the situation in Gaza, but if they didn't they would find themselves isolated and under pressure from their allies. It's not people like you that the Palestinians need to win over. It's people like me: people who would have some sympathy for the living conditions there but can't blame Israel for acting the way they are in the face of violence. -k I admire your idealism and commitment to peaceful tactics. It may yet work, but where to start? I believe the Palestinian people have been trying, but it hasn't worked yet November 20, 2006 edition Palestinian human shields give Israel pause By Joshua Mitnick | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor TEL AVIV – In perhaps the most effective act of nonviolent protest in the six-year Palestinian uprising, hundreds of Gazans forced Israel over the weekend to call off airstrikes on the residence of a militant leader by swarming the house as human shields. In recent months, Israeli security forces have used telephone calls to warn Palestinian militants and others near alleged militant safe houses and weapons caches, giving them up to a half hour to evacuate. When militia leader Mohammed Baroud got the call Saturday, he enlisted neighbors to protect his house from the Israeli military. They've now set up a system of shifts to protect the house around the clock. Palestinian leaders are hailing this as a moral victory that will be replicated. If so, it may herald a significant tactical shift from attacks by tiny secretive militant groups to nonviolent civilian protest, a change that will force Israel to adjust its strategy. It also underscores the difficulty of fighting militant groups embedded in a civilian population - whether it be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gaza. "The Palestinians are creative and this is something amazing," says Maher Miqqdad, a Fatah spokesman. "Maybe in the past six years of the intifada, the focus was on military resistance. But we shouldn't deny the importance of peaceful resistance. There is an importance in increasing the peaceful struggle." An Israeli army spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity said the attack was scrapped after the military realized that dozens of Palestinians were demonstrating on the roof of Mr. Baroud's home. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s02-wome.html Now that takes some courage! But that was in 2006. It hasn't worked yet. In fact, in the recent 'engagement', Israel used the UN as a tool to amass men women and children in 'safe' houses, and then bombed them. The IDF shot men, women and childrenas they ran from the UN facilities that had been bombed. So ... how and where and with whom do you start the 'non-violence', kimmy? Anyone? Hamas is NOT the problem here, imo. Hamas is simply part of the picture, and we can't wish them out of existence. Hamas defends, and is defended by Palestinians at this time, one of several political parties, a balancing agent in an emerging democracy, preventing wholesale sellout represented by Fatah, as some of them see it. That's their choice, and it's democracy, and I think we should respect it until they decide otherwise. I would work ruthlessly to find any underground Palestinian groups who wished to continue violence, and I would end them, because they would only be undermining what I was trying to accomplish. "ruthlessly" "end them" ... how? This is called death squads, right? (Just checkin'.) I think Israel should pull back to the 1967 borders, and International forces should maintain FOOD access to Gaza and protect the Palestinian people. When you're starving and dying under conditions imposed punitively, collectively, desperation is the only strategy. And no, blockades that result in starvation of children are not justified by paltry, ineffective rockets, not under any law. The blockades are an act of war, in law. The only thing 'justified' is an international safe zone, and Israel must agree. Hamas is not causing the problem. The war of aggression by starvation is the ongoing problem that must stop. It simply isn't a sustainable solution. It is not a solution at all. It is war. imo. Edited February 22, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 It was better when they used rocks and slings. It was better when you could knock down a giant and game over. It was better when the Romans ran the area - and kept the crazed semites in check with the threat of floggings and cruxifictions...awh the good old days! Could we not appeal to Rome to settle this dispute? Maybe start all over again - How my heart aches for the return of Herod - or even Pontius Pilate..He would fix those pesky Palistinians and Israelites...And that Jesus guy - whaaat a trouble maker...The nerve of the spawn of David insisting that he was King of Judea...we ill keep that trouble maker out of the fray...just give him a good gold crown and a nice chair - and all will be well..........Odd - how it all started with the removal of a benevolent monarch by the empiralist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 kimmy sez it like it is... ----------------------- You oughta be stuffed with nails, you ought! ---Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 kimmy sez it like it is...