The Gaza Strip

[Cup Lion]

Hamas was legitly elected into office by a landslide victory in 2006 by the palestinian people. You practically just called the people of palestine, who are mostly ordinary children, women and men, terrorists

 

Since when do you follow the logic that an election = everyone agreeing with the government's actions?

 

And couldn't there have been threats made to people, seeing as Hamas is a terrorist group. That might explain the landslide.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

well what can i say

 

 

 

isreal is occupeing palestine

 

thus palestinians have the right to fight isreal and firing rockets

 

isreal do not have the right too attack civilian targets or make blockades so medical supplies and food cant get into gaza.....

 

Israel, from what they say, are not intending to attack civilian targets. Its very difficult not to harm innocent civilians when the terrorists have taken refuge in a hospital.

 

 

 

Additionally, the blockades are said to be there for protection. Without the blockades, Hamas could easily have supplies shipped in in order to create an army. That is not something Israel wants.

[munkis]

well what can i say

 

 

 

isreal is occupeing palestine

 

thus palestinians have the right to fight isreal and firing rockets

 

isreal do not have the right too attack civilian targets or make blockades so medical supplies and food cant get into gaza.....

 

 

 

No, "Palestine" was British territory, given to the Israelis to become Israel.

 

As it was British land they could do what they want with it, and when it was granted to the Israelis (Given) it becomes Israeli owned land.

 

Therefore they arent occupying the land, they're owning it.

 

 

 

yes parts of it maybe but then in the war 1967 they occupied big areas including the golan area from syria and i think they occupied some more area some yaer after but not sure what year..

 

 

 

gaza strip was occupied from that war and until the year 2000 something not sure the date to the free gaza

[Sly_Wizard]

Your first point is irrelevant, Israel signed the agreement voluntarily and then went back on it. If you don't want to follow the terms then why sign the agreement in the first place? If you make an agreement and then don't follow through with your side of the deal it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the other side to follow through with their side of the deal regardless.

 

 

 

I'd really like to know how and why it's "irrelevant". You do realize the reason Israel "stopped following the terms of the deal" is because Gaza did not hold it's end of the deal, right? A cease fire is only a cease fire when both parties, you know, stop firing bullets/rockets/mortars at each other and sending suicide bombers into the other country to blow themselves up in crowded areas etc.. Explain to me why Israel should keep it's borders open and provide aid to Gaza while Gaza is doing everything they can to antagonize Israel? The answer: They shouldn't.

 

 

 

Why would Hamas target Egypt?

 

 

 

Because Egpt has had it's borders closed to Gaza for a few years now (Though it's only recently begun to open them).

 

 

 

Egypt didn't break agreements to end the blockage (as they never made one) and Egypt hasn't occupied Palestinian land.

 

 

 

1.) See above.

 

2.) It's not "Palestinian" land. It's British land given to Israel. Just so you know.

 

 

 

On top of that, Egypt's blockade is only in place due to the deal they made with Israel over Israel's disengagement from the Philadelphi route in 2005.

 

 

 

Ummm... This is half-truth. That blockade exists to prevent militants in Gaza from smuggling weapons into Egypt, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

[magekillr]

Israel knew there would be mass casualties, so when you say "What are they supposed to do then?", they shouldn't have attacked at all in this fashion.

 

 

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski's take, and I agree completely with him:

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 3#28433263

[Sly_Wizard]

Israel knew there would be mass casualties, so when you say "What are they supposed to do then?", they shouldn't have attacked at all in this fashion.

 

 

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski's take, and I agree completely with him:

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 3#28433263

 

 

 

Israel is a sovereign territory. So is Gaza. One sovereign territory firing rockets into another sovereign territory is an outright declaration of war. The Israeli government is only indebted to one group of people: It's citizens. It works for them and is supposed to protect them from harm. It's not the governments officials to worry about injuring citizens in another country when they're willfully allowing a terrorist regime to operate within their borders and attack a sovereign nation.

 

 

 

If you own a house and refuse to remove the guy staying in it who continues to shoot at me through a window upstairs, then I'm going to remove him for you. It's not that hard to understand, really.

