(05-17-2021, 11:32 PM)Dill Wrote: One doesn't "condemn terrorism regardless of the perpetrators" if one accepts only one side's definition and "bare facts--the "side you prefer."
And no one is applying a "double standard" if he insists definitions of terrorism be applicable to all sides, and withholds application to any side on that ground.
Except you haven't declared Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organizations. So there's that.
Quote:I've gave you the opportunity for in-depth engagement on these issues--history, facts, definitions of terrorism, whatever.
You've "gave me"?
Quote:But you turned tail, reduced now to sniping at me in posts to others. That is what "everyone else is now aware of."
I've sniped at you directly as well. I find your consistent double standards to be reprehensible and an indication of a weak mind bolstered by overly verbose, faux intellectual pontification. Is that direct enough for you? Your take on this conflict was as predictable as a Rush Limbaugh position, you're very similar in ways you'll never want to admit.
Keep supporting terrorists though, as long as they're the "right terrorists".
(05-17-2021, 05:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think their status as a state is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I am a novice in the discussion, but it certainly seems like they're more like a resistance force trying to hold onto their territory more so than a legitimate government of an area. It seems Israel has been pressing in on them (sieging them?) for quite some time and I doubt Israel recognizes them as a legitimate state. I'm not sure America or the rest of the first world does either. I bet the majority of people consider them terrorists occupying land, much like they did ISIS and their caliphate.
Israel, on the other hand, is an established state with billions of dollars in funding from America and other first world nations. We are, by extension, signing off on their murders by funding them while they are sieging the Palestinians.
Yo C-Dawg! No. Israel doesn't recognize Gaza as a legitimate state. It is not a state. But one could say that it has been besieged for years.
Gaza is an occupied territory, into which refugees were driven in 1948 when the Israeli state appropriated their lands. Egypt occupied the territory during the '48 war and set up Arab League headquarters there. But Israel drove the Egyptians out during the Six-Day War in '67. Since then it has been more like a U.S. Indian reservation in the 19th century, or a Bantustan in South Africa under Apartheid.
Israel controls the airspace over Gaza, the coastline, and who goes and comes--except for a narrow strip on the border of Egypt, which is controlled by Egypt. It's basically a large, open-air prison containing 2 million people. They are fed largely by the UN and other Arab states. Generations of children now grow up there without hope. (There were Israeli settlers in Gaza, but they were forcibly removed in 2005.)
As far as governance goes, Gaza has, since '94, been nominally under control of the Palestinian Authority, the entity which, after the Oslo Accords, was to function as an interim government for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, in anticipation of a two-state solution to the I-P conflict. The two most powerful parties in the PA are Fatah (a secular party) and Hamas (an Islamist party). After the expulsion of Israeli settlers, elections were held for the Palestinian Legislative Council, and Hamas won a plurality. This lead to a break with Fatah and the rest of the PA, as Hamas refused to recognize Israel's right to exist or to cede any "Islamic Land" to non Muslims. A civil war broke out between the groups, and Hamas retained control of Gaza, while the rest of the PA governed the West Bank. The rest of the PA, along with the U.S. and Israel, does not recognize Hamas as the legal governing body of Gaza.
Hamas is not the only political entity in Gaza. There are others not under its control.
By the way, a picture is worth a thousand words. The map below gives some sense of the course of Palestinian dispossession. The green in the map on the left indicates land owned by Arabs immediately after WWII. The next the right shows how much Palestinian land would have gone to the Israelis had they followed the UN partition plan. The third map shows the state of land ownership in 67, just before Gaza and the West Bank were annexed (the latter from Jordan). The final map shows land ownership/control today.
What the map does not show is how the West Bank is criss-crossed with walls, which in many cases separate farmers from their fields, forcing them to drive back forth for hours to reach fields once just across the street. The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are a serious issue now, since they are illegal (according to the UN) and make a two-state solution impossible.
(05-17-2021, 06:44 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'm going to use a pretty piss poor analogy, but this is how I view it as a casual observer...
