Explosions Seen over Gaza in "Saddest Photo Yet" from Space

[Jumplion]

The argument for "proportionality" is kind of iffy, because if Hamas (and I specify Hamas for a reason, I do not wish to associate terrorists with actual Palestinians) had their way or if Israel did not have the capabilities to defend itself the death toll would indeed be "more even". I'd like to think more deaths for "proportions sake" would not be the solution to this sort of thing, though.

Where did you see me say that? I'm just saying that both sides of this conflict (which does not include citizens) are a bunch of dickwads the word could do without.

Probably interpreted it through your wording. Might have had another comment in my mind at the time. I think it was the "both sides are being dicks" as part as that sentimentality goes into "they're both dicks, they're the same!" which is a mentality I don't necessarily agree with. You see it in "democrats and republicans are both jackasses that don't care about you!" kinds of statements, it reduced the complexities of both parties and removes the contexts of their respective situations and beliefs that genuinely affect how they interact with each other and others.

So, when I read "they are both being a bunch of dickwads", while I totally agree to an extent, I still feel it is a bit reductionist to the situation at hand.

I will say, I do feel that people are conflating this issue a bit larger than it really is. The base issue that Israel has taken from this is specifically towards Hamas, not Palestinians and I think it is important to make that distinction. Whether or not one agrees with Israel's existence is irrelevant, as considering they are currently considered a nation I don't find their wanting to stop rockets unreasonable (I'd imagine many nations would prefer not to have rockets fired deliberately at their civilians). Their actions to stop them, I dunno, that can be an endless debate.

Except that the baby sitter was at fault here, since she said something thoughtless and inappropriate which started a debate between the children, in which she gave a toy the first child had to the second and said they'd have to share.

Really? I interpreted the baby sitter as the civilians in this case. Or am I totally lost in this metaphor?

 

[Calbeck]

Israel is literally the only nation I can think of which, for even one day, would tolerate missiles being fired at it by a neighbor without declaring war.

 

[forgo911]

If you want to find a recording of this conversation, you can check the NPR website, I have no clue if it is still going to be there thou. Also please reference your statistics, without a way to fact check those numbers, I can only say that those numbers are bogus, thought up at the spur of the moment to make your argument sound more appealing.

Here're your references.

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_26_english.pdf
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_26_07_2014.pdf

I couldn't find your conversation on the NPR website.

Israel isn't in the wrong for attacking places where civilians live. If the people living in the shelters are willing to let Hamas do what they are doing, then they are just as guilty as the next person. If the Palestinians want to see their people survive, then they should be dong something to stop Hamas, instead of standing by and letting them do what they want. In my opinion, those who don't take action to prevent their fate, deserve what happens to them; no matter if it death of prison.

You know, that same excuse has been used by the Israeli forces <url=http://euromid.org/en/article/533?utm_content=bufferb93a2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>to steal shit worth around $3 million from the Palestinians. The spokespersons for the Israeli government said that goods were "confiscated" from sources, that were using them for funding or supporting terrorism. Ha. Ha.

But let's back up a moment. First off, you somehow took me to be giving implicit support to Hamas just because I was criticizing the Israeli military. Hamas is simply the only option for the Palestinians to be not driven off into the sea. Just see how all this started. The Israeli teenagers being kidnapped and murdered was absolutely horrible, but Israel's reaction was disproportionate. They looted houses and arrested hundreds of people, including Hamas leaders even though they denied any involvement (which started all the rocket fire and the current clash), thus exploiting the tragedy. But at the end of the day? <url=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html>The Israeli gov admits it was the work of a lone cell. But what was done was done. The IDF got their excuse to bait Hamas and then subsequently bomb the hell out Gaza.

The larger majority of the Palestinians <url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/137.php?nid=&id=&pnt=137&lb=brme>are for a <url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071201142657/http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2007/no61.pdf>two state solution. But the more the IDF keeps bombing them with the excuse of the actions of smaller factions, the more hardliners would be created.

Sorry I wasn't able to provide evidence of the conversation, it was something I was listening to on the Radio while I was driving, so I wasn't sure that it would be on the website.

OT: Now before I continue with my point, full disclosure, I do not agree with the actions on the groups I will be using to make my argument. With that out of the way, lets talk about Mexican drug cartels. People who live in mexico are, lets face it, very poor. IN that country there is only three options. You can go work at a factory, where you might make $1/h or; you can work for the police, get paid $4/h (taking a guess here, I have no clue how much they make); or they can go work for the Cartel and make $10/hour. These people that choose join the Cartels don't always do it for the glory, but because they want to improve their living arrangements, or even for the simple fact that they want to be popular. These are people that are sick of their situation in life and DO something about it http://www.cracked.com/article_21367_6-ways-life-in-cartel-run-mexico-nothing-like-you-imagine.html

