Israel hits Palestine again while West Cheers Them On
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
His post was in today's context. Back then, superior Arab forces didnt help, but they still lost. Today, as the Middle-Eastern superpower, Israel invades with impunity. Think about Lebanon. And now, in her own backyard. And of course, her ex-Arab enemies dont dare do anything because they have the same patron.Israel did not invade and occupy the territories. Arabs lost the territories in the Six-day War. Get this right.
Jordan annexed the West Bank before losing the territory to Israel during the Six-day War.
Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip before losing the strip to Israel during the Six-day War.
Didn't Israel give up the captured territories Gaza Strip and West Bank?
Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. Egypt didn't want the Gaza Strip.
Jordan later renounced her claim to West Bank in the 80s. Jordan didn't want the 'Palestinian' Arabs.
-
But Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon several times since the 1980s. A smaller Jewish state occupying a larger Arab country?
Right, the Arabs stood back to allow the Palestinian movement led by Arafat to develop. However, things didnt go so well with Israel and the PLO. The issue is that the Palestinians are struggling for a national homeland while Israel doesnt want to let them do that. So you got to decide whether the Palestinians have a right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, even though Israel withdrew from those areas after occupying it under PLO leadership.
After withdrawing, Israel maintained a blockade in order to try destroy Hamas. But that just alienated the Palestinians instead of destroying Hamas. Whatever the case, if Israel wants to destroy Hamas, then it should stop treating the Palestinians like Hamas as if they are one, because its becoming true. By resorting to air strikes instead of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian, Israel is just perpetuating this cycle of violence.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
But Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon several times since the 1980s. A smaller Jewish state occupying a larger Arab country?
Right, the Arabs stood back to allow the Palestinian movement led by Arafat to develop. However, things didnt go so well with Israel and the PLO. The issue is that the Palestinians are struggling for a national homeland while Israel doesnt want to let them do that. So you got to decide whether the Palestinians have a right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, even though Israel withdrew from those areas after occupying it under PLO leadership.
After withdrawing, Israel maintained a blockade in order to try destroy Hamas. But that just alienated the Palestinians instead of destroying Hamas. Whatever the case, if Israel wants to destroy Hamas, then it should stop treating the Palestinians like Hamas as if they are one, because its becoming true. By resorting to air strikes instead of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian, Israel is just perpetuating this cycle of violence.
The Gazans voted for the Hamas in the elections, remember?
-
"Winning" the hearts and minds of the palestinians will never work.
Not when there is a backdrop of people who see violence as a means to the end.
And doing so would entail letting rockets fall on you daily for a very long time. Something Israel understandably would not allow.
No matter.
For if Israel responses in any fashion, it will ALWAYS be seen as disproportional. Because its military is strong, and its opponents are forever holding up human shields and Gaza City is not big.
Any "surgical" strike will never be seen as one, because it is next to impossible. Let alone any other strike.
I don't support any side. But I pity the Gazans stuck between the 2 sides. And it is even more sad that the fanatics always claim that they are fighting for the Gazans when it is clear that they believe bloodshed is necessary (it is not), and even glorify them.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
The Gazans voted for the Hamas in the elections, remember?
So let me see if I understand your stand after all this while. You believe that everyone in the Gaza Strip should be wiped out because they either side with Hamas, are Hamas or because they simply are Palestinians?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
"Winning" the hearts and minds of the palestinians will never work.
Not when there is a backdrop of people who see violence as a means to the end.
And doing so would entail letting rockets fall on you daily for a very long time. Something Israel understandably would not allow.
No matter.
For if Israel responses in any fashion, it will ALWAYS be seen as disproportional. Because its military is strong, and its opponents are forever holding up human shields and Gaza City is not big.
Any "surgical" strike will never be seen as one, because it is next to impossible. Let alone any other strike.
I don't support any side. But I pity the Gazans stuck between the 2 sides. And it is even more sad that the fanatics always claim that they are fighting for the Gazans when it is clear that they believe bloodshed is necessary (it is not), and even glorify them.
An unsolvable problem then.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
An unsolvable problem then.
That's as far as I can see.But it's hard to say from my perspective alone.
