Ray Jay wrote:Here's some independent journalist footage of how Hamas fires rockets in the midst of population centers. Are the Israelis within their rights to try to take out these rockets?

In principle, yes.

That doesn't give them carte blanche on the means, and it does not absolve them of responsibility for the outcome.

And even where one has the right to do something does not automatically mean that one should.

Ricky , why don't you try putting yourself in the shoes of an Israeli and not just the Palestinians?Imagine that you were living in an area where some terrorist group could shoot missiles . You knew that the chances of your (or a member of your family) getting hit by the missiles was very small. Imagine that your government had the power to stop those missiles but people who had tolerated those terrorists would suffer casualties--would you tell your government to do nothing?
If the Palestinians really want to gain the moral edge on Israel, they need to cease attacking Israel. Until that happens Israel can validly claim that they are acting in self-defense, even if they are acting excessively, and even if they are not properly valuing Palestinian life. You don't get the moral high ground by starting fights and then losing them...

freeman3

If the Palestinians really want to gain the moral edge on Israel, they need to cease attacking Israel.

Just surrender and accept the conditions being dictated? Occupation and internment is acceptable? Why? What has occurred that would give Palestinians hope that they could achieve genuine statehood in a viable geography if only they gave up any resistance?
Over the last few decades, the Israelis have annexed ever more land, and used ever more of the meagre resources in the area. And increased the restrictions on movement of goods and people ... Despite long periods of relative peace.

freeman3
I

magine that your government had the power to stop those missiles but people who had tolerated those terrorists would suffer casualties--would you tell your government to do nothing?

Imagine that you had a way to stop those rockets from hurting anyone but didn't need to take a chance on killing children.
Oh, wait. You don't have to imagine. Iron Dome already destroys 90% (according to Israelis defence officials) of incoming rockets.
The actual danger from the Hamas rockets is pretty limited now. I do understand the physcological aspect.

The notion that Israelis would beg their defence forces from taking actions that would place Palestinians civilians in harms way, would be predicated on the condition of the average Israelis valueing the life of the average Palestinian equally to that of Israelis.
I grant you that seems like a condition that is unlikely to occur.
if it did, there wouldn't be a blockade. And the ghetto like conditions in the west bank and the internment of Gazans wouldn't be happening either. Taking away much of the "justification" for the attempts at striking the Israelis "oppressors".

Don't get me wrong Freeman. The concept of reciprocity should work both ways. But in the middle east it doesn't work either way, The notion that the weaker, far weaker, of the two sides should have to capitulate and accept life as third class people first ....before the much stronger group will offer reciprocity .... i think an uneven prospect.
As a kid I always cheered for the Indians . Not the cowboys. Still do.

I note that you did not answer my question, Ricky...
If you can't answer it, then a good deal of your criticism of Israel here has been unwarranted...
The way I look at it is, for all of Israel's faults, would they have survived as a country if they weren't as tough and hard-nosed as they are and would anyone else in their position, with their power, act any better with an enemy as their neighbor? I would say the answer to both questions is no (you are not going to argue that the Palestinians would act better if their position and Israel's positions were reversed, are you?). So the burden is on the Palestinians to change the moral equation here. When you're weak that is only option. As is true with cowboys and Indians, time for the Palestinian people to grow up and face reality instead of turning to Hamas as an answer.

freeman3

I note that you did not answer my question, Ricky.

..
Sure i did. Maybe not the way you wanted me to. You're starting to sound like bbauska who can only communicate if you answer his rhetoricals in a yes or no.

and you answered my question.

rickyp

Just surrender and accept the conditions being dictated?

freeman

So the burden is on the Palestinians to change the moral equation here. When you're weak that is only option. As is true with cowboys and Indians, time for the Palestinian people to grow up and face reality instead of turning to Hamas as an answer.

You're answer is that Palestinians should capitulate completely and rely on the generous nature of their Israelis overlords....

freeman3 wrote:Ricky , why don't you try putting yourself in the shoes of an Israeli and not just the Palestinians?Imagine that you were living in an area where some terrorist group could shoot missiles . You knew that the chances of your (or a member of your family) getting hit by the missiles was very small. Imagine that your government had the power to stop those missiles but people who had tolerated those terrorists would suffer casualties--would you tell your government to do nothing?

Of course not. I expect some Gazans are supporting missile strikes by Hamas on a similar kind of logic and fear.

It is one thing to do 'nothing', and different to 'not do a specific thing'. Israel (and Hamas) have a range of options.

If the Palestinians really want to gain the moral edge on Israel, they need to cease attacking Israel. Until that happens Israel can validly claim that they are acting in self-defense, even if they are acting excessively, and even if they are not properly valuing Palestinian life. You don't get the moral high ground by starting fights and then losing them...

When did the fight 'start'?

And what if neither side really cares about the 'moral high ground', preferring instead some other measure?

