They aren’t lumping them all together. Israel only shoots back at those who are firing rockets at them. As pointed out, Hamas attacks Israel whether she builds settlements or not.
Again - stopping the settlements did not induce the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith. There is therefore no reason to believe that stopping the settlements is going to cause Hamas to stop shooting rockets.
Israel did what you recommend - they showed the Palestinians the benefits of peace by putting a freeze on settlements. In return, the Palestinians showed Israeli the benefits of being nicer to them - rockets, terror, kidnapping, and murder.
So I guess there are two possible classifications of organizations that attack civilian populations:
(1) terrorists
(2) governments engaged in total war
Does it matter if Hamas is a terrorist organization or a government that is engaged in total war with Israel? Should Israel’s response be different depending which of those categories they fall into? Or is this just a question of semantics?
I could just as easily say that Netanyahu’s role is to address alll the palestinian grievances. If he can’t do that, then his role is irrelevant.
So its not all Palestinains like some of the folks on your side seem to think.
There was a period of time before rockets were fired and there will be a period of time after they are fired and it seems that the only time Israel takes anything Palestinians have to say seriously is when rockets are being fired at them. Perhaps Israel could try stopping the abuses against the more peaceful residents of the West Bank during this period of time.
And I have not criticized how they are conducting their retaliation. But that’s not winning hearts and minds in gaza. That just making it more palatable to outside observers like me.
Imagine you live in Gaza and Israel tells you to vacate because they are going to destroy your neighborhood. Do you think “well they are going to destroy my home but at least they told me so me and my family don’t die. gee those israelis are swell fellas.” or are you going to think “they blew up my fucking house!!!”
OK but the point was not Hamas but those who voted for them. remember. Some of your fellowtravellers were making the argument that because Palestinians voted for hamas they were indistinguishable from hamas. Palestine=Hamas, remember that? My point was that Palestinians weren’t voting for hamas so mucha s they were voting against Fatah and to make themselves more palatable to the Palestinians, they lied to them (imagine that, politicians lying to win elections).
Yes to the fire-bombing - state-sponored terrorism, in my opinion. Don’t know enough about the reasons behind carpet-bombing to comment.
There has traditionally been a distinction between state-level entities and non-state entities concerning the use of terror tactics, with the former being more acceptable in the context of seiges and the like and the latter being unacceplable. But then, any non-state combatants have been traditionally considered unacceptable.
To my mind, the state/non-state distinction isn’t very important for this issue. Fire-bombing cities for the pupose of terrorizing or “breaking the will” of the civilian population is clearly terrorism in my view, even though the Allies - obviously the ‘good guys’ in WW2 - did it. The Allies did a lot of questionable things, and the fact that they were the ‘good guys’ should not blind us to that.
Here in this conflict, Hamas is very obviouly using terror tactics and Israel is not. That is true regardless of whom you consider the “good guys” - one, both or neither.
They would be ordinary irregular combatants and not “terrorists”.
“Freedom fighter” is a value judgment on their cause, one I for one would be unwilling toi make - I don’t think Hamas is, in fact, fighting for “freedom”.
So they aren’t mindless animals??? You sure because thats not the impression I get from some of these posts.
These guys believe in punishing an entire people for the actions of a few, why in the world would they stop punishing the immediate families of terrorists?
You have any evidence for that? Because I feel that this is true as well but its just a feeling, a belief, a hope based on the notion that these people have the same hopes and dreams for their children that i would have for mine. But maybe they are so embittered that the majority of Palestinians are like the mother who straps a bomb to her son’s chest and sends him into a crowded market. Do youn have any proof that most Palestinians are more like me than that mother?
Well, I think THIS is why we keep hearing about existential threats, etc. They have to believe that too much leniancy could result in catastrophic consequences, otherwise why wouldn’t they entertain these ideas?
