Scores die in Israeli air strikes

Segregation should only only ever be a short term, stop gap measure to prevent immediate casualties. And the need for it with regards a specifically Jewish state should have gradually eroded away a long time ago. Long term segregation is a really bad idea in my opinion.

That would all be very well if massacring Jews were a one-off incident, unfortunately it wasn't.

I realise that people find litanies of anti-Semitic atrocities tiresome, especially at a time when it's Jews in the helicopter gunships firing at much weaker opponents. But you can't understand the conflict or the country if you elide the Jewish experience in Europe before the holocaust (and to a much lesser extent in some Arab countries after it).

The first major Zionist immigration took place after the Tzarist pogroms and attacks in Ukraine, Poland and throughout the 'Pale of Settlement' that killed hundreds of thousands of people. And that was hardly a one-off either, it was the culmination - or nearly the culmination - of centuries of sporadic pogroms.

So you can tell Jews and Israelis that the idea of a Jewish state is obsolete, but in the face of both recurring history and all the current states and organisations vowing the destruction of all Jewish presence in the Middle East, don't be too surprised if they take your diagnosis with a pinch of salt.

On a separate note, I was reading that there are something like 1.5 million people living in the Gaza strip; all those people crammed into the same land area as the Isle of Wight! That's far beyond a sustainable population level, even if it was the most peaceful nation on earth. No wonder there's so much collateral damage when Israel attacks. Something needs to be done immediately to lower the population level at the very least. Otherwise unemployment, poverty and ultimately starvation are unavoidable...even if peace does arrive.

It's unbelievable, and it's something the Israelis, the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership all have to take the blame for. The Saudis could end poverty in Gaza with barely a dip into their reserves, and the Israelis could improve their lives significantly by abandoning the blockade. I still think that without poverty, the conflict wouldn't be nearly as bad. People who have something to lose don't, as a general rule, want to blow themselves up or put their kids in the front line.

The 'collateral damage' is exacerbated not only by the overpopulation, but also by the fact that Hamas, like Hezbollah, deliberately fire rockets from built-up areas, knowing that civilian casualties mean international pressure. Doing anything else would be strategically disastrous, as the firers would just get picked off. Of course the other option would be not to fire the rockets, which would give them less leverage and stimulate less change, but save an awful lot of lives.
 
1.5 million people of which a majority elected a terrorist organization as their government. Not a good choice.
Oh don't. If you were in their situation, i guarantee you, you definitely would! Hang on if hamas are democratically elected then they can't be called terrorists because otherwise your republican government should also fall into that catergory as well imvho and in the opinion of many in england and around the world.
 
Oh don't. If you were in their situation, i guarantee you, you definitely would! Hang on if hamas are democratically elected then they can't be called terrorists because otherwise your republican government should also fall into that catergory as well imvho and in the opinion of many in england and around the world.

I always love how these discussions always get turned into a US policy discussion. Fairly weak attempt this one is too. And they certainly can still be called a terrorist organization since the "party" charter calls specifically for the destruction of Israel. Last time I checked the US Constitution doesn't do a thing like it. Again, Hamas is a terrorist orgaization that is not in dispute. The reaction of the 2 governments is.
 
The way the Israelis had drawn Hezbulah into a conflict, two or three summers ago was an utter disgrace to the human race.

I see, and how did we do that exactly? By firing missiles towards their cities, passing the border and abducting their men? Oh, wait, they did that.
 
It's unbelievable, and it's something, the Israelis, the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership all have to take the blame for. The Saudis could end poverty in Gaza with barely a dip into their reserves, and the Israelis could improve their lives significantly by abandoning the blockade. I still think that without poverty, the conflict wouldn't be nearly as bad. People who have something to lose don't, as a general rule, want to blow themselves up or put their kids in the front line.


On a different note, I'm trying to work out who's the bigger idiot, Fearless or Vijay. Tough call.

Its here. The one who wrote that thesis, should be an easy winner.
 
1.5 million people of which a majority elected a terrorist organization as their government. Not a good choice.

1) You lot elected Bush TWICE, so id keep my mouth shut.

2) If the Israelis would treat them adequately, they'd see no need to elect an extreme organisation like Hamas.
 
