Israel vs. Hamas - Thread III

[MidnightTempest]

Everyone's screaming, HAMAS started it because they fired a few rockets. No one knows or understands the root causes of the conflict. If you did, you'd know that HAMAS didn't start it because they fired a few rockets. The rocket fire is in retaliation for Israeli attacks. Those that choose not to understand the region choose ignorance.

By arguing with "who started it first" won't go anywhere.

If we have to go back to the roots, it's in 1949 that Israel officially became a nation by UN, and the neighbouring Arab nations immediately attacked Israel. Their reason was that the Jewish were taking over the land their Muslim Palestinian breathrens have been living on for millenia since the Jewish diaspora in 800 BC.

And Israel's reason for taking over the land of the Palestinians was that they need a state to call home after the Holocaust. International community was compassionate and siding with Israel then because of what the Jews had recently been through durying WWII.

Now it seems as if with the support of US, Israel has risen to be nothing short of a local bully of the region, and international community has since began to shift their compassion towards to Palestinian refugees and the Arabs.

Arguments such as "Hamas rockets fired first into Israel, that's why Israel invaded Gaza," or "Hamas rockets fired into Israel because Israel attacked them previously" just won't get anywhere.

Arguing whether the Jews or Arabs have more rights to the land of Jerusalem won't solve anything either. It's simply a never-ending debate. It's almost as if debating whether oragne or apple tastes better.

The only way to have lasting peace in ME is to find a common compromise concerning with Israeli's and Palestinians' borders. Palestinians and Arabs are obviously unsatisfied with Israel's territories that it has illegitimately expanded against the initial UN proposal in 1949. Israel must abide with the 1949 UN proposal and give up its conquered territories from Palestinians.

Arabs must learn to live as neighbours with the Jews. It's a hard fact they must accept. And of course, vice versa, Jews must accept that if they choose to live in Israel, they must live with surrounding Arabs and Muslim nations.

Lastly, Israel must build up and develop Palestine and provide assistance to the 7 million homeless Palestinian refugees so that they can rebuild new homes and start their lives anew.

These suggestions may sound simple, but I would be surprised if they can be achieved within my life time.

 

[TDK]

I think this article sums up the situation quite elequently:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20.../83/489/677860

That is all well. I would have liked some self-reflection from the poster on why so many otherwise liberal-progressive Jews continually defend Israel.

As I have said before, this thread is rather irrelevant as it fails to take into account the larger issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The fact of the matter is that this conflict revolves around a simple turf-war. Like most other historical attempts at settlement-colonization, the colonizers will either succeed in driving the locals into reservations(US-Native Indians, Australia-Aboriginal) or the locals will resist and eventually expel the colonizers(France-Algeria).
There are precious few examples of the colonizers and natives coming to an agreement where both live together in peace.

I agree that the blockade is ill-advised. But even if Hamas has legitimate reasons to be at war with Israel, that does not stop Isreal from having legitimate avenues of self-defense.

Self defense? So if Israel blockades Gaza(an act of war), commits targeted assassinations of political leaders and abducts elected parliamentarians, that's just "ill-advised". And when Hamas then fires homemade rockets in retaliation, Israel has "legitimate avenues of self-defense". Utter <nonsense>.

Two other points:
-In regard to Israels contention that it can legitimately hit Hamas military capability because it's a terrorist organization, I agree, when in war. That doesn't mean it can hit any piece of infrastructure and other civilian activity just because Hamas happens to be in power.

-Gaza is not a sovereign territory. Israel is still the occupying power there, even if they don't have settlements and army bases on every hill. Israel still controls Gazas airspace, borders and territorial waters and prevents Gaza from having it's own fresh water, electricity and natural economic growth. Israel, as an occupying power, has an legal obligation to see to the security of the civilian population.

TDK

Moderator Action: Don't try to sneak around the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gogf]

Let's take this one item at a time for those who may not be capable of seeing the obvious:

Authoritarian? Layup.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Nationalist? Layup. Both Israel and the US are waving the flag every chance they get. They claim their safety and security is threatened by rocks and homemade missiles in response to Israel breaking the peace treaty, and they will go to any extreme to make it stop regardless of the number of innocent civilians who are killed by "collateral damage". They are "right" and anybody who opposes them are "wrong". They perceive themselves as being "freedom fighters" while all their opponents are "terrorists".

Solving political and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence? Well, that one should be obvious to everybody. Right? See "freedom fighter vs. terrorist" for further details if you get confused over this one. And let's not forget the so-called "war on drugs".