----------------------- You oughta be stuffed with nails, you ought! ---Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady But she does not propose any viable solutions. A continued state of war with Israel blockading the borders of Gaza is not a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 But she does not propose any viable solutions.A continued state of war with Israel blockading the borders of Gaza is not a solution. Could be a final solution? Pardon the pun in bad taste. Over and over again - the language creates very poor optics - the term "process" should be dropped form Peace Process...a process can last forever...a decision has to be made a real one - war - or peace. The later is sustainable - war does not sustain and always ends badly when a people become dependant on the proverbial sword. Where are the human rights advocates - if someone blocked and sealed off the corridor that runs between Toronto and Barrie ---- and put the people in dire straights and starvation --- there would be an uproar...we are so use too Palistinian suffering that we find it a non-issue not deserving so much as a reprimand...what will history state in 50 years when it becomes clear that the west facilitated an incrimental geocide of these native inhabitants? It reminds me of how Canada turned away a ship load of Jews escaping Europe prior to the holocaust. History repeats itself only the colour of the pictorial has changed...we pride ourselves on our socio evolution? WHY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I admire your idealism and commitment to peaceful tactics. Rest assured, I am no pacifist. I'm completely in favor of fighting if it makes sense to do so. For the Palestinians, it makes absolutely no sense to keep attacking a foe they can not defeat by violence. They have to find a different way. It may yet work, but where to start?I believe the Palestinian people have been trying, but it hasn't worked yet November 20, 2006 edition Palestinian human shields give Israel pause By Joshua Mitnick | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor TEL AVIV – In perhaps the most effective act of nonviolent protest in the six-year Palestinian uprising, hundreds of Gazans forced Israel over the weekend to call off airstrikes on the residence of a militant leader by swarming the house as human shields. (snip) http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s02-wome.html Now that takes some courage! But that was in 2006. It hasn't worked yet. Your news article illustrates two things: - first off, peaceful protest did work, even against the heartless Israelis. -secondly, why were the Israelis bombing the house in the first place? Because he was a militant. I think there's an obvious lesson to be learned from your article. In fact, in the recent 'engagement', Israel used the UN as a tool to amass men women and children in 'safe' houses, and then bombed them. The IDF shot men, women and childrenas they ran from the UN facilities that had been bombed. You'll have to provide me a citation for that one. I simply don't believe you. So ... how and where and with whom do you start the 'non-violence', kimmy? I think I already explained that quite clearly. The Palestinians start. The Palestinians start because they're the ones who can't afford to let the status quo continue. Hamas is NOT the problem here, imo. Hamas is simply part of the picture, and we can't wish them out of existence. Hamas defends, and is defended by Palestinians at this time, one of several political parties, a balancing agent in an emerging democracy, preventing wholesale sellout represented by Fatah, as some of them see it. That's their choice, and it's democracy, and I think we should respect it until they decide otherwise. Are you asking me to respect the choice to continue rocket attacks because that's what their democratically elected leaders have chosen? Sorry, but no. The rocket attacks can only serve to bring suffering upon the Palestinians. If they "choose" to continue the rocket attacks, they're also "choosing" the consequences that result from the rocket attacks. And with Israel's new, even more hardline governing coalition, the consequences aren't going to be pleasant. I would work ruthlessly to find any underground Palestinian groups who wished to continue violence, and I would end them, because they would only be undermining what I was trying to accomplish. "ruthlessly" "end them" ... how? This is called death squads, right? (Just checkin'.) If possible, I'd end the rocket attacks by confiscating the rockets and jailing the perpetrators. But if it had to be done, you bet I would end the rocketeers themselves. I told you what I'd do if I was somehow made the leader of that bunch of knuckleheads. Well, that's what I'd do: a complete commitment to ending terror attacks. If there were hardliners within my own group who wouldn't put down their weapons, I'd deal with them permanent-style. Buh-buh-but what about peace? Isn't killing rocket-launching goons just as bad? Doesn't it make me a hypocrite to talk about non-violence while I'm talking about killing militants who won't get on board with my plan? No, I don't think so. If I'm the leader of these dimwits, here's how I look at it: each rocket that sails over that wall puts Palestinian civilians at risk. Each rocket increases the likelihood of an F16 flying over and dropping some ordinance, or of tanks and soldiers rolling through. Yeah, my people are starving. Does a rocket sailing into an Israeli village put food in anybody's mouth? I think Israel should pull back to the 1967 borders, and International forces should maintain FOOD access to Gaza and protect the Palestinian people. Once the Palestinians commit to peace, the international community will be happy to help get them food. When you're starving and dying under conditions imposed punitively, collectively, desperation is the only strategy. I keep trying to tell you: no it isn't. And no, blockades that result in starvation of children are not justified by paltry, ineffective rockets, not under any law. "Why, the rocket attacks