1) You lot elected Bush TWICE, so id keep my mouth shut.

2) If the Israelis would treat them adequately, they'd see no need to elect an extreme organisation like Hamas.

:lol:

You can't be serious, on either point.
 
I see, and how did we do that exactly? By firing missiles towards their cities, passing the border and abducting their men? Oh, wait, they did that.

According to several reports, at the time, the Israeli border troops had spent several months provoking the nearing neighborhoods to the north.


Hezbulah and the Palestinian factions that cause trouble deserve to be put down, that goes without question. The world outside of this conflict sees the heavy handed response of entire neighborhoods in Gazza reduced to rubble and twisted metal as an unfair and gruesome way to respond to this problem. It is a foolish and desperate policy.


I offer an analogy: A black man is offered the front-and-center seat at KKK rally. The rally is comprised of 100,000 armed and dangerous Alabama's most racist. Said black man is allowed to bring five cases of dynomite and a pope-modile with a retractable sunroof.

The fact that Israel persists in believing they have a devine right to such misery, would beg to the senses to find a new religion. But that hasn't been concluded amongst the Israeli people. Rather, the conditions of conflict seem to inspire them to slaughter without discretion.


The Israeli people need to stop looking to the world for compassion in this formula becaue it would seem that most people are sick and tired of the business as usual from the people of that region.


I am sure the Jewish people are amongst the first to deny the United Nations their opinion. The UN have been appalled by the Israeli response in these conflicts, for decades, but that's just the opinion of an international institution that aims for peace and humanity, oh... and my opinion... silly me and the UN.
 
By the way, what did you think of my Lake Havasu idea, Cali Red?


Not a bad one, huh?


I'm sure you know how beautiful it is at the Lake.;)

I love all your takes, you know that. ;)

Not to thread jack here but you heading out to DC soon? It'll be like your Hajj to Mecca. :cool:
 
I love all your takes, you know that. ;)

Not to thread jack here but you heading out to DC soon? It'll be like your Hajj to Mecca. :cool:

Yeah, I have family coming in from Seattle, San Fran, Los Angeles, and New Jersey. My head is going to be spinning from all the chaos.

______________________________________

Answer to Holy (Gangsta) Red,

No... but I may need a connection by the end of having all these wacky relatives in town for a week or two.

Let me know if you can hook me up.;)
 
I agree with some of the points made by this article but the really striking part is the date.

1948 is 9 years after the start of the Second World War. Countries lost territory and indeed whole population were massacred and yet Europe has moved on. Despite the petty nationalism which rears its ugly head from time to time. The French British and Germans as well as a whole host of other nations are trying to settle their differences without fighting wars between themselves. This is a massive benefit to all the people of Europe and is sometimes taken for granted as we argue the worth of an institution (the EU which we all love to hate)

This article reminds me of how different things could be.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Comparing europe to the middle east is completly missing the point.
If living standards in Gaza were the same as they are in Munich then i doubt a single shot would have been fired in anger.
 
Mate, I know all about the extremists and hardliners. A few of them are even members of our parlament. However, they will NEVER come into true power (a few seats out of 120 is very little power). They will always be a minority, and so will their voters. I'm sure you'll disagree and say one never knows what might happen, but seriously, it won't, it can't in our democratic system.

As for the rest:

1) Since Hamas has been considered by Israel (and other countries) a TERRORIST GROUP for years and has (and still does) refuses to accept Israel's existance, did you honestly expect us to recognize them once they became democratically elected? When Arafat made strides we've talked to him, eventually accepted him as the palestenian leader even though he was once considered by Israel a terrorist. But Hamas has done nothing of the sort.

2) That discussion was done a few pages ago. You've got the link from November, someone else brought a link from June, four days after the ceasefire started, that describes how missiles from Gaza landed in Israel.

3) You are absolutely right. That is what we do. And as long as missiles are still fired at us, we will continue doing so. What else do you expect us to? We've already seen in the past that Hamas does not hesitate to use whatever we do allow to go through for itself, rather than the people he is responsible for. And yet, we have given them electricity from our own power plants even after the missiles started. I'd love to know what country would do that. A kamikaze one. maybe.

