What should Israel do?

[Jayjay]

1) Hamas *WAS* involved.

2) Of course there was a major reaction to such a kidnapping. What would be surprising is if there wasn't.

No Hamas was not involved.

And the reaction was a ruse to go into Gaza and fuck with people.

Israel didn't even want to go to Gaza. In the beginning of the war before the extent of the tunnel network was clear, Netanyahu's line was still that they would respond with quiet to quiet and somewhat conciliatory.

 

[untermensche]

No Hamas was not involved.

And the reaction was a ruse to go into Gaza and fuck with people.

Israel didn't even want to go to Gaza. In the beginning of the war before the extent of the tunnel network was clear, Netanyahu's line was still that they would respond with quiet to quiet and somewhat conciliatory.

Israel can block the tunnels from their side.

There was no reason for the incursion into Gaza. No Hamas kidnapping and murder.

And Israel has no right to kill to stop the rockets if other methods are available. Israel could dismantle it's system of oppression and allow the Palestinians their normal human rights. That would stop the rockets.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Israel didn't even want to go to Gaza. In the beginning of the war before the extent of the tunnel network was clear, Netanyahu's line was still that they would respond with quiet to quiet and somewhat conciliatory.

Israel can block the tunnels from their side.



There was no reason for the incursion into Gaza. No Hamas kidnapping and murder.

And Israel has no right to kill to stop the rockets if other methods are available. Israel could dismantle it's system of oppression and allow the Palestinians their normal human rights. That would stop the rockets.

You and 14 other leftists on this board are the only people on the planet who think this is true. Your position is not only bereft of facts, it is morally bankrupt.

 

[TheJewishRationalist]

Israel can block the tunnels from their side.



There was no reason for the incursion into Gaza. No Hamas kidnapping and murder.

And Israel has no right to kill to stop the rockets if other methods are available. Israel could dismantle it's system of oppression and allow the Palestinians their normal human rights. That would stop the rockets.

You and 14 other leftists on this board are the only people on the planet who think this is true. Your position is not only bereft of facts, it is morally bankrupt.

Couldn't agree more. Just another anti-Israel <edit>.

If someone was attacking your house, would you simply block the attacks or go after the person sending the attacks?

 

[untermensche]

Israel can block the tunnels from their side.



There was no reason for the incursion into Gaza. No Hamas kidnapping and murder.

And Israel has no right to kill to stop the rockets if other methods are available. Israel could dismantle it's system of oppression and allow the Palestinians their normal human rights. That would stop the rockets.

You and 14 other leftists on this board are the only people on the planet who think this is true. Your position is not only bereft of facts, it is morally bankrupt.

So you claim.

The morally bankrupt position is the position that says resistance to oppression is illegitimate.

 

[untermensche]

You and 14 other leftists on this board are the only people on the planet who think this is true. Your position is not only bereft of facts, it is morally bankrupt.

Couldn't agree more. Just another anti-Israel <edit>

If someone was attacking your house, would you simply block the attacks or go after the person sending the attacks?

Israel has conducted decades of brutal and violent oppression. It was oppressing before Hamas even existed.

To claim this is somehow the fault of the oppressed, not the oppressor is to turn reality in its head.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

1) Hamas *WAS* involved.

2) Of course there was a major reaction to such a kidnapping. What would be surprising is if there wasn't.

No Hamas was not involved.



And the reaction was a ruse to go into Gaza and fuck with people.

More untruths. This is a false statement. Israel did nothing in Gaza at first. They acted against Hamas in the west bank at first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#cite_note-Bryant-34

 

[Arctish]

If someone was attacking your house, would you simply block the attacks or go after the person sending the attacks?

Does the answer change depending on who is attacking your house? Israelis have been destroying Palestinian homes for over 65 years, and have destroyed far more homes, farms, and businesses than the Palestinians have. Heck, the Israelis have destroyed entire communities, not just a few houses here and there. So if the argument is that one is justified in going after people who attack your house, and double standards do not apply, the Palestinians are at least as justified in going after Israelis as Israelis are in going after Palestinians.

But if you are proposing that only Israelis are allowed to go after the people who attack their homes, well then obviously you don't think the Palestinians are justified in attacking Israelis no matter how much Palestinian property has been stolen or destroyed over the years.

 

[angelo]

In other words, genocide. Peacekeepers are useless against terrorism in the first place and furthermore the UN peacekeepers aren't interested in trying to do their job there because that would make them targets of the terrorists.



The only way it will end up without nuclear war is if the Islamists cool it. Otherwise they'll get the bomb and use it and somebody will flatten them.

You really hate those Palestinians don't you? You just cannot believe your Jewish clients in Israel can do anything bad do you? You do have free speech...and you have spoken as I would expect you to. What is your connection with this issue anyway?