Next sentence:



Seek to prepare a nation for armed conflict with other nations? There are no other countries which are not more prepared for armed conflict in the world today than the US and Israel are. Both spend an extraordinary amount of their GNP for "defense" when it is clearly not warranted because neither country face any dire threat from anybody.

To defend itself or to expand its state to allow for the growth of a nation? Once again, that one is a layup. Both claim to be defending themselves while engaging in offensive imperialism and genocide against those who oppose them. See the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the invasion and continuing occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan for details.

Next sentence:



Aim to create a single-party state? Not so much. Instead, you have two predominate political parties that have far more similarities than they do differences. Take their fear and hatred of 'terrorist' Muslims and their lopsided staunch support for Israel regardless of what it does, for example.

Led by a dictator? You can technically claim this one isn't true either since the leader is elected by a majority of ignorant sheeple. But the result is the same.



Who seek unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race?





Next Sentence:



Oppose class conflict? See the above quotes.

Oppose communism? Layup.

Oppose individualism? Only if you aren't a staunch supporter of their one-sided definition of what a "terrorist" is.

Oppose internationalism? Layup. Both make a traveshamockery of the UN on a regular basis, and neither are willing to even entertain the opinions of the rest of the world which are usually opposed to them and their foreign policies.

Oppose laissez-faire capitalism? The Bush administration certainly did with its huge government subsidies and favoritism directed towards particular corporations. I don't know enough about Israeli business practices to render a judgement on this one, but I bet they don't cater as a whole too much to non-Jewish businesses.

Oppose liberalism? Layup.

Oppose pacifism? Layup.

Next sentence:

Ever heard of Sami Al-Arian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian

Or any other Muslim who claims to support a "terrorist organization" other than the US or Israel?

How about fair and balanced reporting of the so-called war in Iraq?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/med-m05.shtml

And with the Israelis, it's once again a layup:

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/20...ger-over-continued-censorship/comment-page-1/

So, technically, neither country can be considered to be a true fascist state since they give lip service to elected officials who typically gain office by convincing enough ignorant sheeple to vote for them. But the result is the same. And the dead giveaway is how much vehemence is directed towards communism while little or none is directed towards other fascist states which the US frequently supports:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521678537

I'm not even going to bother reading your entire post. I refuse to debate whether or not America is a fascist country with you. There are some legitimate issues that have been raised in this thread. This is not one of them.

(Although I'm curious... the "so-called war in Iraq"? What do you call it? The "tea-party in Iraq"?)

 

[Formaldehyde]

I refuse to debate whether or not America is a fascist country with you.

Gee, what a surprise. Could it possibly be because you are a fascist yourself?

For those who aren't so obstinately narrow-minded as Gogf:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/fascism.html

Moderator Action: Flaming. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[jeps]

That is all well. I would have liked some self-reflection from the poster on why so many otherwise liberal-progressive Jews continually defend Israel.

As a liberal-progressive Jew (my chosen political party is a member of socialist international, and I am a moderately religious conservative Jew), I will grant you insight into my mind.

Firstly, I support Israel. This is how the rest of things came into place. Since I grew up MOSTLY (my grandfather was a prominent member of an anti-zionistic organization that didn't disagree with Israel on moral principles but on religious ones, belonging to a sect which believes that Jews do not have any claim to Israel until the Mashiach comes) around zionists. This led me to love Israel and call it my homeland. If I decided to join any army, I know it would not be the Canadian Armed Forces but the Tzahal. I also think that the Tzahal's moral code, one of the strictest in the world is very admirable and necessary.

CODE OF CONDUCT - decide for yourself how well it has been followed.

Spoiler :

The major points of the code emphasize the traits:

Tenacity of Purpose in Performing Missions and Drive to Victory &#1495;&#1514;&#1497;&#1512;&#1492; &#1500;&#1504;&#1497;&#1510;&#1495;&#1493;&#1503; &#1493;&#1492;&#1513;&#1500;&#1502;&#1514; &#1492;&#1502;&#1513;&#1497;&#1502;&#1492;
Responsibility &#1488;&#1495;&#1512;&#1497;&#1493;&#1514;
Credibility &#1488;&#1502;&#1497;&#1504;&#1493;&#1514;
Personal Example &#1491;&#1493;&#1490;&#1502;&#1492; &#1488;&#1497;&#1513;&#1497;&#1514;
Human Life &#1506;&#1512;&#1498; &#1495;&#1497;&#1497; &#1488;&#1491;&#1501;
Professionalism &#1502;&#1511;&#1510;&#1493;&#1506;&#1497;&#1493;&#1514;
Discipline &#1502;&#1513;&#1502;&#1506;&#1514;
Comradeship &#1512;&#1506;&#1493;&#1514;
Sense of Mission &#1513;&#1500;&#1497;&#1495;&#1493;&#1514;
Purity of Arms &#1496;&#1493;&#1492;&#1512; &#1492;&#1504;&#1513;&#1511; - "The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property".

