News Stories

[ChainLegacy]

Have the "peace talks" ever produced an offer for the current Palestinian territory to become an independent nation?

[maplehurry]

Faith leader admitted to running out of patience? Demote him.
If his essay would just show a little bit more sympathy with the Palestinians at the same time, it would be more convincing, but the essay ultimately got somewhat ...emotional. Still needs a bit more training as a Faith leader

Regarding IDF's military conduct, I think it's "no worse" than US. Those who criticize Israel in this aspect would also have to criticize US' drone strikes. Anyway, different people have different standard for this kinda stuff, so not going to comment too much here. Just going to state the "obvious" that military would occasionally screw up even by its own standard. For example, the strike on the beach is being investigated by the IDF, in which an IDF spokesman said the strike should not have been made with the presence of 4 kids being there on the beach.

Now, as for "long term" solution, we would have to deal with the blockade. Even with Israel's multiple easing of the blockade, the Palestinians' life still sucks. Now, I do think that once Israel lifted the blockade, the rocket strikes from Hamas WILL decrease. However, Hamas' obviously not someone to be trusted to be peaceful. I think once the blockade's lifted, they would build up their military. So while I think there will be less actual rocket strikes, Hamas would become more threatening on the other hand, similar to what North Korea's to South Korea: very few actual rocket strikes, but much more threatening.

Now, for the other side, Netanyahu, this guy made a comment in private about how easy it is to "manipulate" the US, so this guy obviously cannot be trusted. Him and Likud's expansionist ambition is clear as day, I don't trust them at all. They need to go, along with Hamas. /wishful thinking

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Is there some kind of loss ratio that's allowed?

I believe there is. I know some sort of formula exists when US needs to make a decision on whether a drone strike should be allowed at a specific time and place, regarding targets of various values.

That's a screwy kind of math. So what, since Israel only lost 3 civilians, they're automatically wrong?

Kiritsugu Emiya...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Have the "peace talks" ever produced an offer for the current Palestinian territory to become an independent nation?

Well they had a chance in 1947 but lost it. Up till now, they still didn't want the offer even when it is still in place as of the original resolution and instead wanted the entire of Jerusalem to be their capital, indirectly hinting that they want the Jews out.

Also, I have seen alot of whining about the "disproportionate violence" - for the small number of Israelis vs the large number of Palestinian death. You build a command center under a hospital, house your soldiers with civilians, and now you are whining about collateral damage? That is total fucking bullshit - true to the fact that the civilians are innocent, however you included them in the war by being around them.

It is an established fact that bullets and bombs don't have eyes and that correalation does not imply causation. In the past, the caliphates conducting their hegemony over Jerusalem have allowed other religions the right to pilgrimage in there; so why care about who controls it?

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Also, I have seen alot of whining about the "disproportionate violence" - for the small number of Israelis vs the large number of Palestinian death. You build a command center under a hospital, house your soldiers with civilians, and now you are whining about collateral damage? That is total fucking bullshit - true to the fact that the civilians are innocent, however you included them in the war by being around them.

Well, the concept in general is not total BS even by IDF or US standard. They could've launched even more strikes at Gaza than as it, but they don't because some of these would involve too much collateral dmg. There's a line, and it's subjective and arbitrary, but it exists in practice.

[Ridwan]

Israel can start negotiating and lift the blockade, perhaps, like what they should've done long ago.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Also, I have seen alot of whining about the "disproportionate violence" - for the small number of Israelis vs the large number of Palestinian death. You build a command center under a hospital, house your soldiers with civilians, and now you are whining about collateral damage? That is total fucking bullshit - true to the fact that the civilians are innocent, however you included them in the war by being around them.

The most disproportionate thing in this conflict was the quick escalation. It was just kidnapping and murder of 3 teens FFS. In a normal place there would be a police investigation and subsequently arrests and trials. Only Israel would round up hundreds of Palestinians with virtually no evidence. Then of course Hamas would respond to that with rockets. Then of course pressure would mount on Israeli government to forcefully respond to the rockets.