Ricky:

So anyone coming out of the tunnels on the Israelis side of the fences, first has to go through military forces. Handy if you are targeting the IDF. Not so, if you are targeting civilians.
The notion that the tunnels hold a significanrt terror threat to civilians is not supported by reality.

That doesn't make sense to me. The tunnels can go for a long way and pop out over thousands of feet throughout Israel. There are Israeli citizens living very close to the border. Had the Palestinians been successful it is possible that the would have killed hundred of Israeli civilians, or more. There have been some reports that they were planning just that, although I believe that the Israelis are keeping that information to themselves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... -UlE7GONM0

You don't normally get a load of sense out of our red-top tabloids, but this is a nugget of gold.

theshrizzz wrote:I've always believed that the reason groups like Hamas call for things like death to all Jews (or, certainly, the only reason they're able to garner significant support among the populace) is becuse Gazans are being occupied/blockaded. The militant Islamic groups in the Middle East who want to destroy the West are a direct result of the foreign policy of the Western superpowers. If we stopped sticking fingers in everyone's pie, you think all the young Arab kids would still be signing up to give their lives for jihad? The recruiting slogans would likely start to fall on deaf ears.

Hamas' call for the end of Israel and all Jews is not at all like the Nazi platform. Hamas at least is not acting in a completely unprovoked manner.

I think you've just defined wishful thinking. There is absolutely no evidence that the various Islamic terror groups would stop if the West behaved differently. The Arabs have been calling for death to the Jews since at least 1920, and to Israel since 1948. There is a hundred years of bad faith on their part.

What western power caused Boko Haram?

We are where we are. The notion that somehow the Arabs would give up Jihad if Israelis behaved differently has no evidence to support it, and a dangerous notion to bet your life on.

Ricky:

As a kid I always cheered for the Indians . Not the cowboys. Still do.

Usually you should. But sometimes the facts say you should support the cowboys.

Ricky:

Over the last few decades, the Israelis have annexed ever more land

They reverse annexed Gaza and that hasn't worked either. Perhaps there is nothing that the Israelis can do to appease the Palestinians?

freeman3 wrote:So the burden is on the Palestinians to change the moral equation here. When you're weak that is only option

Hmm. I guess the problem is the history. There have been times when the Palestinians tried peace. There have been times when their resistance amounted to rock throwing at most. And there have been times that they got caught in the middle as other forces battled on their behalf (with their own interest as well).

There have been agreements made, and breached, by both sides. There have been promises of support from abroad that have manifested patchily. Roadmaps that existed only as a way to get support for another war, or to mollify others.

The Palestinians tried Fatah, the main force of the PLO, and they were corrupt and useless at running the PA (not that the cards weren't stacked against them).

I think in reality they are growing up very fast - too fast. Not for them romantic ideals, it's cynicism all the way.

Ricky:

Taking away much of the "justification" for the attempts at striking the Israelis "oppressors".

Well, the Arabs didn't accept the UN partition in 1947. That very much was a two equal people formulation. There were other offers that the Arabs and Palestinians have not accepted.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza the Palestinians could have tried to build a state and focused on their own institutions. They did not; they were hostile from day 1 and the Israeli response has gotten tougher ever since.

I wish it were otherwise, but certainly in the case of Hamas and elsewhere (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, parts of the West Bank, parts of Europe) the only way to take away the "justification" would be for Israel to disappear.

rickyp wrote:freeman3

I note that you did not answer my question, Ricky.

..
Sure i did. Maybe not the way you wanted me to. You're starting to sound like bbauska who can only communicate if you answer his rhetoricals in a yes or no.

and you answered my question.

rickyp

Keep me out of your remarks. Defend yourself on your own. Pardon me for having the desire to have a standard.

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

Is this valid cause for an attack on a medical mission to the Cayuse Indians?

After all, they "felt" oppressed...

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Taking away much of the "justification" for the attempts at striking the Israelis "oppressors".

Well, the Arabs didn't accept the UN partition in 1947. That very much was a two equal people formulation.

There were other offers that the Arabs and Palestinians have not accepted.

Both sides have a long history of refusing to accept agreements. And of punishing leaders who do.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza the Palestinians could have tried to build a state and focused on their own institutions. They did not; they were hostile from day 1 and the Israeli response has gotten tougher ever since.

Gaza alone is not sustainable as a state. The West Bank instead has seen an intensification of occupation and settlement activity.

They could have tried, though. Despite some vacating Israelis destroying greenhouses (and then some looting and destruction by Arabs), most were intact and they produced a harvest. However, the only route to sell the produce was the Karni crossing in to Israel, and that was closed enough of the time to render it useless for trade.

I wish it were otherwise, but certainly in the case of Hamas and elsewhere (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, parts of the West Bank, parts of Europe) the only way to take away the "justification" would be for Israel to disappear.

That is as may be, but if you are never going to win these guys over, the real question is how to address the rest. Those who accept Israel's right to exist, but oppose its actions.