With a cease-fire like this, who needs war?

[Mycroft]

Gaza lull shaky as Palestinians fire rocket at settlers' school bus

Palestinians on Friday morning fired an anti-tank rocket on Friday morning at school bus carrying children outside the southern Gaza Strip settlement of Kfar Darom, shaking the fragile lull in violence. The rocket failed to hit the bus.

A mortar shell also hit a Gush Katif settlement. No damage or casualties were reported in either case.

Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip fired four Qassam rockets at the southern Israeli town of Sderot predawn Friday. The Magen David Adom ambulance service said that several people had been treated for shock.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/573010.html

I keep reading stories like this comming from Israel. Attacks, attempted attacks, people caught smuggling weapons for an attack...at what point do you decide that a "cease-fire" where one side hasn't ceased firing isn't a cease-fire?

 

[epepke]

At least they have bad aim.

 

[Skeptic]

Oh, hush. Firing anti-tank rockets at schoolchildren is merely, um, an expression of the legitimate rights of the opressed Palestinian people (blah blah).

In particular it's the expression of their right to "resist occupation" and for a "free homeland"--that is, to butcher the jews and destroy israel.

 

[Mephisto]

How many do we have to kill?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/573010.html

I keep reading stories like this comming from Israel. Attacks, attempted attacks, people caught smuggling weapons for an attack...at what point do you decide that a "cease-fire" where one side hasn't ceased firing isn't a cease-fire?

This is exactly my point in the "Capturing the #3 Al Qaeda" string.

Certainly the Israelis are justified in killing more Palestinians now, but Israel has been fighting terrorism a lot longer than the U.S. and there is apparently no shortage of terrorist or "suiciders" coming out of Palestine.

It would be so much easier to believe that after killing a certain amount of them, we'd never have to worry about them again, but births, political ideology, religion, boredom and tradition all combine to ensure there is always someone willing to step up.

When will mankind eventually realize that "they kill us, we kill them, they kill more of us, we kill more of them" doesn't work? Will we ever bother to look for another solution, or is it just more gratifying to wrap ourselves in a flag, bless the artillery and do it for God & country?

Mephisto

 

[Beanbag]

I've reached the conclusion that the majority of the human race is simply a waste of skin.

The only good news is that the decent ones seem to congregate around this forum. Thanks for letting me hang with you all.

Beanbag

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: How many do we have to kill?

When will mankind eventually realize that "they kill us, we kill them, they kill more of us, we kill more of them" doesn't work?

As opposed to "they kill us, we ignore them and hope they go away"?

 

[Mephisto]

And some have more skin than their share!

I've reached the conclusion that the majority of the human race is simply a waste of skin.

The only good news is that the decent ones seem to congregate around this forum. Thanks for letting me hang with you all.

Beanbag

Don't be so quick to call me decent, Beanbag. You'll find that I build straw men, support ridiculous opinions and conflict constantly with those whose logic is flawless. Just ask them.

If you don't mind the company, I'll be the Pedro to your Napolean.

Mephisto

 

[Mycroft]

Re: How many do we have to kill?

When will mankind eventually realize that "they kill us, we kill them, they kill more of us, we kill more of them" doesn't work? Will we ever bother to look for another solution, or is it just more gratifying to wrap ourselves in a flag, bless the artillery and do it for God & country?

Mephisto, I partly agree with you.

The difference is where you see "they kill us, we kill them, they kill more of us, we kill more of them" I see "Palestinian-Arabs kill Israelis, Israelis pretend it isn't happening so the 'peace process' can go on."

When a specific approach isn't working, it's time to try something else.

 

[Mephisto]

Re: Re: How many do we have to kill?

Mephisto, I partly agree with you.

When a specific approach isn't working, it's time to try something else.

I'm glad we agree, at least on this point.

Maybe our point of contention lies in the specific approach? Not meaning to think in terms of black and white, but to me the opposite of cease fire is . . . . .

I'm more concerned that innocents will suffer for the actions of idiots. I'd be willing to bet that good many Palestinians DON'T support the actions of their "freedom fighters." I'd also be willing to bet that many Israelis also don't support the bulldozing of Palestinan homes and the displacement of families every time such an act occurs.

There are casualties on both sides of any military action. The first among those casualties include innocence, compassion, empathy and level-headed thinking. A passionate reponse doesn't necessarily mean revenge.

Mephisto

 

[Mephisto]

More like . . .