About the strikes on UN school and hospital. The blame is clearly on both sides. Hamas wanted to use civilian death toll as a propaganda tool against Israel. Israeli forces still chose to strike hospitals and schools, fully knowing that there were civilians and children. There is no excuse for the behavior on both sides.

[Ridwan]

I have posted the article about admission from Israeli side that Hamas didn't kidnap the teenagers just a page back.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Israel can start negotiating and lift the blockade, perhaps, like what they should've done long ago.

Gut the interest groups first - those that ship rockets, arms and ammunition into Palestine. There is no end to them because some filthy rich individuals with too much money to spend seem to enjoy patronising Norinco and the various independent arms/ammunition suppliers by sending the goods in there.

Originally Posted by Ridwan

I have posted the article about admission from Israeli side that Hamas didn't kidnap the teenagers just a page back.

It is still Hamas until they condemn the rogue group. If they keep quiet, they are literally asking for more tank shells into the homes their soldiers reside in.

Hamas has established itself as a legitimate political party in Palestine despite having the terrorist brand to them. Back that legitimacy up or eat lead.

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

The most disproportionate thing in this conflict was the quick escalation. It was just kidnapping and murder of 3 teens FFS. In a normal place there would be a police investigation and subsequently arrests and trials. Only Israel would round up hundreds of Palestinians with virtually no evidence. Then of course Hamas would respond to that with rockets. Then of course pressure would mount on Israeli government to forcefully respond to the rockets.

About the strikes on UN school and hospital. The blame is clearly on both sides. Hamas wanted to use civilian death toll as a propaganda tool against Israel. Israeli forces still chose to strike hospitals and schools, fully knowing that there were civilians and children. There is no excuse for the behavior on both sides.

Exactly. Things just escalated out of hand......even when Ze'evi got assassinated back in '01 there was a proper inquiry (though the Americans and British were there to negotiate); even then they are not shot and drag through the streets like Blackwater contractors - they all have a proper sentencing.

And here is something worth food for thought :

Israelis and Palestinians lack leadership to end cycle of violence
English version @ Arabdailynews

[Ridwan]

Israel is in a much stronger position to turn Hamas into another Fatah, an Israeli enforcer in the occupied territories. It's very easy for them to do so, should they want it.

Bibi's powerbase wants a war. It doesn't matter Hamas did it or not. It doesn't matter whether they know who did it or not. Israel will still attack.

[risingstar3110]

I rarely cut out post to answer questions. But let's do it this time

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That's a screwy kind of math. So what, since Israel only lost 3 civilians, they're automatically wrong? Is there some kind of loss ratio that's allowed?

Not 200 to 1, that's for sure.

That rate is incidentally very similar to the Sobibór extermination camp incident back in 1943. Where Jewish prisoner from a concentration camp rebelled, killed 11 German officer and some Ukrainian guards. To retaliate, the German murdered on the spot or after recaptured 550 out of 600 inmates (including 300 that did not attempt to escape in the first place). Kinda fair under modern Israeli standard?

Maybe the Israel government really took the "retaliation justification" straight out of the book of the Nazi...

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Would it have been fine if they'd only killed 3 Palestinian civilians? Would you have said "Oh, it's alright, then"? Turning it around - does the Hamas now have the right to kill a thousand Israelis, since Israel is so far ahead?

For the first question, apparently so. It's called "disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks" which started the whole UN charge toward Israel on potential war crimes in the first place.

And for the second: The answer from the rest of the world obviously no. If Hamas started to gas 1.5 millions Jew in a massive biological attacks, then that will clearly be counted as "proportionate and indiscriminate attacks on civilization". The only one who gonna agree with Hamas in that case, ironically will be Israel due to their screwed-up logic

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't know how else Israel should conduct its wars. It's not like Hamas have uniforms and military bases and all the paraphernalia necessary for a conventional, by-the-book war.

I do wish they'd conduct their peace better, though. What with their settlements and embargos and so on.

So is Hamas. They can't distinguish between normal Jews, and those with extreme Zionists view. So they just said "fuck them all" and started indiscriminately killing. And you know how bad the Israel has been doing when they have to compete in civilian kills and moral compass with a bunch of maniacs who shoot rockets indiscriminately into resident area.