Secondly, I know history. I know that a Jewish State is a necessity. I know how bad it can become so very quickly if it did not exist. I am not merely referring to the Holocaust, but Yemen, USSR, Ethiopia, Uganda, Iraq, and others. I am referring to Operations Magic Carpet, Ezra and Nehemiah, Moses, Solomon, and others. I believe that everyone deserves a homeland, and that Israel is ours. Out of the British Mandate of Palestine, a Muslim state, Jordan, and a Jewish state, Israel were created. Jordan has a Right of Return law that states any Palestinian may become a Jordanian citizen. Personally, I fail to see how that is not enough. I do understand the problem that arises in that many have homes in Gaza/WB, and they should not be asked to leave, however, under the rules of war, Israel's occupation is no more illegal than that of Jordan. West Bank was not Jordanian until they annexed it against the wishes of the UN. In fact, only ONE non-arab country recognized their claim on the West Bank, yet now it is miraculously occupied from them 21 years AFTER they DROPPED their claim. I believe that should the citizens of the west bank be willing to and prove their desire to have peace with israel, the West Bank (minus East Jerusalem which was the only part ever to be annexed) should be placed under a combination of UN and Jordanian control to rebuild it and make it politically stable, at which point it should become an independent republic. Alternatively, Israel could legally annex the entire west bank, tear down the wall (which I was an opponent of from the start, because supporting Israel does not mean I agree with 100% of their actions) and grant citizenship to every resident of those areas who desires an Israeli citizenship, with the others granted passage to Jordan.

Thirdly, I have not given up on humanity, and I realize that Israel is responding equal to, if not better, than a majority of nations in the world would given the same situation, and as such, if I give up on Israel I give up on humanity as everyone is the same or worse in my eyes.

As I have said before, this thread is rather irrelevant as it fails to take into account the larger issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

agreed.

The fact of the matter is that this conflict revolves around a simple turf-war. Like most other historical attempts at settlement-colonization, the colonizers will either succeed in driving the locals into reservations(US-Native Indians, Australia-Aboriginal) or the locals will resist and eventually expel the colonizers(France-Algeria).
There are precious few examples of the colonizers and natives coming to an agreement where both live together in peace.

it is not quite a turf-war, as the fighting started before any problems with Gaza/WB did. this is most of the problem, but not all.

Self defense? So if Israel blockades Gaza(an act of war), commits targeted assassinations of political leaders and abducts elected parliamentarians, that's just "ill-advised". And when Hamas then fires homemade rockets in retaliation, Israel has "legitimate avenues of self-defense". Utter <nonsense>.

Hamas has been firing rockets for much longer than Israel has blockaded gaza. and now that Hamas is the government, that is an act of war against israel. they showed restraint in their response, despite what many people believe.

Two other points:
-In regard to Israels contention that it can legitimately hit Hamas military capability because it's a terrorist organization, I agree, when in war. That doesn't mean it can hit any piece of infrastructure and other civilian activity just because Hamas happens to be in power.

I agree, however this is a war and when Hamas uses civilian areas as means of launching weapons, they become part of the warzone.

-Gaza is not a sovereign territory. Israel is still the occupying power there, even if they don't have settlements and army bases on every hill. Israel still controls Gazas airspace, borders and territorial waters and prevents Gaza from having it's own fresh water, electricity and natural economic growth. Israel, as an occupying power, has an legal obligation to see to the security of the civilian population.

Israel is not the occupying power, it has left. Gaza has a border with Egypt and Egypt neglects them as much as Israel does, albeit for different reasons. To blame that solely on Israel is utter <nonsense>.

however, for once I see a rational argument and rational person doing said argument, so I will be glad to continue this. and I am running out of time so my first answer is incomplete, but if you would like more insight on that I would be glad to provide it.