As opposed to "they kill us, we ignore them and hope they go away"?

As opposed to "let's not give them so many excuses to hate us."

You know, like invading their countries on trumped-up charges, killing 100,000 of their people and telling them we've liberated them . . .

Mephisto

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: More like . . .

You know, like invading their countries on trumped-up charges, killing 100,000 of their people and telling them we've liberated them . . .

Which 100,000 specifically?

 

[Mephisto]

Ummmmm, how about this 100,000 . . .

Which 100,000 specifically?

Specifically, this 100,000

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm

http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7967-2004Oct28?language=printer

Mephisto

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'm glad we agree, at least on this point.

Maybe our point of contention lies in the specific approach? Not meaning to think in terms of black and white, but to me the opposite of cease fire is . . . . .

I think everyone agrees that peace is desirable, with the disagreement being the specific approach. Some seem to believe that peace will magically happen if only the Israelis do enough to pacify the Palestinian-Arabs. My personal belief is that the Palestinian-Arabs need to be brought into an active role in creating the peace, and held accountable for specific failings just as the Israelis are.

In this specific case where there are clearly factions that are not honoring the cease-fire, I would stop trying to move other aspects of the process forward until it’s dealt with. If Abbas needed help maintaining control, I’d see that he gets it. Then, and only then, would I move forward.

Originally posted by Mephisto
I'm more concerned that innocents will suffer for the actions of idiots. I'd be willing to bet that good many Palestinians DON'T support the actions of their "freedom fighters." I'd also be willing to bet that many Israelis also don't support the bulldozing of Palestinan homes and the displacement of families every time such an act occurs.

I agree, but it’s so much easier for dissenting Israelis to express themselves than it is for dissenting Palestinian-Arabs. There are some that follow Sharansky’s view that increased freedoms for the Palestinian-Arabs is essential in creating a society that can exist in peace with the Israelis.

Originally posted by Mephisto
There are casualties on both sides of any military action. The first among those casualties include innocence, compassion, empathy and level-headed thinking. A passionate reponse doesn't necessarily mean revenge.

I think this is a little simplistic. The revenge aspect of this conflict is played up and does an injustice to both sides.

 

[epepke]

I think everyone agrees that peace is desirable, with the disagreement being the specific approach.

I disagree with this, not limited to this particular conflict but extended to all of human history and some of our nearer primate relatives as well.

I think people like being pissed off. I think they like holding grudges. I think they find violence exciting and romantic to such an extent that it overrides their own fear of death.

I think that we could do more to promote peace in the Middle East by sending over a bunch of PlayStation 2s with a CD of Intifada: The Sequel than by all other means put together.

 

[clarsct]

I disagree with this, not limited to this particular conflict but extended to all of human history and some of our nearer primate relatives as well.

I think people like being pissed off. I think they like holding grudges. I think they find violence exciting and romantic to such an extent that it overrides their own fear of death.

I think that we could do more to promote peace in the Middle East by sending over a bunch of PlayStation 2s with a CD of Intifada: The Sequel than by all other means put together.

Hmmm. I think people like problems. War is merely an obvious and easy way to create them. When you find a man with no problems to solve, you've found a bored stiff human being ready to die. This is WHY we like games. They are artifical problems provided to us. This is why people work. Some would work even if they didn't need money. Why? To keep them occupied with a constant set of problems.

As for the OP, If you want those two to agree, then support Egypt in invasion plans. Give them a common enemy and you may be surprised at just how quickly they can find solutions to their problems. I realize this is short term, and would foster yet more war in the region, but I have difficulty imagining another way it could happen. Alien invasions from space? I dunno.

 

[Art Vandelay]

As opposed to "let's not give them so many excuses to hate us."

So we should reward people for killing us?

You know, like invading their countries

"Their" countries? Have we invaded Saudi Arabia recently? Or do you subscribe the idea that Iraq was behind 9/11 (and that it did as retaliation... for the invasion that happened afterwards)?

on trumped-up charges,

They weren't "trumped" up.

killing 100,000 of their people and telling them we've liberated them . . .

According to your own link, the "100,00" figure does not refer to the number killed by US forces, and it is much larger than accepted figures. So how about not including your own trumped up charges?

 

[webfusion]

We try...

beanbag says:The only good news is that the decent (humans) seem to congregate around this forum. Thanks for letting me hang with you all.

