Quote from ScHaLL

Not until a nuke from the Iran comes flying over and the jews all make a O_o face.


I don't see what's there so much to question. Israel isn't left much of a choice in defending themselves, regarding dudeman's statement. I also doubt that they're going "hah, take that, ****ing civilians". It's just that the Hamas is sitting everywhere in densely populated areas, in the midst of thousands of civilians, shooting at targets in Israel. Israel is barely left a choice but to shoot back at where they are, in the midst of thousands of civilians.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

I think Israel is left a choice. I don't care how densely populated Gaza is, it's not worth it to kill hundreds of civilians. Israel isn't a bunch of terrorists, they should understand that there is never and excuse to kill civilians. Period. They should have found a work-around.

In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

The declared aim of the war is to weaken Hamas and to intensify the pressure until its leaders agree to a new ceasefire on Israel's terms. The undeclared aim is to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza are seen by the world simply as a humanitarian problem and thus to derail their struggle for independence and statehood.

As always, mighty Israel claims to be the victim of Palestinian aggression but the sheer asymmetry of power between the two sides leaves little room for doubt as to who is the real victim. This is indeed a conflict between David and Goliath but the Biblical image has been inverted - a small and defenceless Palestinian David faces a heavily armed, merciless and overbearing Israeli Goliath.

Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It did so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men.
The Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye is savage enough. But Israel's insane offensive against Gaza seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash.

No amount of military escalation can buy Israel immunity from rocket attacks from the military wing of Hamas. Despite all the death and destruction that Israel has inflicted on them, they kept up their resistance and they kept firing their rockets. This is a movement that glorifies victimhood and martyrdom. There is simply no military solution to the conflict between the two communities. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

Quote from Jeremy

Get real, this is a war, terrible shit is going to happen. Its not worth it to Isreal to stop getting bombed? There never is an excuse to kill civilians, but this is a war, its going to happen regardless. There isn't any other way. The way hamas fights forces them to do this.

Its funny though, I heard this in a completely different way from my mom, it shoes how bullshit and biased all of this is.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

Read this article: http://www.stickpageportal.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1441588#post1441588

It's written by a former member of the Israeli army, who never questioned Israel until now.


Whether you agree with this guy or not, his viewpoint is interesting.





What? How is this biased? I reached my conclusion based on numbers. And 3 civilians to 600 civilians can NEVER be justified. As the above article mentioned, this isn't even an eye for an eye. It's an eye for an eyelash. Absolutely ridiculous.

Quote from Jeremy

I didn't mean that you were being biased, I meant all the information we are getting from the different sides is.

And the above article is absolutely biased and ridiculous, I cant believe you are actually taking it practically, I mean seriously? Did you even read what he wrote?. And you didn't link to it I don't think.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

For another eye-opening article, read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm
It's from the BBC about how Israel may be shooting fleeing civilians in the back (although, as mentioned above, we can't get international journalists to confirm). And the BBC is known for having little bias.

Quote from Jeremy

Sorry if I'm not going believe and angry Palestinian on the subject of Israeli brutality.

Sure the article could be considered eye opening if you want to believe what he is saying. That's what is so stupid and angering about this whole conflict is that no one really knows what is and isn't the truth, which kinda makes this argument moot, no one has any evidence to back anything up. Couldn't all those civilians have been killed by the terrorists, and not the Israelis? It seems like you are putting all the blame on Israel and not on the fact that they are doing this to defend themselves.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

It seems like you are giving Israel all the benefit of the doubt. Note that the reason we don't really know what is happening is because of ISRAEL. And note that the first article I linked to was by a Jewish man who was once in the Israeli army, and the second article (the BBC one) was written by 4 people, 3 of which are based in Jerusalem. It seems that you treat any article that isn't favorable to Israel is biased. Open your eyes.

Quote from Jeremy

Well golly, I feel for Israel since they just got the shit bombed out of them by a large terrorist group. Why in the world wouldnt I give them the benefit of the doubt? The one article that you linked was obviously biased, if you couldn't see that by the time you read to the middle, then you are the one who needs to open his eyes. I never called the bbc one biased I don't think, I'm just saying we don't know the exact statistics yet, so no one can make a real judgment call.

Both sides are fighting each other, hamas is in part responsible for the civilian casualties, I am sure of that, it seems like you are blaming Israel for everything, yo, and that's wrong.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

13 casualties is "bombed the shit out of"? Really? I'll tell you who got the shit bombed out of them. The Gaza civilians. 600 of them are dead. And yes, the numbers are not official. I know. But who cares if it is 500 people or 700 people. It's still a shitload of people and it's still complete bullshit.

As for the first article being biased, may I again remind you that that article was written by a former Israeli soldier. He was definitely very harsh towards Israel in that article. Probably more harsh than he should have been. He may have even been a little extreme in some areas. But he still made many excellent points, and you shouldn't dismiss his entire article.

Quote from Dragon⁰⁷⁷

...

This isn't a debate on Governments. It's a debate on whether Israel's military actions are justified or not.

Quote from Jeremy

What the hell? Its like you are defending the terrorists. The fact is that they were bombed, BOMBED, for no reason, are they supposed to just sit there and take it? How do you want them to fight?

I don't care who the article was written by, when he starts calling the leaders of Israel "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders", and started sounding like a antisemitic douchebag, I stopped caring what he had to say.

And before you say "HE CANT BE ANTISEMETIC BECAUSE HE USED TO BE IN THE ISRAELI ARMY!!@!!!@@!@" Yes, he can.