Imagine a smaller guy going up to a bigger guy in a bar who he's trying to frame as an asshole. (Who knows why, it really doesn't matter. Let's say it's over a girl) The smaller guy starts running his mouth. He then throws a drink on the bigger dude. He then throws a real weak punch that he knows isn't going to win him the fight and the big guy counters it, breaks his nose and lays him out. All the while, someone else recorded video of the event and then spliced it to just show the big guy punching the little guy.
The big guy now looks like a total prick. The small guy knew exactly the reaction he was going to get, it was planned from the very beginning. He got exactly what he wanted.
That's what this feels like to me. Have I done the appropriate research on it to be an expert? No, not even close. I don't want to represent myself as such. But I think there's enough there for me to come to the conclusion that this was at all part of a plan. Remember, we're talking about a culture (Hamas) that pays out pensions to martyrs and terrorist families who support the cause. They deliberately and strategically place their citizens (women and children included) in harms way.
Like I said, I'm not at all trying to represent myself as an expert on this. Nor do I fail to understand that this is an incredibly complex issue, and that there isn't some level of merit that exists on both sides. But c'mon, I feel like all of the above is pretty damn obvious.
You can't just start indiscriminately firing 1,000 rockets at Israel and then cry foul when they return the favor.
I have an analogy too. Suppose you and your family live in a house with a huge yard, a large garden and garage, but some other family wants it. Without papers, they claim it used to be theirs, arrive with guns, and run you out. And they destroy your deed to the house.
You hole up in the garage. Some of your extended family and neighbors try to help but they are unable to retake your house. Your side is just outnumbered. The police arrive and broker an arrangement, whereby you get to live in your garage and use part of your garden; they keep their guns but you can't keep yours. The people in the house control your access to the street.
Your family is very angry and unhappy. Your son acquires a gun from a neighbor and starts shooting at the house; he swears it's your family's house and he wants it back. The people in the house shoot back and kill him. The police view the shooting as legitimate self-defense. Homeowners have a right to protect their property. Now the people who took your house won't let your family leave the property to find work. The neighbors have to bring you food every day.
The usurpers also start using most of the garden you'd been forced to split. Some of the neighbors are on your side. They remember your family has been there for generations. But they can't do anything. The family in the house has the weapons.
So it goes for decades. Their children prosper in business and professions; yours are hopeless. Fighting still breaks out. They have automatic weapons, night vision scopes, plenty of ammo. Family members on each side die--but mostly on your side, at like a 10-1 ratio. They sometimes use your family as human shields during gunfights, then when the police and press arrive, they claim YOU were the one doing that to make THEM look bad.
You claim you want peace, but no one will take you seriously until you give up your claim to your house. Finally, you DO agree to give up your house, if you can just have your garage. But that other family has now taken over all the garden and divided your garage space in half to accommodate their growing family. And they still control your access to the street. The family in your house does its best to provoke you into acts of violence, so they can blame you for shutting down the police process. They can come in the garage anytime now and confiscate your possessions--your laptop, your money, your valuable family heirlooms. That's not an attack, but "security." There is talk of moving all of you out of the garage entirely and into a tent in the far corner of the yard.
Neighbors down the street, who can't really see what is going on, can't get your side of the story since your access to the street is limited. Sometimes they see your families shouting or even shooting at one another, and wonder who started it. With easy access to the street, one of the usurpers walks down the street to explain: someone in your family attacked the house. Again. Some neighbors in the group have little sympathy if you lost family members in the process. It was self defense. Others figure "both sides" are at fault, though your family much more so. They wonder at your contradictory behavior: you want everyone to respect your property rights, but you don't respect theirs. That doesn't seem fair. If you really want peace, then why don't you stop fighting?
(05-17-2021, 11:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've sniped at you directly as well. I find your consistent double standards to be reprehensible and an indication of a weak mind bolstered by overly verbose, faux intellectual pontification. Is that direct enough for you? Your take on this conflict was as predictable as a Rush Limbaugh position, you're very similar in ways you'll never want to admit.
Let's see . . .
I've aligned your version of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict with the official Israeli version, via their Foreign Ministry website.
Following that revelation, I asked you why the Israeli war to take Palestinian land is "defensive" in your view, while the defense of that land was a "war of aggression." That looks like a clear double standard. The strongest possible bias in favor of one side.