I, too, believe peace is a realistic target. I also know we are not holier than the pope (well, the rabbi. Ah, who cares. I'm not into religion). However, peace has been the number one target for each of our govenments for the past 17 years or so. We've made peace with Jordan, we've made strides with the palestenians, only for things to blow up in our faces.

When we retreated from lands around Gaza in 2006, already at a time when missiles were fired at us, our message was clear: You've been given something without any conditions, but one - if you use that to simply fire at us from closer range, we WILL retaliate and have EVERY justification. It was a chance for Hamas to build bridges with Israel, show good intentions just like we did, and, well, what have they done? Started firing at us from closer range. And still we have been quiet for over two years, while you know perfectly well ANY other country would have reacted like we are now.

So, while we're not perfect and in many aspects I'm a very harsh critic of my country, I can't accept it, not this time. That is not something we've wanted. We've delayed it for as long as possible, but maybe things have to get a lot worse before they get a lot better.

I'm sorry but you cant justify all your crimes against humanity on a few fireworks. Do you honestly think that after the lasts air strikes on Gaza you will be safer in Israel? Don't you think it will only radicalize more palestinians, and justify them to take revenge?

If peace is Israel's goal, then why does Israel continue to build illegal settlements? Why does Israel continue to break international law? Israel plays the victim very well and anyone who questions Israel's motives is shouted down as being "anti-semetic".

The truth of the situation is that Israel doesn't want an independent Palestine. Israel wants to shape palestine in an image that Israel see fit, not one the palestines want.

Thats the truth, I wish Israel would just admit it.
 
Israel's war in Gaza

Gaza: the rights and wrongs


Dec 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Israel was provoked, but as in Lebanon in 2006 it may find this war a hard one to end, or to justify

THE scale and ferocity of the onslaught on Gaza have been shocking, and the television images of civilian suffering wrench the heart. But however deplorable, Israel’s resort to military means to silence the rockets of Hamas should have been no surprise. This war has been a long time in the making.

Since Israel evacuated its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip three years ago, Palestinian groups in Gaza have fired thousands of rudimentary rockets and mortar bombs across the border, killing very few people but disrupting normal life in a swathe of southern Israel. They fired almost 300 between December 19th, when Hamas ignored Egypt’s entreaties and decided not to renew a six-month truce, and December 27th, when Israel started its bombing campaign (see article). To that extent, Israel is right to say it was provoked.
Of provocation and proportion

It is easy to point out from afar that barely a dozen Israelis had been killed by Palestinian rockets since the Gaza withdrawal. But few governments facing an election, as Israel’s is, would let their towns be peppered every day with rockets, no matter how ineffective. As Barack Obama said on a visit to one Israeli town in July, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” In recent months, moreover, Hamas has smuggled far more lethal rockets into its Gaza enclave, some of which are now landing in Israeli cities that were previously out of range. On its border with Lebanon, Israel already faces one radical non-state actor, Hizbullah, that is formally dedicated to Israel’s destruction and has a powerful arsenal of Iranian-supplied missiles at its disposal. The Israelis are understandably reluctant to let a similar danger grow in Gaza.

And yet Israel should not be surprised by the torrent of indignation it has aroused from around the world. This is not just because people seldom back the side with the F-16s. In general, a war must pass three tests to be justified. A country must first have exhausted all other means of defending itself. The attack should be proportionate to the objective. And it must stand a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. On all three of these tests Israel is on shakier ground than it cares to admit.

It is true that Israel has put up with the rockets from Gaza for a long time. But it may have been able to stop the rockets another way. For it is not quite true that Israel’s only demand in respect of Gaza has been for quiet along the border. Israel has also been trying to undermine Hamas by clamping an economic blockade on Gaza, while boosting the economy of the West Bank, where the Palestinians’ more pliant secular movement, Fatah, holds sway. Even during the now-lapsed truce, Israel prevented all but a trickle of humanitarian aid from entering the strip. So although Israel was provoked, Hamas can claim that it was provoked too. If Israel had ended the blockade, Hamas may have renewed the truce. Indeed, on one reading of its motives, Hamas resumed fire to force Israel into a new truce on terms that would include opening the border.