-
why can't Israel build rockets and fire them at Hamas?
It seems fair when Hamas does it.
Why can't Hamas just fight Isreal head on instead of lobbing rockets at Israel?
Israel actually wins when they do that.
-
Dear Xtreyer, I would like to point out your first accusatin of me making an inferrential threat to you and your family. You should not make a feeble attempt at taking my statement of of context by omitting my four last words of my statement, "As I mention unconditional support for this Zionist cause will cause mayhem for you and your family and all of us. In my previous post I included myself and my family in this 'implied threat' of yours. I am pretty sure as a political scientist and an active participant of our country's legal system you would be liable for blatant accusation amounting to a defamation of a personal character. However, I would unconditionally apologize in the event that my statement is wrongly interpreted by one of unintellectual capacity.
-
Dear Xtreyer, In no instance with regards to my post to you I disagreed with an end to the conflict, neither did I advocate any forms of killings. I am a ardent advocate of peace, diplomacy and negotiations to bring this conflict to and end. The post pertained to the true facts of your "very briefly facts" which were terribly wrong,ambigous or twisted. And I strongly disagree that my corrections of your misinformation propagates arab propaganda. Let me do something which I hope would be done in this conflict: Emphasis on our common ideologue of the promotion humanitarian values and the preservation of innocent lives
-
I look at this pretty simply.
Hamas launches attacks within the Gaza strip, intentionally targeting Israeli civilian areas. Israel HAS to retaliate. Now, this has little to do with the Palestinian plight until they get their collective shit together to contain Hamas who doesn't even represent them.
Imagine if for some reason the Malaysian government suddenly becomes unable to contain a terrorist group in Johore from launching mortar and rocket attacks at Singapore, targeting our CBDs and economic infrastructure. The Singapore government will have to take matters into its own hands if it decides to be responsible for defence (one of the first charges of being an effective government).
As I've said before. The Palestinians have to stop Hamas or at least show they are attempting to do so, if they want the Israelis to stop retaliating against every Hamas rocket attack extending from the Gaza.
Do not confuse the Palestinians to be one and the same as Hamas or even represented by them. It has nothing to do with the 6 day war and territories lost to Israel. That is nothing but an EXCUSE to attract anti-semites to their cause. Hamas has nothing to gain even if Israel decides to suddenly give back all the territory.
Iran and Syria has to be responsible for literally nourishing Hezbollah and Hamas.
-
Dear googomuck, With (non) relevence to yout assertion " That's another myth ! Seven to eight Arab nations amassed their troops on 3 fronts. The Egyptian navy's blockade of Israel's port of Eilat alone is an act of war. Do you know the meaning of preemtive strike?" There exists severeal causations leading to the six day war and the egyptian's navy bloackade is one, although contentious. The pivotal event is the aftermath of the Suez Crisis of 1956. Israel's main contention was an unresolved complex of the arabs refusal to recognize their state. The Arab nations did amass their troops, so did Israel. There is nothing significant regarding this fact in this argument. Yes, I well understand the definition of a pre-emptive strike and Yes, Israel did conduct the first strike of the 1967 war by attacking the Egyptian Air Force which was perceived to the most advanced and potent among the three arab states. So, the question I will posing to you, which aspect of my statement is mythical?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
So let me see if I understand your stand after all this while. You believe that everyone in the Gaza Strip should be wiped out because they either side with Hamas, are Hamas or because they simply are Palestinians?
Hamas is bent on destroying Israel. The 80% of Gazan electorate gave hamas the mandate.
Let's just say that these Gazans are getting a taste of their own medicine.
-
googoomuck, It seems your arguments and statements are largely based on emotional blaberring and lambasting. I sympathize with your severe lack of conscience at the loss of human lives. Lets not argue on which side initiated this most recent conflict which is simply a spiral of past events which will accede a long debate. Hamas rhetoric is overblown out of proportion so let the focus be on the effect of this conflict. Recent reports have came in testifying to the Zionist purposeful intent on attacking innocent civilians, women and children. They just bombed a U.N school where many innocent lives were taking refuge and even non- Gazans were maliciously killed by the IDF the perpertrators of terrorism. There exists no tangible association with Gazans giving Hamas the popular vote as the main raison d etre is the terrible and overwhelming corruption of Fatah and the lack of social services vis a vis Hamas. The Gazans did not voted Hamas simply and even majoritarily for its hatred of the Zionists. Thus, the effect of this war is a big loss for humanity.