You really hate those Jews don't you? You just cannot believe your Palestinian clients in Palestine can do anything bad do you? You do have free speech....and you have spoken as I would expect you to. What is your connection with this issue anyway? [can you see what I've done there?]

 

[angelo]

I can't believe the naivety of some posters here. Hamas is almost made into the victim. Make no mistake, this group is cut off the same branch as ISIS which in turn are all branches of the muslim brotherhood and other Islamic terrorist groups. Israel is the only democracy in the whole Middle East region, the only state that's standing between freedom and anarchy and genocide.
All so called "atrocities" from the Israeli side are in self defence. Most are in response to provocation.

 

[Togo]

It may help Sam Harris' argument to white wash an entire population this way and appeal to emotion, but it's not really partaking in honest discourse unless he can cite his numbers.

It's the same arguement that was used by the supporters of apartheid against the blacks in South Africa. Inherently violent as an ethnic group, therefore can't have peace with them, therefore oppression is a-ok.

It relies on being racist to start with, and then even then it doesn't work logically, as there is no connection between claiming someone is evil and somehow making it right to oppress them.

It's not an ethnic group that's the problem.

It's a religious group: Fundamentalist Islam.

Doesn't change the basic flaw in the logic. Racism against blacks isn't a problem because some blacks are nice people, it's a problem because it's illogical and ignorant. Changing the target doesn't fix the logic.

I'm going on their self-chosen behavior, not what they look like.

Would it be racist to be opposed to muggers?

If you identify a particular racial group and claim they tend to mug people, then of course it would be racist. It would still be identifying a particular racial group, and then labelling them with behaviours you feel are stereotypical for that group. It's textbook racism.

Back where I used to live, most known muggers were black. Taking action against muggers isn't racist, but taking action against black people on the basis that you feel they're all muggers certainly would be.

 

[Arctish]

I can't believe the naivety of some posters here.

Unfortunately, I can believe the naivety of some posters here. I used to share it. I accepted the propaganda about Israel and the Palestinians without question. I tried not to notice that everything I was taught to believe in - freedom, liberty, human rights, treating people fairly and respectfully without regard for race, creed, or ethnic origin, or that the US doesn't have dealings with terrorists - was being subverted by my country's foreign policy in the Middle East.

The day I finally realized that the settlements had absolutely nothing to do with keeping Jews safe was the day I started to question my fundamental assumptions about Zionism. The day I finally realized that when people said Menachem Begin was a terrorist they were simply stating a well known truth was the day I started questioning the moral character of a State that would have him as Prime Minister. And the day I found out about the USS Liberty was the day I stopped trusting what my government had to say about how great a friend we had in Israel.

Hamas is almost made into the victim.

No. The Palestinians are the victims. Not all Palestinians are part of Hamas, or voted for them, or want them around. But Hamas was inevitable. And if Fatah's current attempt at a diplomatic solution fails, you can expect more Hamas-type factions to spring up.

BTW, did you know that in the beginning Israel cultivated Hamas as a way of undermining the PLO? The Israelis wanted to keep the Palestinians divided, and thought an Islamic faction in Gaza would help keep the secular PLO and the socialist PFLP weak and distracted. So if we're laying blame for the rise of Hamas, make sure to give some to the Israeli politicians who thought the enemies of their enemies would be good to have as next-door neighbors.

Make no mistake, this group is cut off the same branch as ISIS which in turn are all branches of the muslim brotherhood and other Islamic terrorist groups. Israel is the only democracy in the whole Middle East region, the only state that's standing between freedom and anarchy and genocide.
All so called "atrocities" from the Israeli side are in self defence. Most are in response to provocation

The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading? I've never seen it happen in these threads.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Hamas *WAS* involved.

2) Of course there was a major reaction to such a kidnapping. What would be surprising is if there wasn't.

No Hamas was not involved.

And the reaction was a ruse to go into Gaza and fuck with people.

1) Hamas has admitted their involvement.

2) Israel didn't invade in response to the kidnappings in the first place. They invaded in response to the rocket barrage Hamas fired in response to the hunt for the kidnappers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel didn't even want to go to Gaza. In the beginning of the war before the extent of the tunnel network was clear, Netanyahu's line was still that they would respond with quiet to quiet and somewhat conciliatory.

Israel can block the tunnels from their side.

And Hamas would just redig. Destroying the whole tunnel makes it longer until they rebuild.

There was no reason for the incursion into Gaza. No Hamas kidnapping and murder.

And Israel has no right to kill to stop the rockets if other methods are available. Israel could dismantle it's system of oppression and allow the Palestinians their normal human rights. That would stop the rockets.

Continuing to repeat this doesn't make it true. Hamas has made it very clear they won't stop even if Israel turtled behind the 67 borders.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel can block the tunnels from their side.