On proportionality, the numbers speak for themselves—up to a point. After the first three days, some 350 Palestinians had been killed and only four Israelis. Neither common sense nor the laws of war require Israel to deviate from the usual rule, which is to kill as many enemies as you can and avoid casualties on your own side. Hamas was foolish to pick this uneven fight. But of the Palestinian dead, several score were civilians, and many others were policemen rather than combatants. Although both Western armies and their foes have killed far more civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel’s interest should be to minimise the killing. The Palestinians it is bombing today will be its neighbours for ever.

This last point speaks to the test of effectiveness. Israel said at first that, much as it would like to topple Hamas, its present operation has the more limited aim of “changing reality” so that Hamas stops firing across the border. But as Israel learnt in Lebanon in 2006, this is far from easy. As with Hizbullah, Hamas’s “resistance” to Israel has made it popular and delivered it to power. It is most unlikely to bend the knee. Like Hizbullah, it will probably prefer to keep on firing no matter how hard it is hit, daring Israel to send its ground forces into a messy street fight in Gaza’s congested cities and refugee camps.
Now cease fire

Can Israel have forgotten the lesson of Lebanon so soon? Hardly. If anything, its campaign against Hamas now is intended to compensate for its relative failure against Hizbullah then. With Iran’s nuclear threat on the horizon, and Iranian influence growing in both Lebanon and Gaza, Israel is keen to remind its enemies that the Jewish state can still fight and still win. Precisely for that reason, despite its talk of a long campaign, it may be more receptive than it is letting on to an immediate ceasefire. Its aircraft have already pummelled almost every target in Gaza. Further military gains will be harder. A truce now, if Hamas really did stop its fire, could be presented to voters as the successful rehabilitation of Israeli deterrence.

But a ceasefire needs a mediator. Mr Obama is not yet president, and George Bush has so far hung back, just as he did in 2006 while waiting for an Israeli knockout blow that did not come. This time, he and everyone else with influence should pile in at once. To bring Hamas on board, a ceasefire would need to include an end to Israel’s blockade, but that would be a good thing in itself, relieving the suffering in Gaza and removing one of the reasons Hamas gives for fighting.

After that, Mr Obama will have to gather up what is left of diplomacy in the Middle East. It is not all hopeless. Until this week, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was talking to Israel about how to create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But Mr Abbas presides over the West Bank only, and little progress is possible so long as half of Palestine’s people support an organisation that can still not bring itself to renounce armed struggle or recognise Israel’s right to exist. Since Hamas is not going to disappear, some way must be found to change its mind. Bombs alone will never do that.
 
According to several reports, at the time, the Israeli border troops had spent several months provoking the nearing neighborhoods to the north.

Normally I'd settle for 'don't believe everything you read', but this is just too much, this is absolute cr*p and I don't even think Hizbullah used it as an excuse. :lol:
 
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Comparing europe to the middle east is completly missing the point.
If living standards in Gaza were the same as they are in Munich then i doubt a single shot would have been fired in anger.

FFS the problem is cancerous...much more than poverty of a million trapped or a civil war over a tiny strip of land. If Hamas are given more breathing space, the attacks could go only worse.
 
Fearless - you have posted the Israeli casualty list from the past 40 odd years - but have been asked to post the Palestinian casualties 3 times, and yet you haven't.

Why is that?
 
Fearless - you have posted the Israeli casualty list from the past 40 odd years - but have been asked to post the Palestinian casualties 3 times, and yet you haven't.

Why is that?

Finding a reliable source - but I found this titbit

Some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.


The deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 . Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.

The Syrians killed almost 30,000 Muslims February 2, 1982 at the Hama massacre

Jordan against Black Sept. 25,000 Palestinian Arabs/Muslims killed 1971, thousands more expelled.

Algeria has killed over 200,000 Arabs/Muslims between 1991-2006

-------
Death by Government, Small, M. and Singer

Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M.
 
FFS the problem is cancerous...much more than poverty of a million trapped or a civil war over a tiny strip of land. If Hamas are given more breathing space, the attacks could go only worse.

Like it or not, Hamas were democratically elected by the Palestinian people. By disengaging them you are only going to radicalize them. To suggest that the Palestinians are blood thirsty animals is just buying into Israeli propaganda used to justify all its barbaric actions
 
Finding a reliable source - but I found this titbit

Some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.


The deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 . Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.

The Syrians killed almost 30,000 Muslims February 2, 1982 at the Hama massacre

Jordan against Black Sept. 25,000 Palestinian Arabs/Muslims killed 1971, thousands more expelled.

Algeria has killed over 200,000 Arabs/Muslims between 1991-2006

-------
Death by Government, Small, M. and Singer

Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M.

Muslim death figures in other parts of the world was not the question asked.

I do however understand death rates it's not the best criteria for judging a conflict. It's easily possible had Palestinians the firepower the figures would have been more balanced - not that power justifies bullying the weak.

Here's a good site for comparisons.

http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2006/05/post-1967-palestinian-israeli-deaths.html
 
Why do people keep mentioning that Hamas were democratically elected? What has that got to do with anything? It doesn't change the fact that they wish for Israel's destruction via violent means, encourage suicide attacks and have been persistently firing rockets into civilian areas. To put it mildly their whole ideology is objectionable. Yes, we can all understand why such an organisation has public support in Gaza when a people live in the terrible conditions they do...but being publicly supported doesn't justify the unjustifiable.

If there's one thing we can all agree on in this mess, it's surely that the whole situation would be better off without Hamas and their ideologies? This is not tantamount to saying that the people of Gaza are the problem. And also does not presuppose that the Israeli tactics are the best way forward with regards removing the support for an organisation such as Hamas.

It should be recognised that long term stability cannot be achieved with Hamas (at least in their current guise) as the representative of the people of Gaza. Living conditions need to dramatically improve in Gaza to start eroding public support for Hamas.
 
Like it or not, Hamas were democratically elected by the Palestinian people. By disengaging them you are only going to radicalize them. To suggest that the Palestinians are blood thirsty animals is just buying into Israeli propaganda used to justify all its barbaric actions

They can elect who ever they like but it means feck all to everybody else.It doesn't mean any govt has to deal with them,as they can choose to ignore them instead.It made the whole issue easier for Israel because they are in charge and can stop the rocket attacks if they want to.
 
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Comparing europe to the middle east is completly missing the point.
If living standards in Gaza were the same as they are in Munich then i doubt a single shot would have been fired in anger.

I was comparing the time frame not geography. Remember that at the end of the Second World War the Germans were using US cigarettes as currency and had had most of their cities levelled by allied bombing.

If the Palestinians had reacted to loosing their war the same as the Germans then...
 
The way the Israelis had drawn Hezbulah into a conflict, two or three summers ago was an utter disgrace to the human race.

Selective memory?

Hezbollah launched an attack INTO Israel, killed and wounded several soldiers and kidnapped two of them.

That is what started the war.

On top of that the soldiers who were kidnapped were murdered and at last check their bodies were not returned.
 
I was comparing the time frame not geography. Remember that at the end of the Second World War the Germans were using US cigarettes as currency and had had most of their cities levelled by allied bombing.

If the Palestinians had reacted to loosing their war the same as the Germans then...

How about you read up on something called the Marshall Plan. Then maybe you'd realise how misguided your comparison is.
 
Selective memory?

Hezbollah launched an attack INTO Israel, killed and wounded several soldiers and kidnapped two of them.

That is what started the war.

On top of that the soldiers who were kidnapped were murdered and at last check their bodies were not returned.

They were returned.
 
Relativitiy is a bunch of crap when it can land on your head and kill you.

How many Israeli people died in this conflict, is that article correct, it was 4 people?


Holy feck, you people are sick and twisted!
If that is true.


And if this is true...

I declare WAR on Santa for the Christmas attack in Covina, California!!!
 
They can elect who ever they like but it means feck all to everybody else.It doesn't mean any govt has to deal with them,as they can choose to ignore them instead.It made the whole issue easier for Israel because they are in charge and can stop the rocket attacks if they want to.

And that is why the situation is so desperate for the Palestinians. They can’t win. They were asked to embrace democracy by the west and when they did they were punished for it. If you take away the right of a people to elect its own representative then you leave those people in a very desperate situation. I think many people in the west take self governance for granted. Where as, if you look in the middle-east democracy in non-existent.