General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Professor Yaffle]

So what does PM Professor Yaffle do when the government of the neighboring country fires rocket and mortar salvos at her towns as part of their stated goal to kill every last one of the citizens of her country? Offer to talk about it?

Well its never going to be over until they DO talk about it. And such an extreme group as one that wants to kill all Israelis would never have got control if only they (both sides - don;'t make the mistake of assuming me to be on the palestinian "side") had resolved this years ago. You are not going to get more moderate people in power by continuing the violence.



And pardon me for not declaring one side to be "worse" than the other. Violence on both sides in wrong and counterproductive.

 

[John Mekki]

Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.

It is incredibly convenient that the anti-Semite left ignore that. Just as they will always call Israel defending itself a "war crime".

I just notice that there is a very slight anti-Palestine and pro-Israeli bias in this thread.
Good thing that, maybe not here but in the world things are a-changing. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...hes-back-on-Palestinian-bid-for-new-UN-status

 

[Giz]

Well its never going to be over until they DO talk about it. And such an extreme group as one that wants to kill all Israelis would never have got control if only they (both sides - don;'t make the mistake of assuming me to be on the palestinian "side") had resolved this years ago. You are not going to get more moderate people in power by continuing the violence.



And pardon me for not declaring one side to be "worse" than the other. Violence on both sides in wrong and counterproductive.

Do you always apply such utopian thinking? During WW2, were the Allies as morally obliged to stop fighting as the Axis?

 

[HoverBoarder]

sure, and kids are just collateral...no biggie....right?

So that only applies to Palestinians?

MDA paramedics treated five wounded people at the site of the Kiryat Malachi attack, in which a rocket hit a four-story building. Three people were pronounced dead on the scene and two others were suffering moderate injuries, including a baby.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.

It is incredibly convenient that the anti-Semite left ignore that. Just as they will always call Israel defending itself a "war crime".

I just notice that there is a very slight anti-Palestine and pro-Israeli bias in this thread.
Good thing that, maybe not here but in the world things are a-changing. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...hes-back-on-Palestinian-bid-for-new-UN-status

How does that make what Virus said incorrect?? More than a little ironic that you ignored the war crimes and terrorism aspect of his post.

And yes, given that Islamic Jihad who are directed by Iran, and Hamas are launching terrorism attacks into Gaza, it is definitely on topic for this thread.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Do you always apply such utopian thinking? During WW2, were the Allies as morally obliged to stop fighting as the Axis?

I'd say the Israel/Palestine situation is much more analogous to the Northern Ireland situation.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Just in case you forgot, here is more evidence of the Iranian ramp of their terror campaign in Israel, and the countries surrounding it.

The Asia Time article also points pretty heavily at possible Iranian involvement in the escalation:

The Levant braces for regional war

Hezbollah's political and military grip on Lebanon has been challenged by the weakening of the Syrian regime - a vital supply link to its main patron, Iran...

It bears noting that Iran may have a strong interest in drawing Israel into a narrower regional conflict, hoping at the very least to erode further the Jewish state's international support for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities in the spring. The United States, on the other hand, is trying to keep the lid on the tensions and to reassure Israel of continued support against the missile threat posed primarily by Hezbollah, Iran and Syria....

Iranian interference also cannot be ruled out as a trigger for the attacks. Several smaller militant organizations in the strip, particularly Islamic Jihad, are reportedly taking orders from Tehran.

 

[tyr_13]

Deleted

I should have known better than to post in an Israel thread. its not worth it.

It's sad when people become so jaded that the first reaction to calls for sympathy for the people caught in the middle is to write it off as only an attack on Israel. I mean, I understand why because it's been used that way so many times, but that doesn't mean it isn't a human tragedy. It is, and it's unlikely to say the least that they did anything to contribute to their own demise.

Israeli-Palestinian threads get like that.

 

[tyr_13]

I'd say the Israel/Palestine situation is much more analogous to the Northern Ireland situation.

I'd say it's significantly different from both that such analogies are useful only in very limited applications.

 

[WildCat]

I'd say the Israel/Palestine situation is much more analogous to the Northern Ireland situation.

When did the government of NI fire hundreds of rockets and mortars into the UK over the course of a few days?

Quite a strange "analogy".

 

[Giz]

I'd say the Israel/Palestine situation is much more analogous to the Northern Ireland situation.

From the above, I take it that you implicitly agree that sometimes one side is more at fault/needs to stop shooting first.

What do you think of the postulated:

If Palestinians unilateraly give up violence: both Israelis and Palestinians would live long and prosper (as the Israelis would stop shooting too and economic growth would boom).

If the Israelis unilateraly give up violence: the Palestinians (and/or sorrounding Arab states) would kill them all.

Is that still a "both sides need to stop shooting equally"?

 

[fuelair]

I'd forgotten how unsceptical the discussion about Israel and palestine is on this forum.

Everyone jumps to the conclusion that the baby was "palling around with terrorists" when actually, the journalist's own house was hit in the attack, killing his son and his sister-in-law, and seriously injuring his brother.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...c-baby-omar-killed-gaza-strike_n_2135095.html

I wasn't expecting this to change the tide of the discussion, particularly, but really, is it too much to expect even a little sympathy when innocent bystanders are also killed?