Now what about Somalian pirates? These are people that are international criminals, and they're job is one of the most dangerous. Now here is a question; if the job is so dangerous, why do they do it? They do it for the power, the money, the fame. Each time they go out, they come back with thousands of dollars. Guess how far down the poverty line the people living n Somalia are? How about the second poorest country in the world http://www.aneki.com/poorest.html These pirates are doing what they can to improve their lives, even if it costs them their own in the end http://www.cracked.com/article_20895_5-things-i-learned-working-with-somali-pirates.html

Before I start to right an essay, let me just get to the point. These people are trying to improve their lives, as shitty as they are. The people living near the Hassan shelters are completely responsible for what happens to them. If they don't want terrible things to happen to them, they should do something about it. Even the worst people in history have an opposition. The Hassan are using a very nasty tactic to try to discourage Israel from attacking them. And from the looks of it Israel is taking the stance of fine, we'll kill anyone that gets in our way, including non-combatants. As for your point of hardlines being drawn, I agree with you 100%. After Russia attacked the Ukraine, I have developed a deep hatred for russians, and on a few occasions, have gotten into arguments with older russians that feel the need to show their "superiority". If you recall, Israel has tried to make peace with Egypt already, but Hassan was the one that said no to the peace treaty (BTW that's about the time when NPR brought the Hassan Rep on for a conversation.) Not Egypt or Israel.

Off-topic...again: Sorry for rambling, it seems my brain won't stop spitting out arguments to defend Israel's actions. I want to thank you for listing your sources, that was very thoughtful and conductive for a good discussion.

 

[Jumplion]

*snip*

I want to preface this by saying I am not commenting on Israel or Hamas in this case. I am only pointing out the dangerous flaws in your logic that I find troubling.

I noticed that earlier you were saying something akin to "it is the civilians' fault for being there" and this treads a fine line for the victim-blaming route, if not completely crossing it. By your logic, all American citizens are completely complicit and deserve what AL-Qaeda wishes upon them because of the actions of a misinformed government.

You concede that Hamas uses tactics to maximize civilian casualties when Israel chooses to strike, yet you somehow blame the civilians for being in the way and "not doing anything". This for sure is blaming the victim because you are assuming that it is they who must do the majority of the actions towards a solution. It is like telling a black person "stop being lazy, what are you going to do about racism!" you are putting the onus of change on those who have simultaneously the least and most amount of power to do so. They are already entrenched in a situation that is practically out of their control. And this goes for both sides' civilians.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Probably interpreted it through your wording. Might have had another comment in my mind at the time. I think it was the "both sides are being dicks" as part as that sentimentality goes into "they're both dicks, they're the same!" which is a mentality I don't necessarily agree with. You see it in "democrats and republicans are both jackasses that don't care about you!" kinds of statements, it reduced the complexities of both parties and removes the contexts of their respective situations and beliefs that genuinely affect how they interact with each other and others.

I agree.

So, when I read "they are both being a bunch of dickwads", while I totally agree to an extent, I still feel it is a bit reductionist to the situation at hand.

It is, but sometimes people need this to get a reality check.

Except that the baby sitter was at fault here, since she said something thoughtless and inappropriate which started a debate between the children, in which she gave a toy the first child had to the second and said they'd have to share.

Really? I interpreted the baby sitter as the civilians in this case. Or am I totally lost in this metaphor?

I was not completely in full control of my thought process last night. I took the baby sitter as a metaphor for the UN.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse Hamas' tactics in any way here, as you say they use human shields and launch missiles indiscriminately into Isreali territory - but there is a big difference between the Isrealis targeting a military target that regretfully contains hostages and them targeting UN refugee shelters. And although I am fully aware that tragic accidents can happen, according to the news article I cited that is the forth UN refugee centre to be hit in four days. That goes beyond unfortunate coincidence I'm afraid.

Well, yeah, it's not a coincidence. As I said before, Hamas uses these shelters, and other civilian hubs, as bases of operations. Now, there could be some debate over the aggressiveness or trigger-happyness of Israel in this situation, though I doubt it's full of as much malicious intent so much as it's based in paranoia and, to an extent, desperation.

I get what you're driving at, but fear and desperation cannot be used as an excuse in situations like this. The Israeli military has access to state-of-the-art tech and are more than capable of acquiring and verifying targets remotely before launching strikes, so in theory these kind of civilian casualties should be being kept to a minimum, however since the recent hostilities began nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 6,000 wounded. How many casualties have the Isrealis suffered? Less than 40. The Isreali response has been vastly disproportionate to the level of attacks they have suffered.

A really depressing example of what I mean is that even though a 12 hour cease-fire has been agreed by the two sides, the Isreali military has said that it will still "locate and neutralise" Hamas forces. <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28497439>During the cease-fire for crying out loud.

 

[forgo911]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse Hamas' tactics in any way here, as you say they use human shields and launch missiles indiscriminately into Isreali territory - but there is a big difference between the Isrealis targeting a military target that regretfully contains hostages and them targeting UN refugee shelters. And although I am fully aware that tragic accidents can happen, according to the news article I cited that is the forth UN refugee centre to be hit in four days. That goes beyond unfortunate coincidence I'm afraid.