You responded by reaffirming Israel's "defense," still without explaining how Israel got the land it was "defending." Either you don't know. . .
Or you do, and that's why you shifted to a demand I call Hezbollah an Hamas "terrorist organizations."
But I'm reluctant to simply use one side's labels to think about the other side in social conflicts, and gave logically consistent reasons why.
That was your way out. You'll not engage with someone who doesn't accept received definitions and "condemn terrorism"--"terrorists" in this case being the people whose land was stolen, and are now penned in an open air prison, not the people who took their land and imprisoned them.
Yet you do continue to engage--by name calling, not in-depth discussion of the issues. After laying out factual and definition issues in clear terms, I'm "similar" to Rush Limbaugh, the guy whose superficial political analysis denounced hypocrites, liars, double standards, and pseudo-intellectuals. https://www.c-span.org/video/?284357-3/rush-limbaugh-1951-2021.
That's who I'm clearly like, in mysterious ways I'll never want to admit.
But the title of this thread is not "Dill's double standards and Faux-Intellectual Pontification." If you are not predictable, can you break the pattern this time--eschew personal attack when challenged, and instead respond to an argument about the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict with an argument about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
(05-17-2021, 07:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, I don't see that as a very apt analogy. How about if North Korea was launching ICBM's from the middle of a population center, would it be murder to bomb the area in which the ICBM's are held knowing that civilians would likely be killed as well? I think not.
The person who bombed the area made a decision as to the value of the NK civilians' lives and decided it was lower than that of their own citizens. Or, in the case of Israel and Palestine, a Palestinian life is worth approximately 5.7% of an Israeli life. Especially considering, as you said, Israel can intercept the vast majority of the missiles being fired at them.
I don't know if you'd call it murder, as that has a specific legal definition, but it's definitely not right.
(05-18-2021, 08:37 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The person who bombed the area made a decision as to the value of the NK civilians' lives and decided it was lower than that of their own citizens. Or, in the case of Israel and Palestine, a Palestinian life is worth approximately 5.7% of an Israeli life. Especially considering, as you said, Israel can intercept the vast majority of the missiles being fired at them.
I don't know if you'd call it murder, as that has a specific legal definition, but it's definitely not right.
We're making some progress then. Of course it's a decision, a balance based on factors as you described. The use another analogy though, if someone was firing bullets at your family but you were behind cover that stopped 90% would you be satisfied and stop defending yourself?
(05-18-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We're making some progress then. Of course it's a decision, a balance based on factors as you described. The use another analogy though, if someone was firing bullets at your family but you were behind cover that stopped 90% would you be satisfied and stop defending yourself?
Is my family moving in on their home with the intention of robbing/seizing their property? If so, I may be inclined to retreat.
(05-18-2021, 08:37 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The person who bombed the area made a decision as to the value of the NK civilians' lives and decided it was lower than that of their own citizens. Or, in the case of Israel and Palestine, a Palestinian life is worth approximately 5.7% of an Israeli life. Especially considering, as you said, Israel can intercept the vast majority of the missiles being fired at them.
I don't know if you'd call it murder, as that has a specific legal definition, but it's definitely not right.
LOL I share your skepticism C-Dawg. The power balance that you originally noted suddenly disappears when the analogy becomes one independent, nuclear state vs another.
To fix that analogy, we'd have to invade North Korea and take most of their land in a "defensive" war, then disarm the remaining population and confine them to the West end of Pyongyang and the Hamyong province in the north. Or the northern half of it. (How much land do they need, really?) Eventually, they'd get some poor rockets from somewhere (China? Iran?), and scatter shoot them at our bases. After that provocation, we'd return the favor with guided munitions launched from jets they can't touch.
Given that they are so crowded together, of course civilians will die. But we have a right to defend ourselves, don't we? Maybe they should have thought of that before they attacked us for taking their land. Also, the occupation of their land and confinement to reservations without hope has changed them. They start giving children weapons training and teaching them to hate us Americans and to dedicate their lives to fighting us. What a terrible thing--teaching children to hate! Sort of justifies our invasion and dispossession, doesn't it, if they are that kind of people? Maybe not all that bad if some of them die young, before they can grow up to fight us.