Yep, apparently it is. Preconceived opinions and lack of empathy will win out every time.

Just to make this very clear (just me, I cannot speak for others) , I am very sorry for the child's death and the deaths, wounding, frightening, harm of any children. My hatred is reserved for those who set up the conditions that force the US, Israel, etc. to have to fire on areas with civilians* because the cowards who claim to be fighting for those people are too cowardly to fight from areas without civilians in them. The rules of warfare rightly say civilians are to be protected wherever possible because their assumption is no army/military would be vile enough to operate where civilians would be in danger. Unfortunately, this is not true. Personally I would make hiding among civilians a war crime punishable by long execution - but I am not in charge of that.

*And, yes, we have to because if we don't more of our people will be killed. We cannot afford to let bad guys kill our people because they hid amidst civilians.

 

[Eddie Dane]

From the above, I take it that you implicitly agree that sometimes one side is more at fault/needs to stop shooting first.

What do you think of the postulated:

If Palestinians unilateraly give up violence: both Israelis and Palestinians would live long and prosper (as the Israelis would stop shooting too and economic growth would boom).

If the Israelis unilateraly give up violence: the Palestinians (and/or sorrounding Arab states) would kill them all.

Is that still a "both sides need to stop shooting equally"?

Considering the endless stream of tit-for-tat retaliations, it is difficult to say if Israel isn't also a driving force. I mean drawing first blood by assassinating Hamas members.

But the relentless rocket firing ensures that there will be a military response. Even Belgium and Monaco would respond under those circumstances.

Another thing is that the Israelis aren't exactly being rewarded for the Gaza pull-out.

 

[fuelair]

My apologies, I had assumed from the timing that the strike that killed this family was the same one that hit the car, killing the hamas leader. i realise that may not be the case.

But in any case, it doesn't really matter whether they were innocent bystanders killed by one strike or a different strike. The point is that both sides are engaging in behaviour that does nothing to end the conflict and everything to continue the misery and suffering of ordinary people both in Palestine and Israel. This isn't going to end until some brave people on both sides step up and say enough is enough.

That is correct.

 

[Giz]

My hatred is reserved for those who set up the conditions that force the US, Israel, etc. to have to fire on areas with civilians* because the cowards who claim to be fighting for those people are too cowardly to fight from areas without civilians in them.

I don't think it's just cowardice. I think it is also because they are fighting a media war and know that any children/non-combatant casualties will raise howls of outrage against Israel from the usual chorus of useful idiots.

 

[richardm]

those people are too cowardly to fight from areas without civilians in them.

To be honest I don't think it is cowardice, I think it's a cynical and deliberate decision to ensure that the world's media gets lots of pictures of the terrible Israelis blowing up innocents.

They know full well that when they launch an attack from anywhere then there will be a retaliatory strike. But they choose to launch from heavily populated areas. I have a suspicion that by the time the retaliation arrives the people who erected and fired the rocket are already gone.

I don't like seeing anyone get killed, but I can understand Israel's point of view. I don't think it'll solve anything. But I can understand it.

Edit: I see Giz beat me to it.

 

[Morrigan]

Who was it that said that Palestinians need to start loving their kids more than they hate Israel? Because as long as they keep their children around them when they fire rockets at Israel, children are going to die. Surely they know that.

 

[JihadJane]

Wow, quite the moral equivalence there!

Here's what would happen:

Palestinians unilaterally stop using violence: The Israelis will stop using violence, Palestinains conditions will improve and they will get a lot of what they desire (saving perhaps a few neighborhoods and, oh, murdering all the jews).

Israelis unilaterally stop using violence: Palestinians kill them all.


In other words - perhaps the onus should be on the, would be genocidal, fascistic terrorists to stop attacking and not on the democratic society to stop defending itself.

And on and on with this rubbish.



Until the Palestinians are removed from Greater Israel, Israel will always use violence against them.

Who was it that said that Palestinians need to start loving their kids more than they hate Israel? Because as long as they keep their children around them when they fire rockets at Israel, children are going to die. Surely they know that.

Don't know. Sounds like something a psychopathic child killer would say.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Iran's Middle East terrorism campaign could be even deadlier than Act I.

Act I has already killed nearly 40,000 in Syria, a number of Israelis near Gaza, a number of Gazans who died from retaliation strikes, Israeli tourists, a few dozen people in Lebanon in car bombs and attacks on groups opposing Assad, and they are just getting started.



Hezbollah says its 'precision rockets' could kill tens of thousands of Israelis

The Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah said on Friday it could kill tens of thousands of Israelis by striking specific targets in Israel with what it described as precision-guided rockets.

"I tell the Israelis that you have a number of targets, not a large number ... that can be hit with precision rockets ... which we have," Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah said in a broadcast speech...


"Hitting these targets with a small number of rockets will turn ... the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists to real hell, and we can talk about tens of thousands of dead," said Nasrallah.

Nasrallah was speaking on the occasion of al-Quds Day, marked each year on the last Friday of Ramadan in accordance with a tradition established by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late supreme leader of Iran.

 

[Giz]

Hezbollah says its 'precision rockets' could kill tens of thousands of Israelis

If they could do it, I imagine they likely would have already (rather than giving Mossad a head's up).

This strikes me as probably being bluster.

(Not that I wouldn't be nervous if I were an Israeli)