There was no reason for the incursion into Gaza. No Hamas kidnapping and murder.

And Israel has no right to kill to stop the rockets if other methods are available. Israel could dismantle it's system of oppression and allow the Palestinians their normal human rights. That would stop the rockets.

You and 14 other leftists on this board are the only people on the planet who think this is true. Your position is not only bereft of facts, it is morally bankrupt.

There's a lot more than 14 dupes on the planet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It may help Sam Harris' argument to white wash an entire population this way and appeal to emotion, but it's not really partaking in honest discourse unless he can cite his numbers.

It's the same arguement that was used by the supporters of apartheid against the blacks in South Africa. Inherently violent as an ethnic group, therefore can't have peace with them, therefore oppression is a-ok.

It relies on being racist to start with, and then even then it doesn't work logically, as there is no connection between claiming someone is evil and somehow making it right to oppress them.

It's not an ethnic group that's the problem.

It's a religious group: Fundamentalist Islam.

Doesn't change the basic flaw in the logic. Racism against blacks isn't a problem because some blacks are nice people, it's a problem because it's illogical and ignorant. Changing the target doesn't fix the logic.

I'm going on their self-chosen behavior, not what they look like.

Would it be racist to be opposed to muggers?

If you identify a particular racial group and claim they tend to mug people, then of course it would be racist. It would still be identifying a particular racial group, and then labelling them with behaviours you feel are stereotypical for that group. It's textbook racism.

Back where I used to live, most known muggers were black. Taking action against muggers isn't racist, but taking action against black people on the basis that you feel they're all muggers certainly would be.

I'm not identifying a racial group at all.

I'm identifying them by beliefs: Fundamentalist Islam.

I don't care what color their skin is--after all, we have seen a lot of Europeans go fight for ISIS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The day I finally realized that the settlements had absolutely nothing to do with keeping Jews safe was the day I started to question my fundamental assumptions about Zionism. The day I finally realized that when people said Menachem Begin was a terrorist they were simply stating a well known truth was the day I started questioning the moral character of a State that would have him as Prime Minister. And the day I found out about the USS Liberty was the day I stopped trusting what my government had to say about how great a friend we had in Israel.

They *USED* to provide some protection for Israel by acting as a lightning rod for the terrorists. Since Fatah no longer does much and there are no settlements in Gaza they no longer provide protection. That's not to say that dismantling them wouldn't cause harm, though. Not only is there the huge financial cost but it's a culture where it would be taken as a sign of weakness and thus encourage more attacks.

As for the USS Liberty--mistakes happen in war. Israel thought the Liberty was an Egyptian ship pretending to be American--thus signs of it being American were treated as part of the deception.

No. The Palestinians are the victims. Not all Palestinians are part of Hamas, or voted for them, or want them around. But Hamas was inevitable. And if Fatah's current attempt at a diplomatic solution fails, you can expect more Hamas-type factions to spring up.

No. The factions don't spring up out of the blue. Factions "spring up" when someone provides the money.

BTW, did you know that in the beginning Israel cultivated Hamas as a way of undermining the PLO? The Israelis wanted to keep the Palestinians divided, and thought an Islamic faction in Gaza would help keep the secular PLO and the socialist PFLP weak and distracted. So if we're laying blame for the rise of Hamas, make sure to give some to the Israeli politicians who thought the enemies of their enemies would be good to have as next-door neighbors.

Stirring unrest in the enemy camp is useful. Look how much effort they have wasted fighting each other. That's effort not spent attacking Israel.

Make no mistake, this group is cut off the same branch as ISIS which in turn are all branches of the muslim brotherhood and other Islamic terrorist groups. Israel is the only democracy in the whole Middle East region, the only state that's standing between freedom and anarchy and genocide.
All so called "atrocities" from the Israeli side are in self defence. Most are in response to provocation

The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading? I've never seen it happen in these threads.

Can you find a modern example of Israel aiming at non-combatants?

 

[Arctish]

The day I finally realized that the settlements had absolutely nothing to do with keeping Jews safe was the day I started to question my fundamental assumptions about Zionism. The day I finally realized that when people said Menachem Begin was a terrorist they were simply stating a well known truth was the day I started questioning the moral character of a State that would have him as Prime Minister. And the day I found out about the USS Liberty was the day I stopped trusting what my government had to say about how great a friend we had in Israel.

They *USED* to provide some protection for Israel by acting as a lightning rod for the terrorists.

Are you saying Israel used it's settlers as human shields? That Israel encouraged Jews to settle on stolen land in the Occupied Territories because their presence would attract terrorism, thereby sparing Israel itself? That's evil. That's even more evil that the way Israel treats Palestinians. But your opinion supports my observation that the settlements had nothing to do with keeping Jews safe. The settlements might have been built to keep the State of Israel safe, as you believe, or they might have been built to fulfill Zionist ambitions of a Jewish State in all of Eretz Yisrael, as I believe, but either way the settlers were deliberately put in in harm's way by Israel itself.