 

 

 

I find topics like this funny: Notice the public outcry when Israel suffered suicide bomber after suicide bomber? Mortar after mortar? Rocket after rocket? No...? Me neither. :roll: No one cared. Well, to you people complaining now that Israel does something, I'd like to say tough [cabbage]. If the world refuses to do anything about Hamas, Hezbollah and any of the other starkly anti-Israel regimes, then Israel will do something about them. Maybe you should have complained when Israel was the one making concession after concession whilst being attacked?

 

 

 

Oh, and no country on the face of the earth would react any differently than Israel given the circumstances.

[Adam007]

I'm glad you still post here Sly. :)

 

It may sound like Israel overreacted, but when you're fighting a group that uses suicide bombers within your own country, conventional rules are already broken. Hamas had been attacking for awhile, and Israel needed to show that they won't allow themselves to be attacked like that.

[megakiller32]

I'm glad you still post here Sly. :)

 

It may sound like Israel overreacted, but when you're fighting a group that uses suicide bombers within your own country, conventional rules are already broken. Hamas had been attacking for awhile, and Israel needed to show that they won't allow themselves to be attacked like that.

 

Agreed, and I think if Hamas defect from ruling over the Gaza strip, peace can be made alot easier.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Israel is a sovereign territory. So is Gaza. One sovereign territory firing rockets into another sovereign territory is an outright declaration of war. The Israeli government is only indebted to one group of people: It's citizens. It works for them and is supposed to protect them from harm. It's not the governments officials to worry about injuring citizens in another country when they're willfully allowing a terrorist regime to operate within their borders and attack a sovereign nation.

 

 

 

If you own a house and refuse to remove the guy staying in it who continues to shoot at me through a window upstairs, then I'm going to remove him for you. It's not that hard to understand, really.

 

 

 

I find topics like this funny: Notice the public outcry when Israel suffered suicide bomber after suicide bomber? Mortar after mortar? Rocket after rocket? No...? Me neither. :roll: No one cared. Well, to you people complaining now that Israel does something, I'd like to say tough [cabbage]. If the world refuses to do anything about Hamas, Hezbollah and any of the other starkly anti-Israel regimes, then Israel will do something about them. Maybe you should have complained when Israel was the one making concession after concession whilst being attacked?

 

 

 

Oh, and no country on the face of the earth would react any differently than Israel given the circumstances.

 

No one is honestly suggesting Israel has no right to defend itself from attack, however:

 

 

 

1) The scale of the attack is wholly disproportionate and appalling;

 

2) The attack was conducted in full knowledge there would be innocent civilian casualties as a result of the massive firepower used in the assault;

 

3) Israel's attacks are a direct attack on a political party, rather than a country;

 

4) Israel still has not, four days into the attack, laid down conditions for victory. Is it the destruction of Hamas? Is it to stop the rockets? Is it to take more land? This rather hints the attacks are purposeless, unless of course, the polls have anything to say;

 

5) The attack is counter productive to the peace process. Gordon Brown was absolutely right when he said "There is no military solution to this situation";

 

6) These attacks could not have been coordinated in the one and a half weeks since the cease fire officially ended. This is not a response to the cease fire, this has been in the pipeline for quite some time. I would personally suggest since Lebanon.

[megakiller32]

Israel is a sovereign territory. So is Gaza. One sovereign territory firing rockets into another sovereign territory is an outright declaration of war. The Israeli government is only indebted to one group of people: It's citizens. It works for them and is supposed to protect them from harm. It's not the governments officials to worry about injuring citizens in another country when they're willfully allowing a terrorist regime to operate within their borders and attack a sovereign nation.

 

 

 

If you own a house and refuse to remove the guy staying in it who continues to shoot at me through a window upstairs, then I'm going to remove him for you. It's not that hard to understand, really.