Well, yeah, it's not a coincidence. As I said before, Hamas uses these shelters, and other civilian hubs, as bases of operations. Now, there could be some debate over the aggressiveness or trigger-happyness of Israel in this situation, though I doubt it's full of as much malicious intent so much as it's based in paranoia and, to an extent, desperation.

I get what you're driving at, but fear and desperation cannot be used as an excuse in situations like this. The Israeli military has access to state-of-the-art tech and are more than capable of acquiring and verifying targets remotely before launching strikes, so in theory these kind of civilian casualties should be being kept to a minimum, however since the recent hostilities began nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 6,000 wounded. How many casualties have the Isrealis suffered? Less than 40. The Isreali response has been vastly disproportionate to the level of attacks they have suffered.

A really depressing example of what I mean is that even though a 12 hour cease-fire has been agreed by the two sides, the Isreali military has said that it will still "locate and neutralize" Hamas forces. <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28497439>During the cease-fire for crying out loud.

In war, you do not play nice. Your objective is to crush your opponents with over whelming force. You do not give quarter just because a country is weaker than you. In order to truly defeat your enemies, you need to crush all hope of resistance without mercy. Why should Israel play nice, if by playing nice they lose more of their people? Where is the incentive to put their people at risk when they can destroy their enemies from afar? War is not a pretty thing, it is ugly and horrible; but that is what needs to be done to protect their people.

 

[forgo911]

*snip*

I want to preface this by saying I am not commenting on Israel or Hamas in this case. I am only pointing out the dangerous flaws in your logic that I find troubling.

I noticed that earlier you were saying something akin to "it is the civilians' fault for being there" and this treads a fine line for the victim-blaming route, if not completely crossing it. By your logic, all American citizens are completely complicit and deserve what AL-Qaeda wishes upon them because of the actions of a misinformed government.

You concede that Hamas uses tactics to maximize civilian casualties when Israel chooses to strike, yet you somehow blame the civilians for being in the way and "not doing anything". This for sure is blaming the victim because you are assuming that it is they who must do the majority of the actions towards a solution. It is like telling a black person "stop being lazy, what are you going to do about racism!" you are putting the onus of change on those who have simultaneously the least and most amount of power to do so. They are already entrenched in a situation that is practically out of their control. And this goes for both sides' civilians.

Please explain to me in what part I said that the American people deserve what that got from the Taliban? If you insist on taking my words out of context, I will simplify it as such; People are responsible for their own lives. If they are oppressed and don't like it, they should fight back. If they feel that their lives are in danger, then they should do something about it. IF they want to improve their lives, then they have to do something about it. If you had bothered to read the articles I linked, then you would see that to some of these kids in that region, terrorism is the only way they can improve their lives. Those people are trying to improve their lives, and their doing it for something they believe in. You might think that they are doing terrible things, but giving the choice of starving to death or killing people, only those without the will to live would chose to starve.

 

[Josh123914]

*snip*

I want to preface this by saying I am not commenting on Israel or Hamas in this case. I am only pointing out the dangerous flaws in your logic that I find troubling.

I noticed that earlier you were saying something akin to "it is the civilians' fault for being there" and this treads a fine line for the victim-blaming route, if not completely crossing it. By your logic, all American citizens are completely complicit and deserve what AL-Qaeda wishes upon them because of the actions of a misinformed government.

You concede that Hamas uses tactics to maximize civilian casualties when Israel chooses to strike, yet you somehow blame the civilians for being in the way and "not doing anything". This for sure is blaming the victim because you are assuming that it is they who must do the majority of the actions towards a solution. It is like telling a black person "stop being lazy, what are you going to do about racism!" you are putting the onus of change on those who have simultaneously the least and most amount of power to do so. They are already entrenched in a situation that is practically out of their control. And this goes for both sides' civilians.

Please explain to me in what part I said that the American people deserve what that got from the Taliban? If you insist on taking my words out of context, I will simplify it as such; People are responsible for their own lives. If they are oppressed and don't like it, they should fight back. If they feel that their lives are in danger, then they should do something about it. IF they want to improve their lives, then they have to do something about it. If you had bothered to read the articles I linked, then you would see that to some of these kids in that region, terrorism is the only way they can improve their lives. Those people are trying to improve their lives, and their doing it for something they believe in. You might think that they are doing terrible things, but giving the choice of starving to death or killing people, only those without the will to live would chose to starve.

Ugh, you've got me responding to this thread, I'm so disappointed in myself.

Listen, terrorism should NOT be the only way to better yourself in this situation. The fact that millions of people in Gaza have been left with this as the only option tells me that that Israel aren't the victims in all of this.

The whole situation is enormously complicated and will take years to fully resolve, but for the time being Israel has the upper hand in this conflict, and has the power to create lasting peace, but isn't.

I don't care how you spin it, killing 600 civilians and bombing hospitals and UN shelters is not something a military with truly noble goals would do.
I don't care if the IDF drops leaflets telling people to leave those places, because Palestinians in Gaza have nowhere to go. Egypt has closed their border to them, while Israel has built a big wall on its border.