 

[Merkinball]

Israel neglects the Palestinians. That is for sure. I mean, except for the rockets they smuggle in there. They must some anti-food device going into those tunnels. Ya know? Like...reverse metal detectors? Did you ever see that movie where the terrorists walk on the plane with AK's and bazooka's? It's probly like that. You got all these guys walking into the tunnels on the Egyptian side with rockets and explosives, munitions, AK's, etc, etc. And then one guy tries walking in with a salami, oh wait, that's not halal at all is it? Well, he walks in with pound of lean hamburger and a six pack of cokes, and some Egyptian guard stops him and says, "You know you can't take this stuff in here. Give it up." And then he gives up all the food and the guard hands him a few grenades. That's how picture it.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Gee, what a surprise. Could it possibly be because you are a fascist yourself?

For those who aren't so obstinately narrow-minded as Gogf:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/fascism.html

Moderator Action: Flaming. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

So, to support your arguments that America is currently a fascist institution, you string together two "crazy" websites that support its conclusions with one sentence assumptions without any clear support for making those claims? Not mentioning that you're doing some of it as well, I'll just say fascism and the facts here aren't as clear as you make them out to be. Maybe in your world, but what an individual thinks and assumes is often irrelevant.

On topic: I've honestly given up on all of this. Both sides are doing things that are wrong and both are only focusing on what the other side is doing wrong. They both deserve whatever they get (including the Palestinians)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Gaza is in ruins. Billions of damage. 14% of houses destroyed. 80-85% of agriculture gone. The region is more dependant on others than ever. Now Palestinians, go ahead and rebuild. Here's a couple of million so we can say: hey, we gave aid. Don't start with yer . .. .. .. .. .ing moaning and whining. It's all your own damn fault anyway. Here's a nice tent.

And you know what? You should have been bombed a little more so that Hamas would have been destroyed. That would have been the route to peace but we pussied out, I'm sure you agree. It's really for your own good. Really.

See you in 2010.

 

[Verbose]

Gaza is in ruins. Billions of damage. 14% of houses destroyed. 80-85% of agriculture gone. The region is more dependant on others than ever. Now Palestinians, go ahead and rebuild. Here's a couple of million so we can say: hey, we gave aid. Don't start with yer . .. .. .. .. .ing moaning and whining. It's all your own damn fault anyway. Here's a nice tent.

And you know what? You should have been bombed a little more so that Hamas would have been destroyed. That would have been the route to peace but we pussied out, I'm sure you agree. It's really for your own good. Really.

See you in 2010.

That's about the size of it.

Except it is now for the first time possible the EU will only be giving simple non-durable things like tents in aid, since there is a growing weariness with forking over money to actually build stuff that the Israelis then unceremoniously proceed to blow up.

 

[jessiecat]

As much as I disagree with the Israeli blockade of Gaza I can understand it from a security point of view. If it wants to seal its land borders with Gaza it has the right in international law AFAIK. Similiarly, Egypt has the right to seal its land border with Gaza if it so chooses. What I don't understand is how anyone has the right to blockade Gaza's coastal waters. Surely anything within 12 miles is considered Gazan territorial waters under international maritime law. Everything outside is international waters.
So how can Israel get away with preventing ships from 3rd. countries bringing in supplies to Gaza, as it did recently with a British volunteer aid ship which was rammed, fired on and escorted back to a Cypriot port. What is to prevent any ship from any nation arriving in Gazan waters if it so chooses?
Why shouldn't an EU country like France or Italy use its warships to escort their cargo ships into port at Gaza and unload whatever they like? Don't they have that right? How could Israel or anyone else stop them?

 

[RedRalph]

From bbc.co.uk

The Israeli army is to investigate claims it used white phosphorus illegally during its three-week offensive in Gaza.

The move follows numerous allegations by rights groups and in media reports that the army fired phosphorus shells where they could harm civilians.

The UN said its headquarters were hit by three such shells causing a fire destroying much of its aid supplies.

White phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens on a battlefield.

The Israeli army says all its weapons in the Gaza offensive were entirely legal, but until now has refused to specify which weapons it used.

White phosphorus sticks to human skin and will burn right through to the bone, causing death or leaving survivors with painful wounds which are slow to heal. Its ingestion or inhalation can also be fatal.