 

 

 

I find topics like this funny: Notice the public outcry when Israel suffered suicide bomber after suicide bomber? Mortar after mortar? Rocket after rocket? No...? Me neither. :roll: No one cared. Well, to you people complaining now that Israel does something, I'd like to say tough [cabbage]. If the world refuses to do anything about Hamas, Hezbollah and any of the other starkly anti-Israel regimes, then Israel will do something about them. Maybe you should have complained when Israel was the one making concession after concession whilst being attacked?

 

 

 

Oh, and no country on the face of the earth would react any differently than Israel given the circumstances.

 

No one is honestly suggesting Israel has no right to defend itself from attack, however:

 

 

 

1) The scale of the attack is wholly disproportionate and appalling;

 

2) The attack was conducted in full knowledge there would be innocent civilian casualties as a result of the massive firepower used in the assault;

 

3) Israel's attacks are a direct attack on a political party, rather than a country;

 

4) Israel still has not, four days into the attack, laid down conditions for victory. Is it the destruction of Hamas? Is it to stop the rockets? Is it to take more land? This rather hints the attacks are purposeless, unless of course, the polls have anything to say;

 

5) The attack is counter productive to the peace process. Gordon Brown was absolutely right when he said "There is no military solution to this situation";

 

6) These attacks could not have been coordinated in the one and a half weeks since the cease fire officially ended. This is not a response to the cease fire, this has been in the pipeline for quite some time. I would personally suggest since Lebanon.

 

 

 

For your points-

 

1) Hamas need to be shown the force which they've provoked

 

2) This is because Hamas put thier military targets in civilian areas

 

3) I don't really know what to say here..

 

4) They want hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel.

 

5) So firing rockets day in and day out is productive for a peace process?

 

6) These attacks are in rebuttal for Hamas firing rockets day in and day out into towns in Israel.

[Ginger_Warrior]

5) So firing rockets day in and day out is productive for a peace process?

 

Of course not. Just because I condemn Israel's actions doesn't mean I'm Hamas' #1 fanboy. As Fatah have said, if they hadn't launched the rockets in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.

 

 

 

That doesn't give Israel a right to obliterate Gaza's entire infrastructure though.

[megakiller32]

5) So firing rockets day in and day out is productive for a peace process?

 

Of course not. Just because I condemn Israel's actions doesn't mean I'm Hamas' #1 fanboy. As Fatah have said, if they hadn't launched the rockets in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.

 

 

 

That doesn't give Israel a right to obliterate Gaza's entire infrastructure though.

 

 

 

No, that's why they're only going for targets of military interest, for example Hamas sites.

[Barihawk]

Let's get a few things cleared up.

 

 

 

1. Hamas started this conflict, fired the first shots, and reject permament peace. Despite being the one to constantly petition the UN for peace, their very charter is centered on destroying Israel. Even after making peace, they were the first to fire again and again.

 

 

 

2. It's Israel's land, fair and square. It's not the common Israeli's fault that Palestinian leaders sold their country, in a land where warlords stripped of their power now turned to aggression to gain it back using religion as motivation.

 

 

 

3. The Israelis were willing to coexist in the nation the entire time. They even tried it, and were pretty charitable to give Palestinians some land in Gaza back. It is the leadership of Palestine that has refused to live in peace.

 

 

 

4. What began as random rocket attacks is turning into much more serious threats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a SCUD missile. It's not homemade, it's not random, it has a longer range, and it can level a city block. Hamas have been firing these for several months.

 

 

 

5. Hamas is targetting schools. One was destroyed Wednesday. Imagine if the children had not gotten out in time. This was with one of the new guided rockets so we can assume that it's destruction was intentional.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I am hearing lots of boo-hooing about Israel's "disproportionate response." That's just bullcrap. Israel has been launching precision military raids, with the minimum of civilian casualties. Sixty civilians may sound like a lot, but many more Israelis have died from those rocket attacks. Surgical strikes vs random (or premediated with the new rockets) attacks sounds fair to me.

 

 

 

Israel is not seeking the destruction of Palestine and all those in it, only the Hamas leadership that is behind these attacks.