-
Originally posted by Jarhum:
Dear googomuck,
With (non) relevence to yout assertion ”
That’s another myth !Seven to eight Arab nations amassed their troops on 3 fronts.
The Egyptian navy’s blockade of Israel’s port of Eilat alone is an act of war.
Do you know the meaning of preemtive strike?”
There exists severeal causations leading to the six day war and the egyptian’s navy bloackade is one, although contentious. The pivotal event is the aftermath of the Suez Crisis of 1956. Israel’s main contention was an unresolved complex of the arabs refusal to recognize their state.
The Arab nations did amass their troops, so did Israel. There is nothing significant regarding this fact in this argument.
Yes, I well understand the definition of a pre-emptive strike and Yes, Israel did conduct the first strike of the 1967 war by attacking the Egyptian Air Force which was perceived to the most advanced and potent among the three arab states.
So, the question I will posing to you, which aspect of my statement is mythical?
Israel invaded and occupied territories?! That's a myth. Israel fought and won the territories.
The Arabs retaliated?! That's a myth. The Arabs were aggressors.
It makes those who don't read the history think that Israel is the one that committed the act of aggression against the 'peaceful' Egypt. Jordan, Syria and five other Arab nations.
Isn't this ridiculous?
Now your turn.
I said :
- Seven to eight Arab nations amassed their troops on 3 fronts.
- The Egyptian navy’s blockade of Israel’s port of Eilat alone is an act of war.
Which one is a myth?
-
Originally posted by Jarhum:
googoomuck,
It seems your arguments and statements are largely based on emotional blaberring and lambasting.
I sympathize with your severe lack of conscience at the loss of human lives.
Lets not argue on which side initiated this most recent conflict which is simply a spiral of past events which will accede a long debate.
Hamas rhetoric is overblown out of proportion so let the focus be on the effect of this conflict.
Recent reports have came in testifying to the Zionist purposeful intent on attacking innocent civilians, women and children. They just bombed a U.N school where many innocent lives were taking refuge and even non- Gazans were maliciously killed by the IDF the perpertrators of terrorism.
There exists no tangible association with Gazans giving Hamas the popular vote as the main raison d etre is the terrible and overwhelming corruption of Fatah and the lack of social services vis a vis Hamas. The Gazans did not voted Hamas simply and even majoritarily for its hatred of the Zionists.
Thus, the effect of this war is a big loss for humanity.
The West Bank is relatively peaceful under the charge of Mahmoud Abbas.
-
Originally posted by Jarhum:
googoomuck,
It seems your arguments and statements are largely based on emotional blaberring and lambasting.
I sympathize with your severe lack of conscience at the loss of human lives.
Lets not argue on which side initiated this most recent conflict which is simply a spiral of past events which will accede a long debate.
Hamas rhetoric is overblown out of proportion so let the focus be on the effect of this conflict.
Recent reports have came in testifying to the Zionist purposeful intent on attacking innocent civilians, women and children. They just bombed a U.N school where many innocent lives were taking refuge and even non- Gazans were maliciously killed by the IDF the perpertrators of terrorism.
There exists no tangible association with Gazans giving Hamas the popular vote as the main raison d etre is the terrible and overwhelming corruption of Fatah and the lack of social services vis a vis Hamas. The Gazans did not voted Hamas simply and even majoritarily for its hatred of the Zionists.
Thus, the effect of this war is a big loss for humanity.
effect of any war is loss of human lifes.
like when some country decides to invade Iraq. that was way too random for me.
Somehow i get the feeling that the countries around Israel forgot that Israel can kick their ass if they mess with them, and needs to be reminded again.
Leave Israel alone, and your country won't get attack. simple logic. Now the blood is on who's hands? the clowns who fire rockets at a military superior country and expect no retaliation? or the country doing the retaliation?