I'm also confused as what constitutes 'terrorist' nowadays.
You can't call Hamas a terrorist organisation, because they were democratically elected by the Palestinians. They aren't being friendly, sure, but if I was walled up in a densely populated area with bad living standards (they lack clean water and the UN reckons that Gaza will be unlivable in about 5 years if nothing's done) I'd probably vote for them as well, because at least then it would look like my government was doing something to help me.
This mentality is bad because it just breeds more extremism, but until there's peace, it won't stop.

Speaking as someone in Northern Ireland, we had our own issues and there's been (relative) peace for about 16 years now. Peace was achieved by negotiation and talking, not by wiping one side off the map. There are still people with allegiances to one paramilitary group or another, but these people are few and far between now, and there are less and less of them as time goes on.
Israel and Palestine should continue to negotiate for a two-state solution, and this is why I feel sympathy for Palestinians and not the Israeli government. Because that government walked away from negotiations with the PA and Kerry. Kerry asked them to stop with settlements on the West Bank and in response they called him an Anti-Semite, and Settlements have continued being built.

Let me end by saying I have no problem with there being a Jewish state, but Israel has become the strong one of the two and can no longer be saying that they are the victim in this situation. Northern Ireland never had the Iron Dome system in place, and if the IRA let off a car bomb, the British army did not respond by carpet bombing Belfast, nor should they.
In creating a home for Jewish people, they are creating a new diasporia of Palestinians that once lived in the West Bank, and this I can't stand for. It's tragic to see happen, and I don't want people responding to bring up incidents like with 1948 or 1967 wars, because I don't approve of what happened there either against Israel, but Palestinians growing up today should not be displaced and it be justified by crap that happened decades before they were born. For comparison, this would be like if Cuba invaded and began to annex Florida from the USA, and one of the justifications was ''Well you guys did the same thing at the Bay of Pigs!''

 

[elthingo]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse Hamas' tactics in any way here, as you say they use human shields and launch missiles indiscriminately into Isreali territory - but there is a big difference between the Isrealis targeting a military target that regretfully contains hostages and them targeting UN refugee shelters. And although I am fully aware that tragic accidents can happen, according to the news article I cited that is the forth UN refugee centre to be hit in four days. That goes beyond unfortunate coincidence I'm afraid.

Well, yeah, it's not a coincidence. As I said before, Hamas uses these shelters, and other civilian hubs, as bases of operations. Now, there could be some debate over the aggressiveness or trigger-happyness of Israel in this situation, though I doubt it's full of as much malicious intent so much as it's based in paranoia and, to an extent, desperation.

I get what you're driving at, but fear and desperation cannot be used as an excuse in situations like this. The Israeli military has access to state-of-the-art tech and are more than capable of acquiring and verifying targets remotely before launching strikes, so in theory these kind of civilian casualties should be being kept to a minimum, however since the recent hostilities began nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 6,000 wounded. How many casualties have the Isrealis suffered? Less than 40. The Isreali response has been vastly disproportionate to the level of attacks they have suffered.

A really depressing example of what I mean is that even though a 12 hour cease-fire has been agreed by the two sides, the Isreali military has said that it will still "locate and neutralize" Hamas forces. <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28497439>During the cease-fire for crying out loud.

In war, you do not play nice. Your objective is to crush your opponents with over whelming force. You do not give quarter just because a country is weaker than you. In order to truly defeat your enemies, you need to crush all hope of resistance without mercy. Why should Israel play nice, if by playing nice they lose more of their people? Where is the incentive to put their people at risk when they can destroy their enemies from afar? War is not a pretty thing, it is ugly and horrible; but that is what needs to be done to protect their people.

That's the dumbest, most psychopathic way to handle a problem like Israel's... If you just keep bombing Gaza and killing thousands of people every decade, you will just continue breeding enemies. The terrorists firing rockets today? They're the kids who lost their families in the last few years of conflict, most likely as a result of an israeli response to rocket fire as disproportionate and merciless as the one going on right now. The kids losing their mothers, siblings and friends and seeing them literally torn apart or crushed every time Israel decides to kill 30 innocents to get 1 low level hamas officer? They'll be hamas biggest supporters, most likely firing rockets at Israel in a few years. They'll want revenge, and in their fury, they won't really care if they're killing innocents or not.

The only way Israel can find a lasting peace if they keep taking this course of action every time some angry kids whose parents or siblings or whatever they killed a few years ago throws some unguided rockets at their cities is if they kill every last palestinian in the west bank and gaza, because as long as there's palestinians who have lost someone or who feel wronged in some other way, there'll be war. It's either nazi germany level genocide, or infinite war.

Well, I say infinite, but since Israel is a country of 5 or so million in a sea of arabs, the long term prospects aren't that pretty for israel if a stable condition isn't found, regardless of israel posessing nukes or not.