 

[Patroklos]

Gaza is in ruins. Billions of damage. 14% of houses destroyed. 80-85% of agriculture gone. The region is more dependant on others than ever. Now Palestinians, go ahead and rebuild. Here's a couple of million so we can say: hey, we gave aid. Don't start with yer . .. .. .. .. .ing moaning and whining. It's all your own damn fault anyway. Here's a nice tent.

You reap what you sow.

And btw, please explain how 85% of their agriculture can be gone whein 1.) its winter there and 2.) the Isrealis did nto sow the earth with salt.

And you know what? You should have been bombed a little more so that Hamas would have been destroyed. That would have been the route to peace but we pussied out, I'm sure you agree. It's really for your own good. Really.

And the true butt of that joke is that it really is that simple. If the Palestinians prefer false pride and poverty of prosperity and peace, so be it.

So how can Israel get away with preventing ships from 3rd. countries bringing in supplies to Gaza, as it did recently with a British volunteer aid ship which was rammed, fired on and escorted back to a Cypriot port. What is to prevent any ship from any nation arriving in Gazan waters if it so chooses?

By the very long recognized rules of war, a party to a conflict is entirely within its rights to blockade the opposing belligerent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Pacific_blockade

 

[MobBoss]

Gaza is in ruins. Billions of damage. 14% of houses destroyed. 80-85% of agriculture gone. The region is more dependant on others than ever. Now Palestinians, go ahead and rebuild. Here's a couple of million so we can say: hey, we gave aid. Don't start with yer . .. .. .. .. .ing moaning and whining. It's all your own damn fault anyway. Here's a nice tent.

And you know what? You should have been bombed a little more so that Hamas would have been destroyed. That would have been the route to peace but we pussied out, I'm sure you agree. It's really for your own good. Really.

See you in 2010.

Sounding less and less neutral there Ziggy.

@RRW: "White phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens on a battlefield."

@Jessiecat: You may want to look closer at who was actually rammed. My understanding was the Israeli shipped interposted itself and it was the aid ship that did the ramming....not the other way around.

 

[jessiecat]

@Jessiecat: You may want to look closer at who was actually rammed. My understanding was the Israeli shipped interposted itself and it was the aid ship that did the ramming....not the other way around.

Not what the skipper said on his mobile to Plymouth TV News when the live conversation from the ship was aired on the local news here. He also posted pictures of the bullet holes in the side of the ship. The incident happened in international waters too (beyond the 12 mile limit). How is that justified? To a ship chartered by Christian Aid?

 

[RedRalph]

@RRW: "White phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens on a battlefield."
.

I know. I cant for the life of me figure out why the Israeli Army is bothering to investigate this, when even a legal clerk sitting 10,000 miles away can see there is no need. Any ideas?

 

[MobBoss]

Not what the skipper said on his mobile to Plymouth TV News when the live conversation from the ship was aired on the local news here. He also posted pictures of the bullet holes in the side of the ship. The incident happened in international waters too (beyond the 12 mile limit). How is that justified? To a ship chartered by Christian Aid?

Only ship ramming story I can find on the net was for a boat chartered not by Christian Aid, but by the Free Gaza Movement.

 

[jessiecat]

Only ship ramming story I can find on the net was for a boat chartered not by Christian Aid, but by the Free Gaza Movement.

You might be right about that name. I think it was an umbrella organisation for Christian Aid and others to raise donations for medical supplies etc. in the UK. Its the only incident I know of and the boat and its skipper are well-known around here.

 

[MobBoss]

You might be right about that name. I think it was an umbrella organisation for Christian Aid and others to raise donations for medical supplies etc. in the UK. Its the only incident I know of and the boat and its skipper are well-known around here.

You dont think the IDF should stop a boat running a blockade into Gaza when its being used by the Free Gaza Movement?

I also dont see any reference in any of those news storys about bullet holes in the boat.

 

[MobBoss]

I know. I cant for the life of me figure out why the Israeli Army is bothering to investigate this, when even a legal clerk sitting 10,000 miles away can see there is no need. Any ideas?

Of course. The same reason the US Army investigates it under similar circumstances. To prove that the munition was indeed being used in compliance with the GC.

Please note, I never said there was no need....I just predicted the outcome and gave my own personal opinion about the use of the munition in Gaza.

 

[RedRalph]

Of course. The same reason the US Army investigates it under similar circumstances. To prove that the munition was indeed being used in compliance with the GC.
Please note, I never said there was no need....I just predicted the outcome and gave my own personal opinion about the use of the munition in Gaza.

you dont investigate anything to prove a conclusion you have already drawn...