-
googoomuck, History is perceptible from different angles. Although I have scrolled through my posts time and time again, never did I state that Israel invaded and occupied territories. Its just a figment of your imagination that I did. Since you mentioned it, Israel did invade and OCCUPY territories. Even the Israelies would affirm to that fact. Read U.N resolution 242. On what basis does your pathetic intellectual capacity attest to the claim that the Arabs were the aggresors? You desire to adhere to a claim which is one of a perceptible and contentious nature. I simply asserted that the Arabs retailiated in broad view of the historical fact that Israel DID conduct the first pre emptive strike before an official declaration of war. Since Egypt, Jordan and Syria are legitimately state actors of the international realm, the corresponding attack on Israel following its preemptive strike would be called a retaliation. I begin to detect nuances of racism in your third paragraph which is most certainly unconstructive for any intellectual debate or discussion. But then again I shall not insult myself. Both of your claims are ambigious and inaccurate. And for your info, this is not a myth but could possibly tantamount to a myth if not kept in check. firstly only 3 nations initially amassed their troops of 3 front. (congrats, you got the number of fronts right). then Iraq joined in the fray soon after. Even so, this fact falls short of 3-4 nations as you claim) The act of egypts temporary bloackade of the Straits of Tiran alone does NOT tantamount to an act of war ALONE. As i mentioned the Suez Crisis played a pivotal role in the 1967 war and there exists numerous causations which was attributed to the war itself. Before you make a feeble attempt at arguing with a political scientist, do your research properly and learn to segregate rationalism from emotional tirade because it reflects poorly on your intellectual standing.
-
If Hamas want to be the legitimate authority in Gaza and the rest of the Palestine it has to accept the state of Israel or accept the fact that Israeli are here to stay as neighbours and demonstrate leadership to show that it can consolidate its power peacefully and begins a political process with Fatah.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
But Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon several times since the 1980s. A smaller Jewish state occupying a larger Arab country?
Right, the Arabs stood back to allow the Palestinian movement led by Arafat to develop. However, things didnt go so well with Israel and the PLO. The issue is that the Palestinians are struggling for a national homeland while Israel doesnt want to let them do that. So you got to decide whether the Palestinians have a right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, even though Israel withdrew from those areas after occupying it under PLO leadership.
After withdrawing, Israel maintained a blockade in order to try destroy Hamas. But that just alienated the Palestinians instead of destroying Hamas. Whatever the case, if Israel wants to destroy Hamas, then it should stop treating the Palestinians like Hamas as if they are one, because its becoming true. By resorting to air strikes instead of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian, Israel is just perpetuating this cycle of violence.
30% of the relief trucks were let thru, but Hamas has seize PLO office military in Gaza and became the sole authority in GAZA. You could say there was a coup within a young n violence political process. To be the legitimate authority is to demonstrate leadership for its people. Since peace was never in their goals.
they refuse to accept the state of Israel and continue to fire Rockets. So why should Israel continue to end the blockade?
If MY turn around one day and refuse to accept the existence of Singapore. What do you think the message will be? Your NSF will be extended 4 weeks in a year.
-
Originally posted by Jarhum:
googoomuck,
History is perceptible from different angles.
Although I have scrolled through my posts time and time again, never did I state that Israel invaded and occupied territories. Its just a figment of your imagination that I did.
Since you mentioned it, Israel did invade and OCCUPY territories. Even the Israelies would affirm to that fact. Read U.N resolution 242.
On what basis does your pathetic intellectual capacity attest to the claim that the Arabs were the aggresors? You desire to adhere to a claim which is one of a perceptible and contentious nature. I simply asserted that the Arabs retailiated in broad view of the historical fact that Israel DID conduct the first pre emptive strike before an official declaration of war. Since Egypt, Jordan and Syria are legitimately state actors of the international realm, the corresponding attack on Israel following its preemptive
strike would be called a retaliation.I begin to detect nuances of racism in your third paragraph which is most certainly unconstructive for any intellectual debate or discussion. But then again I shall not insult myself.