In fact legally, it was still counted as war crime or crime against humanity. US tried that at My Lai, and despite no one really been punished for it, it still faces worldwide condemnation like usual

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I rarely cut out post to answer questions. But let's do it this time


Not 200 to 1, that's for sure.

That rate is incidentally very similar to the Sobibór extermination camp incident back in 1943. Where Jewish prisoner from a concentration camp rebelled, killed 11 German officer and some Ukrainian guards. To retaliate, the German murdered on the spot or after recaptured 550 out of 600 inmates (including 300 that did not attempt to escape in the first place). Kinda fair under modern Israeli standard?

Maybe the Israel government really took the "retaliation justification" straight out of the book of the Nazi...

That's not quite the same. The Gaza strip isn't a prison camp full of unarmed prisoners.

I also wonder about your logic - how it could justify attacks. Let's say Hamas kills 3 civilians with one of their rockets. You think Israel should... what, shoot rockets into Gaza till they also kill 3 random civilians? That sounds like justice to you?

And for the second: The answer from the rest of the world obviously no. If Hamas started to gas 1.5 millions Jew in a massive biological attacks, then that will clearly be counted as "proportionate and indiscriminate attacks on civilization". The only one who gonna agree with Hamas in that case, ironically will be Israel due to their screwed-up logic

Which doesn't answer my question: what about if they only kill 1000?

Because that's the impression I get from your posts: an obsession toward balancing the scales so they each have the same number of dead. Like those numbers are the only thing that matters.

[Ithekro]

All of this depends, what are Israel's goals in relation to both Gaza and the West Bank.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That's not quite the same. The Gaza strip isn't a prison camp full of unarmed prisoners.

I also wonder about your logic - how it could justify attacks. Let's say Hamas kills 3 civilians with one of their rockets. You think Israel should... what, shoot rockets into Gaza till they also kill 3 random civilians? That sounds like justice to you?


Which doesn't answer my question: what about if they only kill 1000?

Because that's the impression I get from your posts: an obsession toward balancing the scales so they each have the same number of dead. Like those numbers are the only thing that matters.

Oh, of course Gaza strip isn't an isolated and enclosed landmark full of mostly unarmed civilian, while being surrounded from 4 sides by Israel and Egyptians heavily guarded fences/walls to prevent habitats escaping the countries; or for goods to be exported out, or supplies or medicines coming in.

I means what was I thinking. Right? Looks. Totally does not look like a Nazi prison. The nature could be the same, but a Nazi concentration camp is more square than Gaza Strip



And for your "if they only killed 1000" question? Oh, then they will be condemned the same way with what Israel doing. Actually both of these government then should be overthrown for war crime against humanity, having military capability being removed, and replaced by international occupation forces. Then have their legislation rewritten and a democratic government being voted in

Either way there is some twisted logic from you about how a murderer can walk free just because the victim family have capability/or once broke your leg.

[Fireminer]

If we can have just war, why not just terrorism?

The usual "Who dare, win. Who win, right."

[Ridwan]

Israel talks in the nutshell : http://www.juancole.com/2014/07/isra...art-daily.html

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Oh, of course Gaza strip isn't an isolated and enclosed landmark full of mostly unarmed civilian, while being surrounded from 4 sides by Israel and Egyptians heavily guarded fences/walls to prevent habitats escaping the countries; or for goods to be exported out, or supplies or medicines coming in.

I means what was I thinking. Right? Looks. Totally does not look like a Nazi prison. The nature could be the same, but a Nazi concentration camp is more square than Gaza Strip

I doubt the prisoners had rocket launchers. Or rifles. Israel's losses may have been small, but not non-existent.

And for your "if they only killed 1000" question? Oh, then they will be condemned the same way with what Israel doing. Actually both of these government then should be overthrown for war crime against humanity, having military capability being removed, and replaced by international occupation forces. Then have their legislation rewritten and a democratic government being voted in

I don't necessarily disagree. The difference is, it's not about the number of dead.

Still, I'd love to see the area occupied. Maybe the Palestinians and Israeli would learn to hate the occupant together, cooperate to set IED and so on.

Not so sure about a democratic government, though. (Or would that be two democratic governments?) What will you do if it turns out they really want to kill each other? Vox populi and all that, after all.

