Guest GaySacGuy Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 ""updated 11:04 p.m. ET Jan. 2, 2009 Associated Press WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush on Friday branded the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel an "act of terror" and outlined his own condition for a cease-fire in Gaza, saying no peace deal would be acceptable without monitoring to halt the flow of smuggled weapons to terrorist groups."" Ok, all well and good...But, Hamas is a democratically elected government attacking a country that they fear will attack them or destroy them. Now, Let's see....the US is a democratically elected governement that attacked Iraq because we feared they would attack US interest. Now, does that make Cheney-Bush terrorist. In my book it does...BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION!!! Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Totally agree. The US's blind endorsement of almost everything Israel does, no matter what the level of overkill (no apologies for the pun) nor the number of civilian deaths, is totally out of whack with the way it lectures most other countries. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I think it makes them "war criminals" not "terrorists." Quote
Guest Steve1903 Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 War criminals, terrorists, you say potato I say pota...well actually it doesnt work in print but you get the gist. "Scum" covers most of them on either side of most wars. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 I would still love to see them face war crimes trials. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Totally agree. The US's blind endorsement of almost everything Israel does, no matter what the level of overkill (no apologies for the pun) nor the number of civilian deaths, is totally out of whack with the way it lectures most other countries. Every nation, including Israel, has the right to defend it's citizenry. If Burma was lobbing rockets at cities in Thailand, I'll bet you would be singing a different song. If separatists in Quebec were lobbing rockets at Bangor Maine and neither the Provincial nor Federal governments moved to stop them, just how would you expect Washington to react? As for the idea of the US's blind endorsement of almost everything Israel does, did you take note of the recent revelation that the Bush administration refused to give Israel permission to overfly Iraq to target the Iranian nuclear sites, as well as refused special bunker-buster bombs useful for the project. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Israel does have the right to defend itself, but it also has the responsibility not to provoke attacks. If I go into a bar and start screaming at people, steal drinks off their table and start going through people's jackets some of them might want to beat me up. I'd still have a right to defend myself, but I'd hardly be innocent. Most Israelis I've met are decent rational people, but the crazy settlers who try to take over Palestinian land and act like mini warlords cause the problems for everyone else. Global terrorism in general would be greatly reduced if Israel simply went back to the pre-1967 borders and found a way to share the holy sites with members of all three religious sects. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Every nation, including Israel, has the right to defend it's citizenry I agree. I do not condone the rocket attacks on Israel. But the massive retaliation in Gaza and the huge loss of civilian life are out of all proportion to those attacks. And if history is any judge, in the long run they are unlikely to have the desired effect. It also strikes me as the height of hypocrisy that the US promotes democracy and democratic elections; yet when Hamas win by a landside - partly because the US and other western powers did precious little to help the previous Palestinian government - the US cries 'foul'. I also find it difficult to forget that two reasons why the US/UK and others went to war against Iraq was because we were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had failed to comply with a string of UN Security Council resolutions. Israel has had weapons of mass destruction for decades and has failed to comply with many more UN Security Council resolutions over a much longer period of time. Why the special treatment? Global terrorism in general would be greatly reduced if Israel simply went back to the pre-1967 borders and found a way to share the holy sites with members of all three religious sects. Absolutely agree. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I agree. I do not condone the rocket attacks on Israel. But the massive retaliation in Gaza and the huge loss of civilian life are out of all proportion to those attacks. And if history is any judge, in the long run they are unlikely to have the desired effect. It also strikes me as the height of hypocrisy that the US promotes democracy and democratic elections; yet when Hamas win by a landside - partly because the US and other western powers did precious little to help the previous Palestinian government - the US cries 'foul'. I also find it difficult to forget that two reasons why the US/UK and others went to war against Iraq was because we were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and had failed to comply with a string of UN Security Council resolutions. Israel has had weapons of mass destruction for decades and has failed to comply with many more UN Security Council resolutions over a much longer period of time. Why the special treatment? Absolutely agree. Fully disagree. Perhaps you have not been watching the Lebanese theater. As you may remember, not long ago, Israel was forced to invade Lebanon to stop the unprovoked rocket attacks, and despite an International PR disaster, Israel persisted. After the fight left the Hezbollah standing, Israel was said to have been defeated. But time has shown that the desired effect, the missiles stopping (at least for the most part) was achieved. Indeed, even though Israel is currently engaged in hostilities with Gaza, only a few missiles have been launched from Lebanon, with Hezbollah leadership claiming that it is rouge elements behind them. What happened in Lebanon was logical. The populace decided that the cost of allowing the country to be used as a base for missiles, having the country's infrastructure destroyed by Israeli air force was just too much to bear. Let's hope the people of Gaza see reason and never have to go through this again. It is hard to negotiate with nihilists. As to Israel having weapons of mass destruction, they are part of an ever growing list including the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, North Korea, France, and so on. And yes, Hamas won by a landslide, but so what. It looks like the Gazans are reaping the seeds of that electoral mistake. No sympathy here. I wonder when Hamas will allow the next election. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 By that logic you could have bombed america because of our electoral mistake with George Bush. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 By that logic you could have bombed america because of our electoral mistake with George Bush. America was bombed. Just look at the economy. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Fully disagree. Fair enough! I'm not going to continue a debate with someone who fails even to recognise the opposite argument. You know, your views are so typical of the spin put out by the Israeli spin doctors day after day after day ad nauseam. We are the injured party. We are right. We are always right. So be it. That sure ain't the way the world outside Israel and America sees it. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Fair enough! I'm not going to continue a debate with someone who fails even to recognise the opposite argument. You know, your views are so typical of the spin put out by the Israeli spin doctors day after day after day ad nauseam. We are the injured party. We are right. We are always right. So be it. That sure ain't the way the world outside Israel and America sees it. Oh, I recognize the opposing argument. And my heart goes out for those Palestinians who are forced to live amongst weapon stockpiles in their schools, mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings. I feel for those who choose to allow these conditions to occur in their neighborhoods. I disagree with the reality, but I understand it. But I will not be drawn into a game of attack the writer. The problem is, how do you get beyond the hate. On both sides. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 my heart goes out for those Palestinians who are forced to live amongst weapon stockpiles in their schools, mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings. I feel for those who choose to allow these conditions to occur in their neighborhoods. Spin, spin, spin! Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 The thing is many Israelis don't even think that Israel is right. One of my friend's parents live in Israel and he was telling me just last night that he wishes Israel would pull back to the pre-1967 borders because he thinks the odds of his parents getting killed would go down considerably. He and his parents completely blame the Israeli settlers for provoking shit and the Israeli government for not recognizing the legitimate elected government in Palestine. Quote
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 he wishes Israel would pull back to the pre-1967 borders because he thinks the odds of his parents getting killed would go down considerably. I wish this would happen if it would bring peace to the region. I thought this was the agreement that Bill Clinton brokered but rejected by Arafat. Let's hope Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and other Arab states will get involved and find a way to peace. Quote
Guest slackersam Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 That would be awesome. It was what they agreed to in theory under Clinton but then it got rejected by both sides when Intifada II happened. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 That would be awesome. It was what they agreed to in theory under Clinton but then it got rejected by both sides when Intifada II happened. I am so happy to see that intelligent conversation has returned to this topic. Even more so, I am encouraged by the report in today's NY Times of a cease-fire nearly approved by both Hamas and Israel through intermediaries. Let's hope this one works longer than the last. Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Excellent article in today's NY Times on what we have been talking about this week. Check out "In Gaza, Weighing Crimes and Ethics in the Fog of Urban Warfare". http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/world/mi...7israel.html?hp It is a long read, but worth the effort. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 I have been through this article. I find it overall quite balanced, but it is hugely damning of Israel's actions and tactics against civilians. I'll pick out two key points. The article reminds readers that Israel placed a virtual stranglehold on Gaza for six months prior to the start of hostilities. "To try to stop rocket attacks from Gaza, Israel halted normal trade with Gaza and kept it on a much reduced diet for electricity, gasoline, diesel and cooking oil, wheat flour and many other items. The idea was a form of economic sanction, Mr. Regev, the government spokesman, said, a reminder that Israel would not let life be normal under Hamas. . . The effective closure continued through a six-month cease-fire with Hamas that ended last month, and the shortage of diesel oil for Gaza's only power generator, for example, meant many hours a day without electricity. That put a strain on hospitals, generators and on the water supply and sewage system, which depend on electric pumps." If this is not economic warfare targeted at civilians, I completely fail to understand what is! Then there is the issue of the Israeli tarmy argeting of a United Nations school when the Israelis were aware there were civilians inside and/or very close by. The Israeli view is summed up by the army's chief legal officer. "The important issue is how the Israeli forces balanced the military benefit of hitting the target with the expected collateral damage to civilians," said the Israeli army chief legal officer. "As I understand it, I don't think they expected this number of casualties. When you look at mortar fire, you don't expect 43 casualties - if in fact there were 43 casualties. We think a wall collapsed or there was another explosion. It's not clear." I had to read that several times: "I DON'T THINK THEY EXPECTED THIS NUMBER OF CASUALTIES." How much more cavalier can you be than that, I ask myself. The article continues, the Israeli mortars had GPS guidance systems. The legal eagle then goes on to say, "If it is rare to go off target, then it's not something you have to take into account." In other words, in war Israel allegedly calculates casualties and then fires. If the number of casualties exceeds expectation, tough shit!. External factors must be to blame. The fact that mortars may go off target and kill innocent bystanders is not important! Damning indeed! Quote
Guest shebavon Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 On the other hand, it also acknowledges that this round of hostilities was prompted by Hamas' launching of rockets at Israeli civilian areas, from urban neighborhoods in Gaza. Also, how Hamas places weapons and fighters in and near schools, homes, mosques, and hospitals which according to International norms, turns them into legitimate military targets. It compares Israel's dilemna to that faced by Nato and the US confronting urban warfare in Iraq, Kosovo, and other places. What a mess. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Whilst I generally agree, I have to point out that your comment about comparison to Iraq and Kosovo is at best misleading. This comment was made by Israel's Army Chief Legal Officer - not by the writer. It is therefore totally biased. I think what surprises me most is that Israel is known for the excellence of its intelligence services and its covert operations. Why was it necessary to go to war? Surely it could have sent undercover agents to knock out as many of the launch sites as possible. But that, I suppose, would have placed too many Israeli lives at risk. As you rightly say, 'what a mess.' But that mess creates more problems for Israel, as the article points out in its first paragraphs. "As in Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the popular perception abroad of how Israel fights, and hence of Israelis, may prove to be more lasting than any strategic gains or losses." Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 The part that bothers me the most is that no matter which side initiates the attacks, it's usually the poor and innocent who die, end up maimed, or otherwise have their lives ruined even further than it was a ruined life in the first place. Quote