The only way for Israel (and a third/half of the global jewish population, who happen to be in israel) to survive in the long term is reconciliation and understanding. They need to really, truly understand why the palestinians really want them dead. It's not an instinct or some other natural or completely random ,irrational thing. Palestinians are mad about their lands being stolen, their people being killed and never really being able to feel safe. Imagine having a bunch of people come over to your house, kick you out, bulldoze it and then tell you the land is actually theirs because a completely different bunch of people who are somewhat similar to them lived here a few hundred years before the group of people somewhat similar to you moved in 1500 years ago. Or the possibility of a missile hitting you at any moment because your neighbor happens to be a member of hamas. Just the possibility of your house collapsing on you and killing you at any time through no fault of your own. Wouldn't you be mad at the people who made you homeless? Or the people who could kill you at any time because your life means nothing to them? Or the people who killed your mother because her life means nothing to them?

There's a way to fix that. Don't give in to the right wing nuts. Make settlements illegal. Tear them down when they pop up, so the palestinians can feel that their land isn't gradually being taken from them by force. Don't bomb their homes to pieces because you can't wait for a moment where the hamas member you're after is in the open, or at least where civilian casualties won't be 8 innocents for every 2 hamas members (which was the UN estimate about a week ago. it's probably gone to 9-1 or something similar after the operation was intensified, and target evaluation became more ruthless). Basically, what I'm trying to say is, if Israel actually treated the palestinians as actual human beings, they'd have a lot fewer palestinians out to kill them.

Hamas is basically an organization that depends entirely on the palestinian people's hate and frustration. I would not be surprised if they actually want this war to continue, and more civilians to die, because that creates more angry palestinians and more hate for israel, which means more support It would definitely explain why they've broken every single ceasefire they've been given.

In fact, before the 3 israeli teens were murdered by hamas members, beginning this whole conflict, hamas was actually in a really bad position. The economic crisis in gaza and the immense cost of the rocket program coupled with the lack of conflict in the last year or so made the gazan people less supportive of them. They probably saw themselves losing even more public support if the peace continued, as people stopped ignoring their bad governance. Now they have more support than ever, mostly thanks to israel. Israel fed them troops to kill (those 40 or so dead israeli soldiers are a massive PR boost for them), killed and gravely wounded almost 2000 palestinians (so far..) and made life in Gaza generally hellish and unbearable. That translates to massive public support. Those who lost loved ones will want revenge, which is most easily gained through hamas. Those who hate israel for making their lives traumatic and incredibly difficult the last few weeks will support hamas because they want some way to hurt that big, abstract thing that made their life so difficult back. Those who doubted their competency now have 40 dead israeli soldiers as proof to hamas ability to hurt israel back. They'll be more popular than ever. Had their acts of aggression been ignored, while israel tried to reconciliate with the palestinian people, hamas would have withered away over time, and those who want to destroy israel rather than live peacefully alongside them would have been replaced with people who see more value in continuing to live a somewhat happy, dignified life in peace and (relative) prosperity, rather than continue fighting a fight as pointless as it is both hopeless and destructive.

 

[llamastorm.games]

Know what i'd do if people started bombing the sod out of the UK, the place i live in...
I'd move...
So long as it's reasonably safe, not stupidly hot or stupidly cold and some way of getting food/job reasonably close i'm not really fussed about where i live.

Watch the Louis Theroux documentary on Zionism....

 

[zumbledum]

Bunch of religious idiots murdering each other over dirt. leave em to it and stop banging on about it i say!

but as my lack of basic human empathy doesn't seem to be an evolution trait the rest of us share (yet) the way i see it, if you think a side is right , your wrong. In fact if your on a side your part of the problem.

i see two options

1. nuke the entire area, and i mean total annihilation make that entire area a desolate radioactive wilderness incapable of supporting any life. the "if you cant play together nicely im taking your toys away" approach.

2. realise that at this point its not about whose right its about there both wrong , and the issue isnt about the land no reasonable person cares that much , its about hate and intolerance now. and the way you combat that is integration. start forcing them to live and work together, the joint school idea is a good start but unless we send in the troops put both sides down and force a swap of the first born children . its going to take a generation or two.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The whole situation is enormously complicated and will take years to fully resolve, but for the time being Israel has the upper hand in this conflict, and has the power to create lasting peace, but isn't.

Ok, how do they have the power to create lasting peace? Serious question, I'm not asking this with sarcasm.

I'm also confused as what constitutes 'terrorist' nowadays.
You can't call Hamas a terrorist organisation, because they were democratically elected by the Palestinians. They aren't being friendly, sure, but if I was walled up in a densely populated area with bad living standards (they lack clean water and the UN reckons that Gaza will be unlivable in about 5 years if nothing's done) I'd probably vote for them as well, because at least then it would look like my government was doing something to help me.
This mentality is bad because it just breeds more extremism, but until there's peace, it won't stop.

You are right that the denomination of terrorist has ultimately little meaning, but just because they were elected democratically doesn't mean you can't call them terrorists.

