Israel invades Gaza

[TheLastOne36]

Lets hope that like in Poland, where millions were displaced to make lebensraum for the Germans, one day refugees will be allowed to return to their homes.

The areas were Majority German (besides Danzig and Silesia) for a long amount of time. Russians moved more poles in only a few years then the Germans did altogether.

 

[amadeus]

o noes, snapshots from the war are propaganda pictures!!!!

 

[sysyphus]

Yes, we definitely need more propaganda pictures of hurt women and crying children and some hypocritical sensationalist idiots helping Hamas to win the PR war...

Yeah right, meanwhile any footage of Israeli women and children injured by Hamas rockets would be "telling it like it is".

 

[Agent327]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475644,00.html

 

[Shylock]

A plague on both their houses.

 

[RalofTyr]

Actually, I've attended dozens of them

Then you should have paid attention.

 

[dosed150]

Yes but then USA get's involved then Iran get's involved and then who knows what!

We want to avoid that. (btw you seem like a jackass for saying something like that).

i don't think iran would ever get involved theyre happy to speak against isreal and gives weapons to the palestinians but the whole thing is probably irans way of making sure the arabs focus on hating isreal, i mean the only other state the arabs gang up on is iran but as long as the arab world thinks iran is on their side and the isrealis are the enemy iran will get on fine

 

[Winner]

your right, it sounds exactly like the declaration of Independence of Israel!

Lets hope that like in Poland, where millions were displaced to make lebensraum for the Germans, one day refugees will be allowed to return to their homes.

Nonsense. Israel declared independency according to the UN plan and it had no territorial ambition. If it wasn't for the Arab attack the next day AFTER the declaration, there would be no Palestinian refugees and no problem.

What I meant, obviously is the comparison with Hamas. Unlike the Israelis, Hamas don't want two state solution. Hamas want to wipe out Israel, kill all the Jews and create an Islamist Arab Palestinian state in whole of Palestine. Like the Nazis, the Islamists will accept land if Israel is so stupid to give it them peacefully (Sudetenland), but they believe that they'll achieve their goal only by force and genocide.


So, considering that appeasement didn't quite work the last time and it made things a hell lot worse for the allies when the war finally erupted, I suggest that we skip this phase now and move to war right on. Let's bomb Hamas into oblivion, let's show the Palies that who sows wind reaps the whirlwind.

 

[Winner]

Then you should have paid attention.

Sorry, Abdullah. My uni isn't "Islamic", so our curriculum doesn't include "Why's Zionism evil!" and "How to destroy Israel and liberate Palestine"

 

[Winner]

Yeah right, meanwhile any footage of Israeli women and children injured by Hamas rockets would be "telling it like it is".

Neither. Emotional appeals are for idiots

It is necessary, on the other hand, to present the Israeli viewpoint. Telling people that this Israeli action came out of blue sky and the Palies haven't done a thing to deserve it is a propaganda and the journalists who're doing this should be tattooed with israeli flags and dropped into Gaza.

Also, focusing on the situation of Gaza civilians without giving an adequately equal opportunity to Israelis to describe their situation is nothing but a pro-Palestinian bias. Most media are trying to downplay the horrors of Palestinians shelling of southern Israel to make the IDF operation look unjustified or at least disproportionate.

 

[Cato the Elder]

Winner, do you honestly believe the reaction isn't disproportionate? Israel has killed at least double, if not triple the amount of civilians in the past week that the rocket attacks have killed in the last 7 years. Hamas's shooting of rockets, albeit crude, inaccurate ones, is disgusting, I agree with you there, but that is no reason for a full-fledged invasion.

Mark my words gentlemen, this is going to come back to haunt the Israelis.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Winner, do you honestly believe the reaction isn't disproportionate? Israel has killed at least double, if not triple the amount of civilians in the past week that the rocket attacks have killed in the last 7 years. Hamas's shooting of rockets, albeit crude, inaccurate ones, is disgusting, I agree with you there, but that is no reason for a full-fledged invasion.

Mark my words gentlemen, this is going to come back to haunt the Israelis.