I share this sentiment, beaneroo,

Regarding the OP, it should be recalled that "cease fire" is the ongoing situation that exists between Israel and most of its neighbors (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan). The entire 'West Bank' itself came about as a result of the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Agreements. Israel decided to act against repeated violations of that document, (including cross-border incursions, mortar and artillery fire, and other miscellaneous terror) culminating in the 6-Day War (1967).

The Syrians are currently honoring the DOF in the Golan (1973). How many people even know that the USA maintains troops there as part of the UN Disengagement Of Forces?

Lebanon has no formal arrangements with Israel. The entire Northern Border is just a pencil line drawn on the map by the French cartographers Sykes & Picot (back in the early part of the last Century).

The Palestinians never signed a "Cease Fire" (Armistice) of any kind. What is being called a temporary lull or calm, is the result of "understandings" between Abbas and Sharon, mainly in the sphere of halting targeted assassinations by Israel of Islamic terrorists.

The fatal shooting by Israeli troops of two Palestinian teenagers on Wednesday (while they were violently protesting the bulldozing of lands by the IDF for the security fence) may have prompted the recent
round of tit-for-tat. At least, that is the operative rationale.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/572451.html

"Palestinian security officials promised to investigate (the incidents of rocket firing)."

 

[demon]

The wingnut fundie "Settlers" put their own children in harm`s way. Most must surely know that they are invaders and even if they don`t, they must be aware that they are moving to one of the most dangerous areas of the world -straight into the maw of a hostile native population, from whom even the permanent IDF detachments cannot protect them fully. Why don`t Israeli parents keep their children from harm`s way and withdraw from the Occupied Territories -protecting their own children directly, and increasing the safety of all those kids behind the Green Line who suffer for the "settlers" crimes?
Israeli children are placed in harm`s way through the conscious actions of their Government -who see "settlers" and "settlements" as strategic pieces in a colonialist project- and the complicity of parents who place religious dogma over the interests of their kids. So let`s spare a thought for all the kids who are placed in harm`s way by the Israeli Government, who care little for the safety of Israeli children and even less for Palestinian ones.
As I said before, maybe standards of behaviour tend to get a little rough when an entire population is forced to subsist in a communal open grave.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
I keep reading stories like this comming from Israel. Attacks, attempted attacks, people caught smuggling weapons for an attack...at what point do you decide that a "cease-fire" where one side hasn't ceased firing isn't a cease-fire?

From Sept. 29, 2000 to May 2, 2005: Israeli Dead: 964
Palestinian Dead: 3612

from http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/resources/mrates.asp

Surely both sides have to stop murdering to have a proper ceasefire?

 

[Mephisto]

Talk about conventional thought!

So we should reward people for killing us?

No, you're absolutely right, we should go in and kill AT LEAST twice as many as they've killed, that'll teach them, huh? Boy, I'll bet no one has ever thought of THAT before!

"Their" countries? Have we invaded Saudi Arabia recently? Or do you subscribe the idea that Iraq was behind 9/11 (and that it did as retaliation... for the invasion that happened

They weren't "trumped" up.afterwards)?

By their countries, I was specifically referring to Iraq (yes, I know it's only ONE country, but I'm also certain that Muslims all over the middle-east feel threatened by our actions in that ONE country). For the record, I know for a fact that Iraq was NOT behind 9/11, and have constantly questioned our invasion of Iraq as a useful step in our "war on terrorism." This to me is like FDR invading Uruguay in retaliation for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

According to your own link, the "100,00" figure does not refer to the number killed by US forces, and it is much larger than accepted figures. So how about not including your own trumped up charges?

So, you're saying that we're not technically responsible for a good number of those deaths? If we bomb a city, and the inhabitants return later to rummage through what's left of their belongings, and a wall crumbles killing several people, then we technically didn't kill them, right? If a stray bullet takes the life of an Iraqi child a half a mile away from a fray between soldiers and insurgents, that's not our responsibility right? After all, that bullet could have been fired by anyone.

As for the 100,000 figure, where does one go to obtain the "accepted figures" you talk about? BTW, these are NOT my own trumped up charges, I was merely pointing the way to other sources that seem to agree on a figure closer to the 100,000 mark than some care to admit.

I think you probably advocate more killing until the terrorists learn a lesson, right? Too bad the lesson won't be lost on the sons, daughters, wives, parents, cousins and friends of those we kill.

Mephisto

P.S. I rather liked the idea of giving potential terrorists Playstations, X-Boxes and assorted war games. They could glorify war from the comfort of their own couch.