hardly do any damage. The retaliation is completely disproportionate to the damage done by the rockets. It's so unfair!" I think it should be obvious by now that the only "proportionate response" that applies to this situation is this: you mess with the bull, you get the horns. It simply doesn't matter whether the blockade and the military action are "proportionate" to the damage done by the rockets. What matters is that when the Israelis are provoked, they hit back. If you can't afford to be hit back, quit provoking them. It's really that simple. The blockades are an act of war, in law. The only thing 'justified' is an international safe zone, and Israel must agree. Hamas is not causing the problem. The war of aggression by starvation is the ongoing problem that must stop. It simply isn't a sustainable solution. It is not a solution at all. It is war. Once they show that they have put down their weapons, the Palestinians will be able to get the international community to come to their aid. Things like international monitoring of supplies entering Gaza would be a piece of cake. It would become extremely difficult for Israel to argue that the blockade is still justified once Palestinians showed they were committed to non-violence. Once Palestinians show they're committed to non-violence, great things are possible. But until then, nothing will change. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 (edited) Rest assured, I am no pacifist. I'm completely in favor of fighting if it makes sense to do so.For the Palestinians, it makes absolutely no sense to keep attacking a foe they can not defeat by violence. They have to find a different way. Your news article illustrates two things: - first off, peaceful protest did work, even against the heartless Israelis. -secondly, why were the Israelis bombing the house in the first place? Because he was a militant. I think there's an obvious lesson to be learned from your article. You'll have to provide me a citation for that one. I simply don't believe you. I think I already explained that quite clearly. The Palestinians start. The Palestinians start because they're the ones who can't afford to let the status quo continue. Are you asking me to respect the choice to continue rocket attacks because that's what their democratically elected leaders have chosen? Sorry, but no. The rocket attacks can only serve to bring suffering upon the Palestinians. If they "choose" to continue the rocket attacks, they're also "choosing" the consequences that result from the rocket attacks. And with Israel's new, even more hardline governing coalition, the consequences aren't going to be pleasant. If possible, I'd end the rocket attacks by confiscating the rockets and jailing the perpetrators. But if it had to be done, you bet I would end the rocketeers themselves. I told you what I'd do if I was somehow made the leader of that bunch of knuckleheads. Well, that's what I'd do: a complete commitment to ending terror attacks. If there were hardliners within my own group who wouldn't put down their weapons, I'd deal with them permanent-style. Buh-buh-but what about peace? Isn't killing rocket-launching goons just as bad? Doesn't it make me a hypocrite to talk about non-violence while I'm talking about killing militants who won't get on board with my plan? No, I don't think so. If I'm the leader of these dimwits, here's how I look at it: each rocket that sails over that wall puts Palestinian civilians at risk. Each rocket increases the likelihood of an F16 flying over and dropping some ordinance, or of tanks and soldiers rolling through. Yeah, my people are starving. Does a rocket sailing into an Israeli village put food in anybody's mouth? Once the Palestinians commit to peace, the international community will be happy to help get them food. I keep trying to tell you: no it isn't. "Why, the rocket attacks hardly do any damage. The retaliation is completely disproportionate to the damage done by the rockets. It's so unfair!" I think it should be obvious by now that the only "proportionate response" that applies to this situation is this: you mess with the bull, you get the horns. It simply doesn't matter whether the blockade and the military action are "proportionate" to the damage done by the rockets. What matters is that when the Israelis are provoked, they hit back. If you can't afford to be hit back, quit provoking them. It's really that simple. Once they show that they have put down their weapons, the Palestinians will be able to get the international community to come to their aid. Things like international monitoring of supplies entering Gaza would be a piece of cake. It would become extremely difficult for Israel to argue that the blockade is still justified once Palestinians showed they were committed to non-violence. Once Palestinians show they're committed to non-violence, great things are possible. But until then, nothing will change. -k The rockets aren't doing any damage. The blockades are. The first step is for Israel to end its act of war - the blockades - and pull back and allow international troops to monitor the borders. Starving children is a war crime, and it continues. I think it should be obvious by now that the only "proportionate response" that applies to this situation is this: you mess with the bull, you get the horns. No, you cannot commit war crimes. By the time you finish your death squads, most of the people would have died of starvation. I repeat: Israel's starvation blockades are war crimes and must end. Israel must pull back and allow international policing of borders. Edited February 24, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.