 

 

 

And Ginger, civilian casualties are inevitable. Many dictatorial regimes make it a point to PLACE civilians (either workers or families) near or in military sites hoping that the person on the other side calling the shots would be hesitant to pull the trigger. An oil refinery is a perfectly legitimate military target, despite the fact it may be manned by civilians. That's the sucky thing about war, people DIE. The good thing about war is that every time it happens fewer civilians die but we haven't gotten to the point of ZERO yet.

 

 

 

As for the "peace process," it's simply been a sham by Palestinian leadership to rebuild, judging by the return of sponsored attacks again and again. You think it's fair that Palestine uses cease-fires to rebuild and attack again, but Israel can not begin a contingency plan during peacetime? Contingency plans and prepared military assaults are nothing new. Most modern nations have plans prepared to move against each other should the worst happen. It's not like the generals get together on the first day after declaring war and start planning things.

 

 

 

Let's face it, I am not a fan of this violence. But to be completely honest, Israel is fully justified in their actions. They are working very hard to ensure that very few innocents die in this assault. [bleep]ing about what kind of weapons they use is just silly. Should they degrade down to slingshots and cap pistols (or to be more serious light weaponry to match Hamas) just so that so-called intellectuals in other nations can sleep better at night?

 

 

 

Peace requires two parties, no more and no less. Peace without sincerity leads to conflict. Peace thrust upon you by a third party requires no obligation between the two original states (the peace process is placed upon the third party).

[jackal_55]

hm, propaganda and Hamas seems to be being brought up a lot.

 

 

 

first of all, propaganda is lies, Israel isn't giving Hamas material for propaganda, its breeding hate for itself, and giving people reason to want to kill them.

 

and Hamas is 2 distinct organizations, there's the terrorist branch, and the government.

 

 

 

just thought I'd clear it up.

[Barihawk]

hm, propaganda and Hamas seems to be being brought up a lot.

 

 

 

first of all, propaganda is lies, Israel isn't giving Hamas material for propaganda, its breeding hate for itself, and giving people reason to want to kill them.

 

and Hamas is 2 distinct organizations, there's the terrorist branch, and the government.

 

 

 

just thought I'd clear it up.

 

 

 

FYI, not all propaganda are lies. Much propaganda has been truth or half-truth blown out of proportion. And even some not.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And Ginger, civilian casualties are inevitable. Many dictatorial regimes make it a point to PLACE civilians (either workers or families) near or in military sites hoping that the person on the other side calling the shots would be hesitant to pull the trigger. An oil refinery is a perfectly legitimate military target, despite the fact it may be manned by civilians. That's the sucky thing about war, people DIE. The good thing about war is that every time it happens fewer civilians die but we haven't gotten to the point of ZERO yet.

 

Indeed they do.

 

 

 

However, claiming to be a 'better nation' because you don't target civilians, and then targeting them in strategic operations is blatant hypocrisy.

 

 

 

As for the "peace process," it's simply been a sham by Palestinian leadership to rebuild, judging by the return of sponsored attacks again and again. You think it's fair that Palestine uses cease-fires to rebuild and attack again, but Israel can not begin a contingency plan during peacetime? Contingency plans and prepared military assaults are nothing new. Most modern nations have plans prepared to move against each other should the worst happen. It's not like the generals get together on the first day after declaring war and start planning things.

 

For peace to ever occur in the Middle East, a stable and united state of Palestine has to exist first. When you have a country neighboring you, with a Zionist agenda, constantly threatening to wipe out one of your major political parties along with the entire territory's infrastructure, how likely do you think that is?

 

 

 

Nothing, and I emphasise nothing, Israel has done in the past four days has helped bring the Middle East to permanent peace. Simply lumping the blame on Palestine, and telling Israel to sort it doesn't cut as an argument, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Let's face it, I am not a fan of this violence. But to be completely honest, Israel is fully justified in their actions. They are working very hard to ensure that very few innocents die in this assault. [bleep] about what kind of weapons they use is just silly.

 

You've just whined about the rockets Hamas are using, but you don't like people complaining about Israel's weapons. Double standards, much?

 

 

 

Here's one way to ensure civilians don't die: cooperate with the rest of the international community (less America) to restore lasting peace.