I think that this is a sticking point that won’t go away and why Israel won’t accept a one state solution (at least until they trust the palestinians a lot more). Its not just a desire to maintain a Jewish majority (which many do), its a desire to avoid a Palestinian majority. A majority that might make Jews second class citizens in their own country (gee, I wonder if Palestinians feel that way right now).
I’m always amazed that during all these idiotic arguments over the definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist” none of the anti-Israel crowd ever bring up the people and groups who founded Likud.
It’s certainly the first thing Palestinian intellectuals usually bring up. Granted they actually care about the Palestinians and their cause.
/sigh. once again. Where do I ever say that Israel cannot defend itself against rocket attacks. You are imagining that. Its not part of my argumenht that you can only retaliate against existsential threats. You are tilting at straw men.
This existential threat business is distorting how people look at peace. Israel acts like it has Damocle’s sword haning over their heads and refuse to negotiate with anyone (even the relatively peaceful WB palestinians) until that sword has been removed. But frankly if it was REALLY an existenial threat, Israel would be more inclined to negotiate, not less so.
Israel’s reluctance to negotiate is in part because there is not existential threat but they can only defend their reluctance to negotiate by pretnding the threat is grave indeed.
I thought I read all of them and I don’t see a moral argument anywhere in there. Can you point it out to me?
No I see the difference, I just wanted confirmation. So then weren’t Irgun and Lehi terrorist organizations? Didn’t some of the leaders of these organizations end up as Israel’s political leaders?
And BTW, aren’t some civilian casualties permissible in the pursuit of valid military targets (see King David Hotel). So why aren’t the passengers of the flight that was sent to the pentagon a permissible civilian casualty in the pursuit of a military target?
If building settlements was the only grievance that they had, then you wold make more sense. And I was accusing some of the posters of lumping themtogether, not Israel. I think their response to the rocket attacks is permissible and shold be tolerated by the international community. I don’t think they are treating the WB any shittier than usual.
By itself, no, of course not.
All palestinians or just Hamas? See even you’re doing it. You are attributing hamas actions to all Palestinians.
I was responding to a post that said “Given that there is no regional governing force that can do that, Israel gets to contain/render ineffective Hamas’ attacks.”
See the word “can” That indicates that Abbas is unABLE to stop hamas, not that he is unWILLING to stop hamas. And similarly Mexico is unABLE to stop the mexican drug cartels. I frankly have no problem with israeli retaliation but I do have a problem with how they treat Palestinians when rockets aren’t flying in the air.
AFAIR, they attacked military sites and military personnel. Yes, killing Bernadotte was a terrorist act. No, bombing King David hotel wasn’t, it was the British military HQ at the time.
Yes, you could say that. It would be stupid, but you could say it. Because “we don’t want Hamas to fire rockets at us” is a legitimate grievance, and a leader who cannot or will not address it is irrelevant. “We don’t want Israel to exist” is not a legitimate grievance, and a leader who ignores it is still relevant.
No one on my side in this thread has said this.
Again, this is not close to true. As mentioned, Israel did stop the settlementsfor ten months, as well as negotiated a deal that would have given the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted. The PA in the form of Arafat refused. They didn’t make a counter-offer, they didn’t do anything. They just said No and kicked off another intifada.
So they did try that. It did not have the results you think it would have.
I am going to think “they blew up my fucking house, and those fuckers in Hamas told me to stay put so I and my children would die and they could blame it on Israel.” Then I would think “if you want someone to get blown up for good PR then keep the rockets in your own fucking back yard and leave me in peace.” I wouldn’t say it out loud, because Hamas kills its own as freely as they kill Israelis, but I would think it.
Who gives a flying fuck? The point is that Hamas is lying when they pretend they won’t kill Israelis if Israel makes nice. So we cannot depend on making nice if we want Hamas to stop killing Israelis. Stopping the settlements doesn’t do it, giving them Gaza to have their own state doesn’t do it, nothing seems to do it.
So Israel has to kill them instead. Because nothing else works.
You sure because thats not the impression I get from some of these posts.