Both of your claims are ambigious and inaccurate. And for your info, this is not a myth but could possibly tantamount to a myth if not kept in check.
firstly only 3 nations initially amassed their troops of 3 front. (congrats, you got the number of fronts right). then Iraq joined in the fray soon after. Even so, this fact falls short of 3-4 nations as you claim)
The act of egypts temporary bloackade of the Straits of Tiran alone does NOT tantamount to an act of war ALONE. As i mentioned the Suez Crisis played a pivotal role in the 1967 war and there exists numerous causations which was attributed to the war itself.
Before you make a feeble attempt at arguing with a political scientist, do your research properly and learn to segregate rationalism from emotional tirade because it reflects poorly on your intellectual standing.
You're a Political Scientist? Working with any of the ministries?
Israel had the justification to a pre-emptive strike when those countries massed forces along its borders. Massing forces alone is not tantamount as an act of war, but shifting them to a border staging point, provides the justification to a pre-emptive strike in that, that massive array of forces invading would be indefensible against if pre-emptive measures were not taken.
The capability the sheer numbers being formed up, its location being so near, as well as a "hostile" relations with those arab countries summed up the case for Israel's Pre-emptive strike.
When it comes to war, no one errs on the liberal side. No military leadership chooses to "defend in depth" while taking more casualties when the initiative can be siezed by attacking the enemy and crippling him first.
"Destroy your enemy's weapon, and you can strike with impunity." Sun Tzu.
-
Of course, in contemporary history the act of a declaration of war may well be redundant. Pre-emptive strikes are subjective in essence for the rationale for such can be easily manipulated and deftly exploited. I, for one, disagree to the acts of preemptive strikes no matter how grave the situation may appear to be. Because perception contradicts opposites and rationales for one may be incoherent or fabricated such as the U.S war on Iraq whereby weapons of mass destruction so 'intelligently' gathered by the intelligent sources of the U.S turned to be intangibles. I assert that your argument of the massing of troops and the hostile relations are too simplistic in nature. However, in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict arguments of preemptive strikes could be employed by both parties, specifically the agressor or initiator. The threat from the Arabs did not reach an unbearable threshold and the Israelis knew that the arabs did not want war as admitted by Israel foreign minister Abba Eban that he was convined Nasser did not want armed war. Israeli gave a rationale of preemptive war in the event that Egypt did not open the Straits of Tiran to allow Israeli shipping although analysts observed that the preemptive strike would only not benefit them militarily but transformative in nature. Hamas is also using a similar brand of argument of launching preemptive strikes at Israel due to the closure of its supply lines, although who struck first is a matter of contention. Egypt attempted diplomacy so much so that it was sending its vice-president to Washington for mediation but in the period of doing so, Israel launched its preemptive aggression. Thus, it can be deduced that Israels preemptive action was driven by reasons which are not weighty and very substanttive in nature. Lastly, when it comes to war, both sides err when excessive innocent casualties are incurred.
-
True, such pre-emptive measures can be arguably subjected to much "abuse" by a true belligerent, but that is for history to decide don't you think?
When weighing against the political repercussions of pre-emptive measures or strikes, one has to consider the consequences of not taking such actions as well. For example in our very own Singapore. Percival had early warning of Japanese troop carrying vessels when they were spotted by his recon planes. The defence strategy of the British had been to strike out at any invasion force with the RAF as early as possible. Yet, he did not order the RAF to strike at that invasion fleet until troops were landing. He was "obliged" under orders to avoid war with Japan at all cost. Apparently the cost was too great as we all know.
News papers in Singapore then argued how Japanese intentions could have been peaceful when that many troopships under destroyer escorts were spotted. Had a pre-emptive strike been ordered against them, the history of Singapore may very well be different.
I think when rubber meets the road, complex politics give way to the simple brutality of war. You either fight to win, or wait and lose. When troops are amassed at your border, war is considered to be imminent. The only time you shrug them off is when you are sure that those troops given their known constraints in numbers and support, is unable to threaten in war. Yet, their very presence opens up the excuse for pre-emptive strikes.
Sad to say, and you're right, civilians are caught in between such situations. Who else is there to blame but the political leadership of both sides for not backing off? And theoretically speaking, the citizens of both sides voted for those guys, (democratic peace theory aside), so they must want the war and all the brutality it brings right? Heh. Sorry for sounding so morbid.