To follow your original analogy, with a criminal grabbing a hostage for a shield, that needs some fixing too. Imagine it is the police who use bystanders for shields to go after criminals. Maybe your 19-year-old son is walking by; they grab him, slap a bullet proof vest on him, and send him into a building where they suspect a criminal holed up--and he promptly dies in a hail of bullets. Or maybe your wife is strapped to the front of a police vehicle for patrol through a dangerous part of town. If you can get your mind around such mind-boggling scenes, you have some insight into what happens when the IDF goes into Gaza.
Wait, could a claim the IDF uses human shields just be Palestinian propaganda, spread by anti-Semitic "leftists"? Not if Israel's own government documents the cases of the IDF doing that, and The Israeli Supreme Court ruled against it in 2005. https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/6374
So Israeli's own court records document the IDF's use of human shields. It's not "Palestinian propaganda." And yet, in the U.S. media sphere, we constantly hear of how Hamas uses civilians as human shields. How do we know that? Well, the IDF and the Israeli foreign ministry have helpfully provided our reporters with that information; independent corroboration is still so far as I can tell, wanting. But Bibi was on CNN yesterday repeating the claim, reminding Americans what "they" are like. Hard to find an American news watcher who doesn't "know" this.
(05-18-2021, 12:41 PM)Dill Wrote: To fix that analogy, we'd have to invade North Korea and take most of their land in a "defensive" war
LOL indeed. Even when you're trying really hard not to expose your bias it leaks through. You're so pro-muslim you can't even condemn muslim terrorist organization or state sponsors of terrorism like Iran.
(05-18-2021, 08:37 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The person who bombed the area made a decision as to the value of the NK civilians' lives and decided it was lower than that of their own citizens. Or, in the case of Israel and Palestine, a Palestinian life is worth approximately 5.7% of an Israeli life. Especially considering, as you said, Israel can intercept the vast majority of the missiles being fired at them.
I don't know if you'd call it murder, as that has a specific legal definition, but it's definitely not right.
Serious question: What would you have them do?
Would you continue to just let Palestine indiscriminately launch rockets into Israel? Remember, the dome or whatever they call is not 100 effective (I think it's like 90%). Or would you take out the launch sites?
It seems to me your argument is that because Israel knows there were be more casualties if they retaliate then they should just do nothing. They can just allow what happens in the video below to continue because of this.
(05-18-2021, 03:13 AM)Dill Wrote: I have an analogy too. Suppose you and your family live in a house with a huge yard, a large garden and garage, but some other family wants it. Without papers, they claim it used to be theirs, arrive with guns, and run you out. And they destroy your deed to the house.
You hole up in the garage. Some of your extended family and neighbors try to help but they are unable to retake your house. Your side is just outnumbered. The police arrive and broker an arrangement, whereby you get to live in your garage and use part of your garden; they keep their guns but you can't keep yours. The people in the house control your access to the street.
Your family is very angry and unhappy. Your son acquires a gun from a neighbor and starts shooting at the house; he swears it's your family's house and he wants it back. The people in the house shoot back and kill him. The police view the shooting as legitimate self-defense. Homeowners have a right to protect their property. Now the people who took your house won't let your family leave the property to find work. The neighbors have to bring you food every day.
The usurpers also start using most of the garden you'd been forced to split. Some of the neighbors are on your side. They remember your family has been there for generations. But they can't do anything. The family in the house has the weapons.
So it goes for decades. Their children prosper in business and professions; yours are hopeless. Fighting still breaks out. They have automatic weapons, night vision scopes, plenty of ammo. Family members on each side die--but mostly on your side, at like a 10-1 ratio. They sometimes use your family as human shields during gunfights, then when the police and press arrive, they claim YOU were the one doing that to make THEM look bad.
You claim you want peace, but no one will take you seriously until you give up your claim to your house. Finally, you DO agree to give up your house, if you can just have your garage. But that other family has now taken over all the garden and divided your garage space in half to accommodate their growing family. And they still control your access to the street. The family in your house does its best to provoke you into acts of violence, so they can blame you for shutting down the police process. They can come in the garage anytime now and confiscate your possessions--your laptop, your money, your valuable family heirlooms. That's not an attack, but "security." There is talk of moving all of you out of the garage entirely and into a tent in the far corner of the yard.