Since Fatah no longer does much and there are no settlements in Gaza they no longer provide protection. That's not to say that dismantling them wouldn't cause harm, though. Not only is there the huge financial cost but it's a culture where it would be taken as a sign of weakness and thus encourage more attacks.

Or it would be taken as a clear indication that Israel was abandoning it's program of ethnic cleansing and Jewish hegemony in Palestine, and was instead genuinely seeking peace and fair dealings with its neighbors.

As for the USS Liberty--mistakes happen in war. Israel thought the Liberty was an Egyptian ship pretending to be American--thus signs of it being American were treated as part of the deception.

Where did you hear that? Does your source explain why the Israelis would have believed the Egyptians had anything in their navy that could have been mistaken for the Liberty, since Egypt had nothing of the sort? Or are we just supposed to believe the Israelis are stupid?

"Say Joe, look at that American warship down there."
"That's no American warship, that's an Egyptian ship pretending to be American!"
"How can you tell?"
"They're flying an American flag, the sailors waving at us are wearing American uniforms, and they've painted an American vessel number on the hull that matches an American warship that looks just like it!"
"Those bastards! Well, they won't get away with this. Request permission to open fire!"

No. The Palestinians are the victims. Not all Palestinians are part of Hamas, or voted for them, or want them around. But Hamas was inevitable. And if Fatah's current attempt at a diplomatic solution fails, you can expect more Hamas-type factions to spring up.

No. The factions don't spring up out of the blue. Factions "spring up" when someone provides the money.

BTW, did you know that in the beginning Israel cultivated Hamas as a way of undermining the PLO? The Israelis wanted to keep the Palestinians divided, and thought an Islamic faction in Gaza would help keep the secular PLO and the socialist PFLP weak and distracted. So if we're laying blame for the rise of Hamas, make sure to give some to the Israeli politicians who thought the enemies of their enemies would be good to have as next-door neighbors.

Stirring unrest in the enemy camp is useful. Look how much effort they have wasted fighting each other. That's effort not spent attacking Israel.

Make no mistake, this group is cut off the same branch as ISIS which in turn are all branches of the muslim brotherhood and other Islamic terrorist groups. Israel is the only democracy in the whole Middle East region, the only state that's standing between freedom and anarchy and genocide.
All so called "atrocities" from the Israeli side are in self defence. Most are in response to provocation

The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading? I've never seen it happen in these threads.

Can you find a modern example of Israel aiming at non-combatants?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, or we might skip over something important. Both sides claim to be responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading?

 

[Underseer]

Yup. Israel uses the settlers as human shields, therefore the Palestinians are morally justified in killing as many settlers as they feel like.

 

[Togo]

It may help Sam Harris' argument to white wash an entire population this way and appeal to emotion, but it's not really partaking in honest discourse unless he can cite his numbers.

It's the same arguement that was used by the supporters of apartheid against the blacks in South Africa. Inherently violent as an ethnic group, therefore can't have peace with them, therefore oppression is a-ok.

It relies on being racist to start with, and then even then it doesn't work logically, as there is no connection between claiming someone is evil and somehow making it right to oppress them.

It's not an ethnic group that's the problem.

It's a religious group: Fundamentalist Islam.

Doesn't change the basic flaw in the logic. Racism against blacks isn't a problem because some blacks are nice people, it's a problem because it's illogical and ignorant. Changing the target doesn't fix the logic.

I'm going on their self-chosen behavior, not what they look like.

Would it be racist to be opposed to muggers?

If you identify a particular racial group and claim they tend to mug people, then of course it would be racist. It would still be identifying a particular racial group, and then labelling them with behaviours you feel are stereotypical for that group. It's textbook racism.

Back where I used to live, most known muggers were black. Taking action against muggers isn't racist, but taking action against black people on the basis that you feel they're all muggers certainly would be.

I'm not identifying a racial group at all.

I'm identifying them by beliefs: Fundamentalist Islam.

I don't care what color their skin is--after all, we have seen a lot of Europeans go fight for ISIS.

For pity's sake...

The fact that you are identifying your hate-group by a different set of criteria doesn't make the process any more logical. You're still employing exactly the same logic as racists. Now, if you honestly believe that racists are entirely logical and are simply picking on the wrong targets, then this isn't a problem for you, but if, like most of the civilised world, recognise that the reasoning being employed as somehow flawed, then you using identical logic is also flawed, for the same reasons.

 

[angelo]

[video]http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4478.htm[/video]

I hope this video plays here and see for yourself just what Israel has to live with.