Hamas is both a militant group and a political organization. They have advocated terrorist methods and have continued to support the destruction of Israel.

There is no denying that they do support the people of Gaza. But they also hide behind them.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse Hamas' tactics in any way here, as you say they use human shields and launch missiles indiscriminately into Isreali territory - but there is a big difference between the Isrealis targeting a military target that regretfully contains hostages and them targeting UN refugee shelters. And although I am fully aware that tragic accidents can happen, according to the news article I cited that is the forth UN refugee centre to be hit in four days. That goes beyond unfortunate coincidence I'm afraid.

Well, yeah, it's not a coincidence. As I said before, Hamas uses these shelters, and other civilian hubs, as bases of operations. Now, there could be some debate over the aggressiveness or trigger-happyness of Israel in this situation, though I doubt it's full of as much malicious intent so much as it's based in paranoia and, to an extent, desperation.

I get what you're driving at, but fear and desperation cannot be used as an excuse in situations like this. The Israeli military has access to state-of-the-art tech and are more than capable of acquiring and verifying targets remotely before launching strikes, so in theory these kind of civilian casualties should be being kept to a minimum, however since the recent hostilities began nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 6,000 wounded. How many casualties have the Isrealis suffered? Less than 40. The Isreali response has been vastly disproportionate to the level of attacks they have suffered.

A really depressing example of what I mean is that even though a 12 hour cease-fire has been agreed by the two sides, the Isreali military has said that it will still "locate and neutralize" Hamas forces. <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28497439>During the cease-fire for crying out loud.

In war, you do not play nice. Your objective is to crush your opponents with over whelming force. You do not give quarter just because a country is weaker than you. In order to truly defeat your enemies, you need to crush all hope of resistance without mercy. Why should Israel play nice, if by playing nice they lose more of their people? Where is the incentive to put their people at risk when they can destroy their enemies from afar? War is not a pretty thing, it is ugly and horrible; but that is what needs to be done to protect their people.

Really? You think because Israel have lost less than 40 troops they are within their rights to "crush" nearly 7,000 people? Civilians included? Last time I checked Israel was bound by the laws of the Geneva Convention, and those laws state that "violence to life and person ... shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place ... to persons not taking active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms" - or in other words to attack (or in Israel's words "locate and neutralize") Hamas forces who have laid down their arms for the cease-fire is a fucking war-crime.

Both sides have been guilty of horrible things during this conflict, ranging from questionable tactics to blatant atrocities, but Israel cannot hope to gain the support of the international community by being as bad as (if not worse than) the people they are fighting.

 

[Josh123914]

The whole situation is enormously complicated and will take years to fully resolve, but for the time being Israel has the upper hand in this conflict, and has the power to create lasting peace, but isn't.

Ok, how do they have the power to create lasting peace? Serious question, I'm not asking this with sarcasm.

I'm also confused as what constitutes 'terrorist' nowadays.
You can't call Hamas a terrorist organisation, because they were democratically elected by the Palestinians. They aren't being friendly, sure, but if I was walled up in a densely populated area with bad living standards (they lack clean water and the UN reckons that Gaza will be unlivable in about 5 years if nothing's done) I'd probably vote for them as well, because at least then it would look like my government was doing something to help me.
This mentality is bad because it just breeds more extremism, but until there's peace, it won't stop.

You are right that the denomination of terrorist has ultimately little meaning, but just because they were elected democratically doesn't mean you can't call them terrorists.

Hamas is both a militant group and a political organization. They have advocated terrorist methods and have continued to support the destruction of Israel.

There is no denying that they do support the people of Gaza. But they also hide behind them.

Well Israel has the power to create lasting peace by working with the government of the West Bank to create a 2 state solution, and to remove the settlements.
Israel has the most power out of the parties present, and it is shown by their infrastructure, standard of living, and general policies.
You don't see Palestinian soldiers patrolling Israeli areas right? If you have that kind of control, then it can't be hard to open up negotiations.
The problem I have is that Israel up and left the negotiations whenever Kerry and Abbas pushed for them to stop building settlements. Recognizing the West Bank's sovereignty is a major factor in achieving peace, and with settlements being built, it pushes Palestinians in the West Bank towards extremism.
As for Hamas, as mentioned earlier, they want Israel to respond. They are provocative and their missiles are token at best due to the Iron Dome (and no, btw, I don't mean that they should be allowed to fire rockets willy nilly. The rockets that slip the net and cause deaths are sad and unneccessary, like this whole situation).

As for Hamas not recognising Israel's right to exist, I think its a political tool. It allows Hamas to be painted as freedom fighters against an oppressive state that wants to drive them into the sea. It also works well at the diplomacy table, where Israel can refuse to recognise Hamas as little more than a terrorist organisation, and Hamas can respond that it sees Israel as little more than one giant Settlement. From what information I've gotten about this, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians support the 2 state solution. It's just a shame their governments don't reflect this.