 

 

 

Peace requires two parties, no more and no less. Peace without sincerity leads to conflict. Peace thrust upon you by a third party requires no obligation between the two original states (the peace process is placed upon the third party).

 

And from what I'm seeing, neither side is committed to peace. Israel is adamant to see this through to the bitter end; a ceasefire is not on the table as far as they're concerned.

 

 

 

I find when two forces are at a stalemate, the onus is usually on a third party to come in and negotiate a solution. Only, this third party would be America, but America's happy for Israel to continue, so Israel continues to support the War on Terror. Don't lecture the Palestinians on peace, yet continue to turn a blind eye to America's foreign agenda.

[Barihawk]

I'll itemize this to avoid massive quote train.

 

 

 

1) They don't specifically target civilians. They do admit that they might kill them in the mission. They are not saying "Oh look, civilians" and kill them. They admit that their target requires innocent lives to be lost. In comparison to rocket attacks against purely civilian targets, this is damn civil.

 

 

 

2) Both sides need to work together. Which is never going to happen if one side is constantly attacking the others. However, who's been firing the first shots?

 

 

 

3) Trying to mince words, much? It does not matter whether they are using cruise missiles or slingshots, it's still violence. Are you saying that Israel should allow their civilians to die because a few shoddy rockets aren't worth a full scale military action? That's like saying that the WTC destruction didn't justify the total military mobilization against Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Then again, what do you propose? Aside from peace, which is not going to happen in the next week?

 

 

 

4) The reason Israel is so adamant is the constant threat against it's people. When Hamas stops launching attacks, then they can be convinced to stop being beligerant.

 

 

 

And again, America is the answer to everything. Why doesn't another nation with no vested interest in either party come in to settle this? Like France or Germany. If the US intervenes, everyone will complain about us protecting our interests in Zionist Israel.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And again, America is the answer to everything. Why doesn't another nation with no vested interest in either party come in to settle this? Like France or Germany. If the US intervenes, everyone will complain about us protecting our interests in Zionist Israel.

 

Because America has gotten to the point where it's so unrivaled in terms of power, there is no other authority in the world that can credibly step in. Nothing short of Condoleezza stepping of a plane in Jerusalem demanding a cease fire will result in one. Until America turns round to both sides, and tell them both to stop the violence, it won't stop.

 

 

 

The EU does what it can. It's been providing humanitarian relief in Palestine for years in order to reduce the desperation for Hamas to stay in power. Only, the buildings that money went to build are now being reduced to rubble because Israel cannot control its temperance.

 

 

 

Hamas needs to stop the rocket attacks, but Israel in turn also has to agree to the peace process.

 

 

 

In any case, this debate avoids what the war is really about - how the Kadima party are doing in the polls.

[Barihawk]

Then I agree with your post. But regardless, Israel is not going to stop until the rocket attacks stop. Permamently. Both sides are to blame for this state of affairs.

 

 

 

I am just sick of people who claim that Israel is the only party to blame and that Palestine is within it's rights to attack civilians.

[magekillr]

Then I agree with your post. But regardless, Israel is not going to stop until the rocket attacks stop. Permamently. Both sides are to blame for this state of affairs.

 

 

 

I am just sick of people who claim that Israel is the only party to blame and that Palestine is within it's rights to attack civilians.

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that ANYONE was making this claim.

 

 

 

For example, when Russia invaded South Ossetia, I was very much in favor of Russia's aggression. However, what made me upset with Russia was their complete and utter annihilation of Georgian territory, and mass murdering of Georgian citizens. Of course my support for Russia in this situation could no longer really last, because like Israel, they don't have any threshold for "restraint". Had Russia just invaded South Ossetia, secured the region, made sure that their citizens were in the clear, they would have been seen in a much better light and had acted properly. However, what Russia did to Georgia is completely UNACCEPTABLE, and this is coming from someone that supported the aggression when it first started. Of course, Georgia started it, I condemned them for doing so at an opportune time (the Olympics), and that they only did so because they thought they had NATO's backing. So I condemned Georgia in the beginning, and then later condemned Russia as well for completely overreacting and killing many Georgian civilians and leaving their infrastructure to [cabbage].

