Israel attacks Gaza - Page 33 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-11-2009, 04:04 PM   #481
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
God this is pedantic and condescending. Palestine is a country which includes those who live under Palestinian Authority.
Pedantic and condescending?

Palestine is a COUNTRY?

Hello!!!!
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 04:07 PM   #482
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
The fact remains until Israel attacked on the 4th of November. It was reasonably calm by the standards of the region. So the whole rocket excuse is bull, it's all to do with the Israeli elections.
I would disagree on the "reasonable" part of your post. If you want to attack the timing go ahead. In fact I'll attack them on their timing too.

They should have intervened sooner.

Israelis getting used to occasional bombings doesn't pass any natural human response test. Unless you think shock is a normal emotion that people should be exposed to all the time.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 04:09 PM   #483
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Pedantic and condescending?

Palestine is a COUNTRY?

Hello!!!!
If they have a government and elections and a leadership and a flag and the U.N. recognizes them then they are a country. The debate is over the borders. Why do you think most people use the term "Palestine"?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 05:29 PM   #484
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:50 PM
The UN (and the US for that matter) consider the West Bank and Gaza to be "occupied territories," not "a country"--that term is generally understood to entail international recognition as a sovereign state, which the Palestinians don't yet have. By definition, anyone who supports a two-state solution (which would be most of the world) holds the opinion that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a sovereign state; nonetheless, as of now they still don't have one. Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, which constitutes de facto occupation (whence the UN still considers Israel's Fourth Geneva Convention obligations, as an occupying power, applicable), while the West Bank is occupied outright and effectively carved up into corridors by Israeli settlements, which (along with their access roads and buffer zones) are controlled exclusively by Israel politically.

An 'Islamic fundamentalist' categorical refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist is obviously not the sole problem, otherwise previous land-for-peace talks would've succeeded. A stated willingness in principle to recognize Israel's right to exist doesn't mean willingness to accept whatever land-for-peace terms Israel might prefer, nor does it rule out violent resistance to illegal settlements, crippling blockades and just in general the fact that 60 years on the Palestinians still have no state of their own. Now it might be true that the present conflict wouldn't have happened were Fatah still in control of Gaza, but that doesn't mean no more serious obstacles to successful land-for-peace talks would exist. And it certainly doesn't mean that a military response on this scale to missile fire into Israel--a response which has had horrific consequences for Gaza's already traumatized civilian population--is going to be shrugged off as Israel's perfect right, no big deal, by non-fundamentalist Palestinian political actors.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 05:43 PM   #485
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I would disagree on the "reasonable" part of your post. If you want to attack the timing go ahead. In fact I'll attack them on their timing too.

They should have intervened sooner.

Israelis getting used to occasional bombings doesn't pass any natural human response test. Unless you think shock is a normal emotion that people should be exposed to all the time.
The point remains, until 4th of November there were fewer rocket attacks than there currently are. From all reports Hamas were not firing rockets.

Are Israelis safer now? The Palestinians certainly aren't.
__________________
popshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 05:52 PM   #486
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
The UN (and the US for that matter) consider the West Bank and Gaza to be "occupied territories," not "a country"--that term is generally understood to entail international recognition as a sovereign state, which the Palestinians don't yet have. By definition, anyone who supports a two-state solution (which would be most of the world) holds the opinion that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a sovereign state; nonetheless, as of now they still don't have one. Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, which constitutes de facto occupation (whence the UN still considers Israel's Fourth Geneva Convention obligations, as an occupying power, applicable), while the West Bank is occupied outright and effectively carved up into corridors by Israeli settlements, which (along with their access roads and buffer zones) are controlled exclusively by Israel politically.

An 'Islamic fundamentalist' categorical refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist is obviously not the sole problem, otherwise previous land-for-peace talks would've succeeded. A stated willingness in principle to recognize Israel's right to exist doesn't mean willingness to accept whatever land-for-peace terms Israel might prefer, nor does it rule out violent resistance to illegal settlements, crippling blockades and just in general the fact that 60 years on the Palestinians still have no state of their own. Now it might be true that the present conflict wouldn't have happened were Fatah still in control of Gaza, but that doesn't mean no more serious obstacles to successful land-for-peace talks would exist. And it certainly doesn't mean that a military response on this scale to missile fire into Israel--a response which has had horrific consequences for Gaza's already traumatized civilian propulation--is going to be shrugged off as Israel's perfect right, no big deal, by non-fundamentalist Palestinian political actors.
i've purposefully stayed out of this debate, but just wanted to say that this is an excellent post.
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 05:55 PM   #487
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by popshopper View Post
So, on average 6 per month over a 3 month period before Israel attacked to something like 10 per day after they attacked. Yet people still blame the rockets for the Israeli aggression.
On the days before the attack dozens of rockets were fired by Hamas.
__________________
sarit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 06:04 PM   #488
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 112
Local Time: 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I would never advocate that any civilian population should happily accept some level of constant danger, but I understand popshopper's point insofar that having 2 or 3 rogue rockets land a month was a significant and laudable improvement and a very good starting point. You never start from the ideal, you work your way to it. To completely dismiss the positive effects of the ceasefire that was in effect does not serve any productive purpose.

It was the statement itself that got me, suggesting that this reality is should be accepted at all. It shouldn't.
I'm sorry, but in a ceasefire you don't occasionally fire, you just don't.