Neighbors down the street, who can't really see what is going on, can't get your side of the story since your access to the street is limited. Sometimes they see your families shouting or even shooting at one another, and wonder who started it. With easy access to the street, one of the usurpers walks down the street to explain: someone in your family attacked the house. Again. Some neighbors in the group have little sympathy if you lost family members in the process. It was self defense. Others figure "both sides" are at fault, though your family much more so. They wonder at your contradictory behavior: you want everyone to respect your property rights, but you don't respect theirs. That doesn't seem fair. If you really want peace, then why don't you stop fighting?
My (piss-poor) analogy was meant to just make a comparison about what we're seeing right now. (Should Israel retailliate, Did Hamas get exactly what they wanted by engaging in the first place).
As for the rest, like I said I'm no expert. I don't have the knowledge or the patience to try to get into all of this. But I do think there's a lot of key information left out in many of these arguments. (Ex: Israel being attacked from the begining in 1948, Israel being attacked again in the 60's, Israel winning both of these, two state solutions being shot down, etc.)
(05-18-2021, 01:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Serious question: What would you have them do?
Would you continue to just let Palestine indiscriminately launch rockets into Israel? Remember, the dome or whatever they call is not 100 effective (I think it's like 90%). Or would you take out the launch sites?
It seems to me your argument is that because Israel knows there were be more casualties if they retaliate then they should just do nothing. They can just allow what happens in the video below to continue because of this.
"What should Israel do" is the big question, isn't it? They obviously outmatch the Palestinians and could wipe them off the face of the planet if they wanted to. They haven't done that yet, so kudos to them (I guess), but killing hundreds of them isn't that much better. In an ideal world, the Palestinians and Israelis could co-exist in a non-war state, but that would require some concession from Israel. They cannot keep pushing in on Gaza, seizing land and essentially cornering the Palestinians in, if they want to resolve this peacefully. However, since they are the ones in the position of power, they don't seem inclined to concede anything, unfortunately.
Both sides believe that Jerusalem is "rightfully theirs." Resolving that issue would win anyone with a solution the Nobel Peace Prize (they may even give them 1 a year for the next century). Ultimately, Israel needs to decide what they want. Do they want to exterminate the Palestinians, or do they want to concede some land and allowances to the Palestinians to live peacefully within the same area? Because those are the two options that I see at this point.
If they choose the former, I would hope the first world would condemn them for it, but you never know nowadays. And who knows how the latter would turn out because there's no clear answer as to how much would need to be conceded or if Hamas would just demand more and more until war broke out again. Considering Israel is run by Netanyahu, I don't see the latter occurring regardless, so it's a rather moot point.
My American upbringing of imperialism and international interference and my desire to stop being the international police are conflicting when it comes to what outsiders like America should do. At the very least, I would stop providing military aid to Israel. From there, we can see whether things trend in a better direction. If not, direct interference may ultimately be necessary if we want the Palestinians to survive this encounter.
(05-18-2021, 02:14 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: "What should Israel do" is the big question, isn't it? They obviously outmatch the Palestinians and could wipe them off the face of the planet if they wanted to. They haven't done that yet, so kudos to them (I guess), but killing hundreds of them isn't that much better. In an ideal world, the Palestinians and Israelis could co-exist in a non-war state, but that would require some concession from Israel. They cannot keep pushing in on Gaza, seizing land and essentially cornering the Palestinians in, if they want to resolve this peacefully. However, since they are the ones in the position of power, they don't seem inclined to concede anything, unfortunately.
Both sides believe that Jerusalem is "rightfully theirs." Resolving that issue would win anyone with a solution the Nobel Peace Prize (they may even give them 1 a year for the next century). Ultimately, Israel needs to decide what they want. Do they want to exterminate the Palestinians, or do they want to concede some land and allowances to the Palestinians to live peacefully within the same area? Because those are the two options that I see at this point.
If they choose the former, I would hope the first world would condemn them for it, but you never know nowadays. And who knows how the latter would turn out because there's no clear answer as to how much would need to be conceded or if Hamas would just demand more and more until war broke out again. Considering Israel is run by Netanyahu, I don't see the latter occurring regardless, so it's a rather moot point.