 

 

 

The same I will do with the Israeli-Gaza situation. I condemn Hamas for firing their rockets at Israel, regardless of ANY brokered cease-fire agreements. Israel can defend itself, and they have that right, but their attacks have been downright out of proportion and completely unjustified. Hell, when you get rational about it and leave your emotional outrage towards Hamas out of it, ANY form of attack would not be good for long-term peace. Every bomb they drop is 5 new recruits for any terrorist organization that exists in the region, and a newfound support for a Hamas run government, thusly continuing the same old game that's been going on for years; it's coming full circle.

 

 

 

As Ginger pointed out, had Israel not attacked, the Kadima party would lose all support from irrational citizens that feel they have nowhere else to turn but a government that "protects" them by attacking back. When it all comes down to it, neither of these government truly empathize with their citizens, and only care for one thing: power. Oddly enough one man that does empathize with his people is Ahmadinejad. He spends more time helping poor Iranians in ravaged towns than any other president I've seen in the entire world. He works sometimes up to 20 hours a day, most of it for the poor. He reads their letters, addresses their concerns, and travels all around the country. Now I'm not a supporter of the man that equates the rest of the world with the Devil, but I am saying he is one that is looking at his citizens with the actual best intentions rather than a seat of power (even though he's not even the "real" leader in Iran anyway).

 

 

 

And this is gold, bingo, and yahtzee all in one:

 

 

 

I find when two forces are at a stalemate, the onus is usually on a third party to come in and negotiate a solution. Only, this third party would be America, but America's happy for Israel to continue, so Israel continues to support the War on Terror. Don't lecture the Palestinians on peace, yet continue to turn a blind eye to America's foreign agenda.

 

 

 

edit: good commentary:

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 14981.html

[eias]

Then I agree with your post. But regardless, Israel is not going to stop until the rocket attacks stop. Permamently. Both sides are to blame for this state of affairs.

 

 

 

I am just sick of people who claim that Israel is the only party to blame and that Palestine is within it's rights to attack civilians.

 

Well of course both parties are to blame,but Israel are more to blame,because they wanted to destroy Hamas,not the Civilian city of Gaza,so they destroyed the city instead with civilians in hopes of killing some Hamas members.

[magekillr]

And thus, we've come completely full circle:

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231/ap_ ... lestinians

 

 

 

This is backed by 5 hard line student groups and one conservative cleric. They claim to have 10,000 people ready to kill themselves. They believe they will be martyrs. Now claiming to have and actually having are two separate things, and I believe it's nothing more than empty words from Iranians...but you can already see the repercussions from Israel's actions.

 

 

 

This not only affects Palestinian/Israel relations, but it also leads to more propaganda that can easily be taken advantage of in Iran.

 

 

 

It's almost like clock-work that this was going to happen, and just shy of the 5 day mark.

[Lenticular_J]

Well of course both parties are to blame,but Israel are more to blame,because they wanted to destroy Hamas,not the Civilian city of Gaza,so they destroyed the city instead with civilians in hopes of killing some Hamas members.

 

That's not exactly smart logic. Does it make Hamas to blame because they attacked first? And Hamas wants to destroy Israel. They want to eliminate the nation and every single citizen. It's a war, does Israel not have the right to fight back?

 

 

 

This [cabbage]'s gonna get blown out of proportion, soon. Betcha it'll be the "test" Biden said would happen to Obama in his early times as President. He'll probably be able to handle it. This's happened before.

 

 

 

And mage, that's crazy. Man. Students actually so full of hate that they'd conduct suicide attacks. Jesus.

[l0l0lpur32]

I've never understood why communists all seem to hate Israel, maybe if I'm bored at some point I'll try and find out.

[The_Gabe]

Most of you are forgetting something very important; Israel (my home country) have been getting bombed from them a lot, yet, we didn't bomb them back like they did. It's about time we (Israel) started to fight back. Violence is the only key in this situation.

[Rebdragon]

When are them Central African and Middle Eastern and other peeps going to learn to hug it out :( ?