Hamas needs Israel to respond heavy handedly so they can drum up public support. Should the IDF be bombing UN shelters and killing civilians? No. Should Hamas be firing rockets in the first place? Also no. There's always a line to be drawn, but here it's blurred, with the consensus in the whole quagmire internationally being that Hamas rockets or not, the IDF shouldn't be killing children.
Before this whole shitstorm, support for Hamas was waning, and it's election year, so this ground offensive is probably just what their PR team wanted. If Hamas were voted out and replaced by a party similar to that of Abbas, I imagine a 2 state solution would be alot more attainable-- Assuming Israel co-operates.

 

[Nikolaz72]

For every civilian that Israel kills, there's at least another five who joins Hamas because they see the Israeli attacks as unjustified. Israels attack on Palestine is a boon for the terrorists recruitment, they are earning for more new blood than they are loosing old.

There is nothing to be gained from it, nothing. It's a -pointless- conflict if there ever was one. There are no enemies left from the start of the conflict, the terrorists Israel is fighting today are the ones they created themselves.

The one solution I see to this is an international peacekeeping operation. If the two refuse to live together peacefully just force them to. Draw the borders where they should be an enforce them under threat of cutting the funding from the military of a certain country that can't stick to the plenty of land they already have. (Hint, it's not Palestine)

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Well Israel has the power to create lasting peace by working with the government of the West Bank to create a 2 state solution, and to remove the settlements.
Israel has the most power out of the parties present, and it is shown by their infrastructure, standard of living, and general policies.

The problem I have is that Israel up and left the negotiations whenever Kerry and Abbas pushed for them to stop building settlements. Recognizing the West Bank's sovereignty is a major factor in achieving peace, and with settlements being built, it pushes Palestinians in the West Bank towards extremism.
As for Hamas, as mentioned earlier, they want Israel to respond. They are provocative and their missiles are token at best due to the Iron Dome (and no, btw, I don't mean that they should be allowed to fire rockets willy nilly. The rockets that slip the net and cause deaths are sad and unneccessary, like this whole situation).

Ok fair enough, I do agree that they should remove the settlements. I'm just not optimistic enough to think it wil create lasting peace.

As for Hamas not recognising Israel's right to exist, I think its a political tool. It allows Hamas to be painted as freedom fighters against an oppressive state that wants to drive them into the sea. It also works well at the diplomacy table, where Israel can refuse to recognise Hamas as little more than a terrorist organisation, and Hamas can respond that it sees Israel as little more than one giant Settlement. From what information I've gotten about this, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians support the 2 state solution. It's just a shame their governments don't reflect this.

It also paints them as not serious about peace.
It's obvious that this is coming down to a battle of "who will be the bigger man first?" With both sides goading each other.

Also the notion that because of past statements that Hamas cannot be negotiated with. Organisations change.

I never said that they couldn't be negotiated with. I said that if Hamas continues with those statements, Israel isn't going to think that they're serious about peace.

They've consistently made those statements, and they've made them recently.

 

[Jumplion]

The Israeli military has access to state-of-the-art tech and are more than capable of acquiring and verifying targets remotely before launching strikes, so in theory these kind of civilian casualties should be being kept to a minimum, however since the recent hostilities began nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 6,000 wounded. How many casualties have the Isrealis suffered? Less than 40. The Isreali response has been vastly disproportionate to the level of attacks they have suffered.

Because, again, Hamas deliberately hides themselves in civilian hubs to maximize civilian casualties. This is so they can use the numbers to their favor. Of course you will get those large numbers, regardless of how precise the tactics are. That's the strategy. Whether or not Israel's response is appropriate, I am not at liberty to say.

I also previously mentioned in another comment why the argument of "proportionality" doesn't quite work in this situation. The only way it would be "proportional" is if more civilians were killed on the Israeli side, or if Hamas would stop centralizing themselves in civilian populations. Unless you are suggesting that Israeli civilian deaths would be okay, which I am fairly sure you're not, the best course of action would be to stop the ouroboros that both sides perpetuate. How do you do that, I'm not sure.

I don't blame them for wanting to stop it, one way or another. I'd imagine most developed nations would prefer rockets to not be fired onto them. But again, whether or not the response is appropriate, I don't know and I won't pretend to know.

A really depressing example of what I mean is that even though a 12 hour cease-fire has been agreed by the two sides, the Isreali military has said that it will still "locate and neutralize" Hamas forces. <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28497439>During the cease-fire for crying out loud.

This is after Israel agreed to a cease-fire a few days earlier and Hamas continued to fire rockets during said cease-fire. They have also recently agreed to extend the cease-fire [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28507951], though Hamas still intends to fire rockets from what I can tell.

In war, you do not play nice. Your objective is to crush your opponents with over whelming force. You do not give quarter just because a country is weaker than you. In order to truly defeat your enemies, you need to crush all hope of resistance without mercy.

Because that worked so well for the US in the Middle East. "Shock and Awe", after all.

Spoiler: Click to expand. Making it easier to read.