Either way there is some twisted logic from you about how a murderer can walk free just because the victim family have capability/or once broke your leg.

That's not what I claim. But if I see a scrawny guy with a knife dead by a bullet wound and Rambo McBadass standing over the corpse with a smoking gun, I don't automatically assume the latter was wrong, or claim he should have risked getting stabbed to take the other guy alive.

I don't really know what justifies a war, but "making sure the other guy gets the right number of casualties" isn't it.

But once you accept that a war is justified, well, you do it as humanely as possible, of course, but what are you going to do if all your legitimate objectives are under hospitals or puppy shelters or whatever? And if going there on foot without using artillery to soften up the enemy just means passing through death trap after death trap?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But once you accept that a war is justified, well, you do it as humanely as possible, of course, but what are you going to do if all your legitimate objectives are under hospitals or puppy shelters or whatever?

The answer is NOT "blow up the hospitals and shelters."

The whole point of hostage situations, is that it works against those who have morals.

If you are willing to ignore the hostages and kill them with no remorse, then you already lost.

Moral high ground had to be EARNED. And you earn it by doing things the hard way.

Israel has the right to butcher as many civilians as it like. But Israel can't claim the moral high ground while doing it. It is essentially a test of character... and Israel failed.

Yes,it is a problem when there are hostages. But not for those who don't care if the hostages lived or not. As I mentioned earlier, you are NOT suppose to shoot human shields. And if you do then you are as bad as the hostage takers.

[Ithekro]

At what point do you give up on the "hostages" when there is no amount of "rescue" that will save them, and the "hostage takers" will only repeat the process because they can operate without fear of reprisal?

At what point do you accept them as "acceptible loses in war" and move on.

Remember that the Allies (70 years ago) use to bomb entire cities blocks to whole cities with many, many more civilian casualties than anything Israel has done with their much more advanced and limited firepower. Those things happen in war.

Is what is going on in Gaza a war? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is definately not the police trying to talk it out with the guys with the guns keeping the children inside the bunker. Especially if the policy is that you don't negotiate with "terrorists". And which point you don't talk to the "hostage takers" anymore. You give a warning, and you follow through with it. If you say "I'm going to blow up this building is three days because it is housing the enemy infrustructure" than you blow up the building in three days. If they don't believe you and they keep doing it, than they are either really stupid, or do not care about their own people.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

At what point do you give up on the "hostages" when there is no amount of "rescue" that will save them, and the "hostage takers" will only repeat the process because they can operate without fear of reprisal?

At what point do you accept them as "acceptible loses in war" and move on.

At what point?
At the point when you no longer even pay lip service to casulties and just kill everyone.

At the point when your desire to win the war means you forgot you are suppose to be the good guys.

At the point when meatshields are just extra targets.

WHY do hostage situations happen? Because the enemy is counting on you having a sliver of humanity. The day you no longer care, the day you pull the trigger, is the day you cross the line.

Hamas had dragged Israel down to their level. And Israel didn't even realise it. Hamas has won.


EDIT: To answer your question, you NEVER stop avoiding killing hostages. EVER. Doesn't matter how often it happens, that's the price of morality. No one said being Good is easy.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I doubt the prisoners had rocket launchers. Or rifles. Israel's losses may have been small, but not non-existent.

But prison guards don't have tank,. rocket, and missle defense network either

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But once you accept that a war is justified, well, you do it as humanely as possible, of course, but what are you going to do if all your legitimate objectives are under hospitals or puppy shelters or whatever? And if going there on foot without using artillery to soften up the enemy just means passing through death trap after death trap?

Honestly the answer for this is the same with "what if you owe 1 millions to your local mafia and have to choose between getting killed or rob the bank". And the answer is: don't let yourself into that situation in the first place

This is not an issue of Islamic versus Israel. For example, Israel could easily made peace with Egypt to prevent escalated conflict, despite the later have much stronger military power (comparing to Palestine) means have much more capability to be aggressive. It's not impossible to make peace with the Palestine, considering their inferior positions in military, social and economical power...


How to do that? To start with, don't bomb a UN shelter full with civilian!!