And yes, the Palestinians suffer. The average Palestinian got f***ed up by just about everyone – including his own government. However, this does not make the suffering of others ok.
__________________
sarit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 06:24 PM   #489
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
The UN (and the US for that matter) consider the West Bank and Gaza to be "occupied territories," not "a country"--that term is generally understood to entail international recognition as a sovereign state, which the Palestinians don't yet have. By definition, anyone who supports a two-state solution (which would be most of the world) holds the opinion that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a sovereign state; nonetheless, as of now they still don't have one. Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, which constitutes de facto occupation (whence the UN still considers Israel's Fourth Geneva Convention obligations, as an occupying power, applicable), while the West Bank is occupied outright and effectively carved up into corridors by Israeli settlements, which (along with their access roads and buffer zones) are controlled exclusively by Israel politically.
Palestine is recognized as a defacto country since 1988. No not in the full sense of Canada or the U.S. since borders haven't been agreed upon. Formal borders aren't going to be assigned until both sides agree to the existence of each other. There's also the problem of what to do with the Jews of the West Bank who look at themselves as Israelis.

Anitram was trying to be pedantic to avoid my point that the governments in Gaza and West Bank are not helpless in curbing terrorism. It's not beyond their control. The PLO at least amended their charter. Hamas needs to recognize Israel or no one will take them seriously in regards to peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
An 'Islamic fundamentalist' categorical refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist is obviously not the sole problem, otherwise previous land-for-peace talks would've succeeded. A stated willingness in principle to recognize Israel's right to exist doesn't mean willingness to accept whatever land-for-peace terms Israel might prefer, nor does it rule out violent resistance to illegal settlements, crippling blockades and just in general the fact that 60 years on the Palestinians still have no state of their own. Now it might be true that the present conflict wouldn't have happened were Fatah still in control of Gaza, but that doesn't mean no more serious obstacles to successful land-for-peace talks would exist. And it certainly doesn't mean that a military response on this scale to missile fire into Israel--a response which has had horrific consequences for Gaza's already traumatized civilian propulation--is going to be shrugged off as Israel's perfect right, no big deal, by non-fundamentalist Palestinian political actors.
Which leaves Israel to eat the rocket attacks or be criticized for reacting to them. Small damage from Gaza rocket attacks is not a good enough reason for me to accept that Israel should not retaliate. Whether they should topple Hamas or not leads to the other question: What kind of election exists in Gaza? What would Hamas do if the PLO managed a win?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 06:37 PM   #490
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Palestine is recognized as a defacto country since 1988. No not in the full sense of Canada or the U.S. since borders haven't been agreed upon. Formal borders aren't going to be assigned until both sides agree to the existence of each other. There's also the problem of what to do with the Jews of the West Bank who look at themselves as Israelis.

Anitram was trying to be pedantic to avoid my point that the governments in Gaza and West Bank are not helpless in curbing terrorism.
First of all, don't tell me what I was trying to do. I was not being pedantic.

Second, you're flat our wrong on this, but thanks for posting it, now everything you say makes a lot more sense. I guess if you believe that the Palestinians have a country, then obviously they must be murderous savages who are attacking Israel only because they don't believe that Israel should exist. Why else?

By the way, the rest of the world, Israel included, disagrees that there is such a country as Palestine, de facto or otherwise at the moment. But I suppose you must know better.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 07:11 PM   #491
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
First of all, don't tell me what I was trying to do. I was not being pedantic.
Well if you change the subject from whether Hamas has any blame to my technically improper use of Palestine then that was my impression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Second, you're flat our wrong on this, but thanks for posting it, now everything you say makes a lot more sense. I guess if you believe that the Palestinians have a country, then obviously they must be murderous savages who are attacking Israel only because they don't believe that Israel should exist. Why else?
This still ignores the Hamas Charter and the hundreds of rockets fired into Israel. Though I haven't used the term "bloodthirsty savages" the acceptance of The Protocol of the Elders of Zion and other nasty assertions in the Hamas Charter could easily pass for that description.

Maybe border discussions could happen if Hamas wasn't a terrorist group and didn't fire into Israel (and allow Islamic Jihad to do so). I don't think Hamas was even trying to stop Islamic Jihad in any serious way. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If Israel was willing to pull out of Gaza it shows they wanted peace. Hamas ruined that opportunity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
By the way, the rest of the world, Israel included, disagrees that there is such a country as Palestine, de facto or otherwise at the moment. But I suppose you must know better.
Defacto means in practice but not in law. It doesn't require Israel or others to accept it, though half the world does. When people debate about Israel and Palestine they use the term Palestine to speed up communication. For your pleasure I'll use West Bank/Gaza or West Bank or Gaza depending on how region specific I go with the subject matter. All righty?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 07:19 PM   #492
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

Maybe border discussions could happen if Hamas wasn't a terrorist group and didn't fire into Israel
The PLO was a terrorist group or have you forgotten Black September? And eventually Israel saw it necessary to begin negotiations with them too.

The US also classified the ANC as a terrorist group and the SA government certainly thought so, yet they were brought into the political realm too.


Quote:
Defacto means in practice but not in law.
Thanks, heaven knows that I hadn't learned that in law school.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 07:45 PM   #493
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 459
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarit View Post
On the days before the attack dozens of rockets were fired by Hamas.
Not before the 4th of November when Israel bombed and killed 6 Palestinians. The ceasefire had largely held. The increase in bombing came after that. The Israeli excuse was that the people they killed where digging a tunnel into Israel, which if true you have to wonder why they would bomb, surely it would be better to get them in the act. You then have proof as you catch them in the act, as it was if the Israeli's knew of the existence of the tunnel it was no threat, all the bombing did was inflame the situation.

I would think it's obvious why this has happened. Labor and Ehud Barak have made significant gains in opinion polling since the offensive started and it will let Olmert slip away reasonably popular which may help him see out the corruption charges. It's internal Israeli politics being played out at the expense of the Palestinian people.
__________________
popshopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 10:00 PM   #494
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Why are you guys still talking about this?

There are plenty of other conflicts -like for example the Sri Lankan -Tamil conflict, and yet not a word!
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 10:05 PM   #495
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Sorry, not enough Jews.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com