Please explain to me in what part I said that the American people deserve what that got from the Taliban? If you insist on taking my words out of context, I will simplify it as such;

From a post of yours post directly;

People die everyday, in wars, from sickness, from famine, from old age. Should we make an exception for someone just because they're "innocent"? No one is innocent, from the youngest child to the oldest person. Everyone has done something that breaks social contract in some way... In my opinion, those who don't take action to prevent their fate, deserve what happens to them; no matter if it death of prison.

Essentially, this means that American citizens are responsible for the potential crimes that the government does, regardless of their involvement. You state that those who literally barely have any power in this chaotic situation are one of the major ones to blame in this situation. This is victim blaming.

People are responsible for their own lives. If they are oppressed and don't like it, they should fight back.

Yes, because as we all know, it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery] so [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots] easy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape] stand up [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Race] to injustice [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes] if you're the target [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery].

If they feel that their lives are in danger, then they should do something about it.

Easy for someone to say when they can comfortably type these statements from a fairly developed nation that permits freedom of speech to the extent that you can say these things.

"Hey, people living under an oppressive regime that will shoot you if you express dissent at the current government, just get up and fight against it! It's your fault you're in this situation!"

IF they want to improve their lives, then they have to do something about it.

See above.

If you had bothered to read the articles I linked, then you would see that to some of these kids in that region, terrorism is the only way they can improve their lives.

And that is the terrorists fault, not the children's. If the only lucrative offer they can get is to join a militant organization like Hamas, I'd imagine it's because Hamas has deliberately made it this way.

Those people are trying to improve their lives, and their doing it for something they believe in. You might think that they are doing terrible things, but giving the choice of starving to death or killing people, only those without the will to live would chose to starve.

Now I'm just confused what you're saying. First you say that it is the civilians fault for not getting up and changing things. Now you're saying they are doing whatever it takes to survive. You're not very consistent in this.

Spoiler

Palestinians are mad about their lands being stolen, their people being killed and never really being able to feel safe. Imagine having a bunch of people come over to your house, kick you out, bulldoze it and then tell you the land is actually theirs because a completely different bunch of people who are somewhat similar to them lived here a few hundred years before the group of people somewhat similar to you moved in 1500 years ago. Or the possibility of a missile hitting you at any moment because your neighbor happens to be a member of hamas. Just the possibility of your house collapsing on you and killing you at any time through no fault of your own. Wouldn't you be mad at the people who made you homeless? Or the people who could kill you at any time because your life means nothing to them? Or the people who killed your mother because her life means nothing to them?

The thing is, though, that's happened to the Jews to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_holocaust].
Again [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_Broken_Glass].
And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom].
And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre].
And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#1300.E2.80.931391].
And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree].
And...well, you get the idea [http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/].

Please note, I am not citing this as an excuse for Israel's actions. But while I understand your reason for expressing this argument, I can't help but feel it is based on more emotion rather than the true context of the situation. I mean, switch out "Palestinians" with "Jews" or "Israelis" and it's the exact same thing. Literally, word for word.

There's a way to fix that. Don't give in to the right wing nuts. Make settlements illegal. Tear them down when they pop up, so the palestinians can feel that their land isn't gradually being taken from them by force.

Fully acknowledge that Israel's politics are more right-leaning than I would like. A big problem is that a good portion of the parties in the Israeli parliament are fairly right-leaning, though I can understand why they'd come to power in the first place as shown before.

Spoiler

In fact, before the 3 israeli teens were murdered by hamas members, beginning this whole conflict, hamas was actually in a really bad position. The economic crisis in gaza and the immense cost of the rocket program coupled with the lack of conflict in the last year or so made the gazan people less supportive of them. They probably saw themselves losing even more public support if the peace continued, as people stopped ignoring their bad governance. Now they have more support than ever, mostly thanks to israel. Israel fed them troops to kill (those 40 or so dead israeli soldiers are a massive PR boost for them), killed and gravely wounded almost 2000 palestinians (so far..) and made life in Gaza generally hellish and unbearable. That translates to massive public support. Those who lost loved ones will want revenge, which is most easily gained through hamas. Those who hate israel for making their lives traumatic and incredibly difficult the last few weeks will support hamas because they want some way to hurt that big, abstract thing that made their life so difficult back. Those who doubted their competency now have 40 dead israeli soldiers as proof to hamas ability to hurt israel back. They'll be more popular than ever. Had their acts of aggression been ignored, while israel tried to reconciliate with the palestinian people, hamas would have withered away over time, and those who want to destroy israel rather than live peacefully alongside them would have been replaced with people who see more value in continuing to live a somewhat happy, dignified life in peace and (relative) prosperity, rather than continue fighting a fight as pointless as it is both hopeless and destructive.

It is a cycle, I'm afraid. As much as Israel may be reluctant to do so, they're probably going to need to be the bigger man in these types of scenarios. How willing and what recourse could occur after doing so, I don't know.

 

[forgo911]

Snip.

Before you write about Hamas forcing the way of terrorism being the only way to improve your life, please a) read my links and b) do some research on the GDP of these countries.