You assume that proportionality should be a criterion by which military operations should be judged. I do not think that this is a wise principle.

 

[Cato the Elder]

You assume that proportionality should be a criterion by which military operations should be judged. I do not think that this is a wise principle.

So in other words, kill the damned Arabs and let God sort out the rest?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

So in other words, kill the damned Arabs and let God sort out the rest?

No, just that sometimes limiting countries to a proportional response would result in absurdity.

For instance, say that a country is home to a number of terrorist cells that are hostile to the government. A single terrorist fires a single bullet at a member of the government. Under the doctrine of proportionality, the government would presumably be limited to firing one bullet back at the group. In reality, a more rational thing would be for the government to strike at all of the cells, which might require attacking more than one terrorist and firing more than one bullet.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

A much better way of analyzing a use of force is to look at things like: is it likely to result in the desired end, will it cause additional problems that outweigh the good it does, etc. This strikes far closer to the heart of the central question (is use of force justified) than does "is the response proportionate".

 

[plarq]

A much better way of analyzing a use of force is to look at things like: is it likely to result in the desired end, will it cause additional problems that outweigh the good it does, etc. This strikes far closer to the heart of the central question (is use of force justified) than does "is the response proportionate".

The justification lies in multiple dimensions, undesired civilian casualty is one of them.

 

[Cato the Elder]

No, just that sometimes limiting countries to a proportional response would result in absurdity.

For instance, say that a country is home to a number of terrorist cells that are hostile to the government. A single terrorist fires a single bullet at a member of the government. Under the doctrine of proportionality, the government would presumably be limited to firing one bullet back at the group. In reality, a more rational thing would be for the government to strike at all of the cells, which might require attacking more than one terrorist and firing more than one bullet.

But what Israel is doing now is nothing short of a full-fledged invasion. I might have been able to agree with special operations to eliminate Hamas leaders, but I do not understand how you can advocate the slaughtering of what will eventually be hundreds, if not thousands of civilians in the name of humanity.

What Israel should've done, when Hamas rejected a renewal of the ceasefire as it considers Israel to not keep to its part of the deal either, is to listen to Hamas grievances and try to come to a new compromise. So in other words, not be militant idiots.

Oh, and in reaction to your other post, no, they won't get what they want. Hamas might be gone for a good 5-10 years if all goes as the Israelis want it to, but after that an even more powerful organisation will come back even more hell-bent on the destruction of Israel.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

But what Israel is doing now is nothing short of a full-fledged invasion. I might have been able to agree with special operations to eliminate Hamas leaders, but I do not understand how you can advocate the slaughtering of what will eventually be hundreds, if not thousands of civilians in the name of humanity.

What Israel should've done, when Hamas rejected a renewal of the ceasefire as it considers Israel to not keep to its part of the deal either, is to listen to Hamas grievances and try to come to a new compromise. So in other words, not be militant idiots.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that what Israel is doing is OK. I am expressing no opinion as to whether or not what Israel is doing is OK. Rather, I am saying that if you want to criticize what Israel is doing, saying that Israel is acting "disproportionate" is a poor way of doing it, because disproportionate force is not inherently a bad thing.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Think of it this way: massive strategic bombing is like a fork. You can use a fork for good (by feeding the poor) or you can use a fork for evil (by sticking it into somebody's eye), but the fork is neither good nor evil. It has no inherent value other than being a tool.

If a somebody uses a fork to poke out eyes, call him evil for poking out eyes, not evil for using a fork. You are criticizing the fork.

 

[Cato the Elder]

Think of it this way: massive strategic bombing is like a fork. You can use a fork for good (by feeding the poor) or you can use a fork for evil (by sticking it into somebody's eye), but the fork is neither good nor evil. It has no inherent value other than being a tool.

If a somebody uses a fork to poke out eyes, call him evil for poking out eyes, not evil for using a fork. You are criticizing the fork.

This is, in my view, definitely something that constitutes as using massive strategic bombing for evil. They're killing hundreds of civilians for what? A resurge of Hamas in 5, 10 years?

I am not saying I agree with Hamas. I am simply saying that I disagree even more with the Israeli government.