My American upbringing of imperialism and international interference and my desire to stop being the international police are conflicting when it comes to what outsiders like America should do. At the very least, I would stop providing military aid to Israel. From there, we can see whether things trend in a better direction. If not, direct interference may ultimately be necessary if we want the Palestinians to survive this encounter.
You're missing a huge, perhaps the biggest, component of this issue; religion. Both Judaism and Islam have major claims on large swathes of Israel, Jerusalem being probably the biggest hotspot. There is no compromise that would satisfy the parties of "God" in this scenario. I think most people on both sides want a peaceful, compromise, solution. But there are far too many hard line religious extremists on both sides to ever let that happen. This is absolutely not a case of Israel making some concessions and this all goes away, not even close.
(05-18-2021, 02:14 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: "What should Israel do" is the big question, isn't it? They obviously outmatch the Palestinians and could wipe them off the face of the planet if they wanted to. They haven't done that yet, so kudos to them (I guess), but killing hundreds of them isn't that much better. In an ideal world, the Palestinians and Israelis could co-exist in a non-war state, but that would require some concession from Israel. They cannot keep pushing in on Gaza, seizing land and essentially cornering the Palestinians in, if they want to resolve this peacefully. However, since they are the ones in the position of power, they don't seem inclined to concede anything, unfortunately.
Both sides believe that Jerusalem is "rightfully theirs." Resolving that issue would win anyone with a solution the Nobel Peace Prize (they may even give them 1 a year for the next century). Ultimately, Israel needs to decide what they want. Do they want to exterminate the Palestinians, or do they want to concede some land and allowances to the Palestinians to live peacefully within the same area? Because those are the two options that I see at this point.
If they choose the former, I would hope the first world would condemn them for it, but you never know nowadays. And who knows how the latter would turn out because there's no clear answer as to how much would need to be conceded or if Hamas would just demand more and more until war broke out again. Considering Israel is run by Netanyahu, I don't see the latter occurring regardless, so it's a rather moot point.
My American upbringing of imperialism and international interference and my desire to stop being the international police are conflicting when it comes to what outsiders like America should do. At the very least, I would stop providing military aid to Israel. From there, we can see whether things trend in a better direction. If not, direct interference may ultimately be necessary if we want the Palestinians to survive this encounter.
I didn't really see an answer to my question in the entirety of this post.
You lamented the fact that Israel has now killed a much greater number of Palenstinians than they themselves suffered in this recent conflict. It certainly appeared you were making the case that this was either an overreaction or it was unfair in some way.
I'm asking what would you have Israel done instead?
One option is to retaliate in some way, or to stop the launches that are taking place. Another option is to do nothing and let them fire off rockets indscriminantly into Israel, knowing some will get past the dome.
If you choose the first option (because why would anyone choose the 2nd) how do you propose they do this while keeping the body counts equal on both sides. If you're going for the result of "an eye for an eye" how do you accomplish that when Hamas puts the launch sites in civilian territories?
There may be answer to this, although I'm not presently aware of one. I currently don't see any way that Israel can retalliate without killing more Palestinians than that Palestinians are killing Israelis. I also don't know how Israel can choose to do nothing either.
So what do you think their response should have looked like? What am I missing?
(05-18-2021, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're missing a huge, perhaps the biggest, component of this issue; religion. Both Judaism and Islam have major claims on large swathes of Israel, Jerusalem being probably the biggest hotspot. There is no compromise that would satisfy the parties of "God" in this scenario. I think most people on both sides want a peaceful, compromise, solution. But there are far too many hard line religious extremists on both sides to ever let that happen. This is absolutely not a case of Israel making some concessions and this all goes away, not even close.
Yea, there's no doubt religion is a major problem in this world. But if religion didn't exist, extremists would just find a new reason to be extremists. I'm not educated enough on what Hamas' specific demands are, so I can't say whether or not a solution is possible. I know I won't be able to come up with it though.