-
The repercussions of this war may be great especially during the dire economic climate the world is experiencing. Oil is up to $48 a barrel, which almost directly affects us. Secondly, this regional conflict reflects nuances of a greater global conflict. As in my 1st comment of this issue, misled and impressionable Muslims around the world may be taunted into agression against symbols and entities of Zionism. Although I am greatly against this Zionist movement and ideology, I believe no act of aggression should ever be committed against any innocent civilians, women and children. However, the current purposeful terrorist acts by the Zionists only aims to warrant such unscrupolous behaviours and terrorist acts against humankind. We in peaceful Singapore may have to bear the spillover effect of this. Well, thats politics... I believe the Arab Peace Initiative launched by then Crown prince Abdullah which was wholly supported by all Muslim nations and even Hamas and Hizbullah was a good start. Think, this is an extreme rarity among the Arabs. But then again there exists factions, notably among Jewish extremists and right-wing orthodox who vehemently exhibit opposition to this initiative supported by the U.S, E.U and even doves within the Israeli Knesset. Moderates have to be extreme in triumphing over the enemies to peace and stability of mankind. I believe opponents to peace, no matter on whose side they may be, should be subdued by us, the peace loving majority.
-
Well, I'm not saying that I support what is going on in Gaza thats for sure. But given the kind of history we're talking about, the explosive mix of Palestinian Nationalism and regligious extremism, I think there is little we can do but watch the dominoes fall. At least for now...
I optimistically believe that not all the Arabs have axes to grind with Israel. And the Arab peace initiative you mentioned is a good point supporting that. However, the Arabs themselves are split between the moderates and the extremes. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc, all have an interest in regional stability for the sake of profits. Its the other bunch such as Iran and Syria thats destabilizing the region with their invisible hands, encouraging groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas in taunting Israel, drawing their military out for a fight. Bush Jr may have been an unpopular President, but he was right on the money naming Iran and Syria to be part of that axis of evil. These are the bunch that need to be dealt with in order to cut off Hezbollah and Hamas, the parties that are number 1 at antagonizing Israel.
When the world first discovered strategic air power, people who believed in it, also believed that the way to win a war, was to bomb the enemy's infrastructure, women and children such that the enemy loses political will to fight. We moved on from that thankfully. However, Hamas and Hezbollah didn't. On the other hand, from the footages I saw, Israel's retaliatory strike in Cast Lead had specifically targeted rocket launch sites and ammunition storage.
Look, these guys responsible for all those civilian casualties are hiding high explosives in Mosques and buildings with civilian infrastructure in the vincinity. While the IAF had relied on targeting pods and laser guided bombs to hit back, Hamas has been shooting rockets into civilian populated areas. It seems that nobody except Hamas and Hezbollah are targeting civilian populations.
You take a trip to Israel and you will realize how ridiculous it is for a modern nation, prosperous as it is, to be at perpetual state of war and anxiety, not knowing when the next rocket attack will come. Rocket attacks not sent from another hostile state, but by this blood thirsty organization hiding in the Gaza. I can totally understand why the Israelis choose to hit back.
As Sith teaching goes, "Peace is a lie, there is only passion." The Peace Loving majority would have no means to enforce peace other than through the force of arms. How do you subdue belligerents other than through violence? You may lable me Realist now. =D
There are "peace loving" majorities on both side of the fence here. The Palestinian people who are tired of seeing their loved ones being blown up by the crossfire between the IDF and Hamas, and the "peace loving" majorities in Israel who are tired of suicide bombers and incessant rocket attacks places of congregation. So which "peace loving" majority is gonna have their way? From what it looks like, neither are. Since Peace on both sides is impossible without the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah, then there is only strife until one side prevails. Then, there will be peace... until the next asshole comes along.
From the way I look at it. You have a few kinda people in the Gaza right now, or within Hamas. One, the ones who believe Israeli is an abomination that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. Two, those who believe that Palestine should be a sovereign state. Both fight Israel. The latter bunch would adhere to a ceasefire or truce... but the first will always provoke. If you can clear out type One, who knows what kind of settle might be possible, and perhaps... peace? Until then, the situation will be as in the preceding paragraph.