I do think that, if concessions are made to the Palestinians that Hamas could potentially be voted out if their terrorist actions and beliefs persist after the concessions. I do think the majority of Palestinians just want to live safely, freely and in the general vicinity of their native lands. Israel can at least attempt to appeal to those people in the hopes that they can overthrow Hamas if the extremist leaders refuse to relent.
(05-18-2021, 02:32 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I didn't really see an answer to my question in the entirety of this post.
You lamented the fact that Israel has now killed a much greater number of Palenstinians than they themselves suffered in this recent conflict. It certainly appeared you were making the case that this was either an overreaction or it was unfair in some way.
I'm asking what would you have Israel done instead?
One option is to retaliate in some way, or to stop the launches that are taking place. Another option is to do nothing and let them fire off rockets indscriminantly into Israel, knowing some will get past the dome.
If you choose the first option (because why would anyone choose the 2nd) how do you propose they do this while keeping the body counts equal on both sides. If you're going for the result of "an eye for an eye" how do you accomplish that when Hamas puts the launch sites in civilian territories?
There may be answer to this, although I'm not presently aware of one. I currently don't see any way that Israel can retalliate without killing more Palestinians than that Palestinians are killing Israelis. I also don't know how Israel can choose to do nothing either.
So what do you think their response should have looked like? What am I missing?
The reason I don't have a good answer to what I would have done if I were Israel is because, if I were Israel, I would have never put the Palestinians in this situation to begin with. What we're looking at now is a lose-lose situation. They've already crossed the line and are now dealing with what are essentially terrorists born from injustice. Given the situation we're in right now, the first thing I would do is stop sieging Gaza and allow the Palestinians to live without restriction from my government. That's step 1. Step 2 is anyone's guess, as it will depend on what occurs as a result of step 1. As I said above, if concessions are made, there's a reasonable chance that Hamas will lose influence among Palestinians if they see Israel is willing to negotiate. If their attacks continue, then retaliation starts becoming something to seriously look at. But you can't be sieging an area and then act all Pikachu face when the extremists groups in that area attack you back.
But, as I said above, I sure as hell can't come up with the right solution for this problem, as I am not educated on all the particulars and background. All I know is there is a powerful government and an area that is being subjugated by that powerful government to the point of terroristic extremism. So it seems clear which side needs to mend the fence.
Or, like I said, they can just blow the fence up and kill their neighbors if they don't want to deal with it. That, apparently, is an option.
(05-18-2021, 02:51 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Go full scale war for the win, take over the land and be done with it. Whoever wins, wins. All this endless war BS is ridiculous. KISS
I have the first Kiss album on vinyl... It's the Israeli version though with the different lettering. The lightning bolt S's wouldn't fly over there.
I'm gonna break every record they've got. I'm tellin' you right now. I don't know how I'm gonna do it, but it's goin' to get done.
Just stumbled across this video on YouTube. Rather a good example of what really underlies many opponents of Israel and supporters of terrorist organization such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
(05-18-2021, 03:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just stumbled across this video on YouTube. Rather a good example of what really underlies many opponents of Israel and supporters of terrorist organization such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
A young woman after Dill's heart.
Did she just say that their campus is hosting their annual Hitler Youth Week?
And did she follow this statement with using the word "we" while describing it, signifying that she's somehow a part of it?
And did she imply that she would love to publicly support Hamas but is worred about Homeland Security?
Somehow I bet she's also one of those people would try to shut down any conservative event at her campus, while shouting about students needing to feel safe on campus, as if someone like Ben Shapiro is evil incarnate.
(05-18-2021, 04:27 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Did she just say that their campus is hosting their annual Hitler Youth Week?
And did she follow this statement with using the word "we" while describing it, signifying that she's somehow a part of it?
And did she imply that she would love to publicly support Hamas but is worred about Homeland Security?
Somehow I bet she's also one of those people would try to shut down any conservative event at her campus, while shouting about students needing to feel safe on campus, as if someone like Ben Shapiro is evil incarnate.
What a world.
Of course the cake topper being that she supports the rounding up and genocide of Jews. That's the state of the world we live in, that someone like that is comfortable enough to express it out loud.
![[Image: Palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010_0.jpg]](https://www.wxpr.org/sites/wxpr/files/styles/medium/public/201706/Palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010_0.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
