I’m not sure I understand why people seem to think that Palistinians are violent.
I know a fair few people who have been out there, from doctors doing aid work, to socialists going to see the wall and take photographs of how the settlements of the Palistinians were being emptied.
All of them said that they felt more scared around the Israelies than the Palistinians.
Most of those killed were Hamas militants/members.
Cite: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians
Excerpt: “A Hamas police spokesman, Ehab Ghussen, said 180 members of the Hamas security forces were among the dead, and the U.N. agency in charge of Palestinian refugees said at least 51 of the dead were civilians.”
Agree entirely with your point, but not all the dead are civilians. Far, far too many are, but let’s get the facts straight.
I’d say the average Palestinian, while many of them likely hate Israel and the Jews, aren’t necessarily violent. Hamas sure is, though.
I only know one Palestianian, and he’s an ex-pat, so I couldn’t really say for sure.
If he wanted to send you to the middle East to parade around in front of the building with a sign like that, you wouldn’t come back and you know it.
You know, regardless of whether our pal Diogenes is correct or not about the sign thing it is silly to call him a coward because he doesn’t wish to abandon his family in order to make a trip to Palestine. Taking up the offer to go would make him an irresponsible prick. So let’s just drop the coward bit.
Show them some fucking respect
Have 300 civilians been killed?
Truthfully I don’t know what all the options are. I’m not convinced bombing Hamas targets is going to help but then I’m not convinced that allowing them to fire mortars and rockets into Israel without fear of reprisal is going to help either. I wish I could pull a good answer out of my ass but the truth is all of the options seem pretty bad.
We’re not acting like a bully - bullies pick fights. Bullies don’t just want to be left alone.
I’d like to re-ask a question I asked much earlier in this thread - what is the virtue of a proportionate response? My answer to this is none whatsoever. Allow me to illustrate my point with a simple hypothetical:
I walk up to you and punch you in the face. You respond in one of the following ways:
A. You do nothing. In which case I punch you in the face a few more times and take your lunch.
B. You punch me in my face exactly as hard as I punched you. I punch you once again even harder, you respond in kind, until eventually we’re both lying on the ground with our faces beaten into bloody pulps. We crawl off to lick our wounds and do the whole think over again the next day. This is a “proportionate response.”
C. You slip on a pair of brass knuckles and break my jaw. This is a “disproportionate response”.
Obviously, if your goal is to prevent getting punched in the face and/or losing your lunch, option C is the best policy. The result as far as I am concerned is pretty much the same, but you, on the other hand, are punched in the face much less, which is a definite plus. Furthermore, option C significantly reduces the chance of me, or anyone else, punching you in the face again, which in the long run is better for everyone.
Thus, disproportionate responses are smarter, are better policy, and, due to the fact that they do not act to perpetuate the conflict, are actually more moral. Proportionate responses, OTOH, are petty, vindictive and are aimed at bringing about pain, not a resolution.
I don’t really see it as a “danger”. I don’t want to fight (and I certainly don’t want to die), but if I have to do it I have to do it.
Anyway, so far they’ve only talked about calling up various specialists and other key personnel. My battalion wasn’t called up in 2006, though, so I guess that if they start summoning infantry units, mine will be first in line.
It should also be pointed out that, at least according to the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Palestinians had been warned days before that they should remove themselves from any areas where Hamas was known to congregate. I’m not sure why some people think Israel tends toward reckless disregard for civilians, especially since Israel has fed, clothed, medically treated, and otherwise cared for Palestinians on a massive and steady basis in the Gaza strip since 2005.
I’d be absolutely fine. Your husband is a fucking idiot. And if he would really bankrupt himself to give me a free vacation to Israel, then he’s an irresponsible asshole. Shouldn’t you be standing behind him and cheering now? Does your voice ever get hoarse.
I think unless the wager is actually taken, neither of you should state for certain what would or would not happen. “I’d be absolutely fine, but I’m not going anyway” is just as much a chickenshit stance as “If you don’t take me up on this highly expensive, time-intensive, and dangerous offer, you’re a fucking coward.”
You say you’d “be fine”, but I notice that you’re not actually doing the thing that you claim you’ll “be fine” at.
You made a stupid statement. I called you on it and you backed down.
You tried to save face by implying that I would get in trouble with my wife. SHE called you on that and basically observed that you’re an idiot. Now your plan is to sew dissent between my wife and I? I suggest you remember the first rule of holes.
A blockade is regarded as an act of war. And for good reason.
Did Israel maintain the blockade during the cease-fire?
I find you mildly offensive. So I’ve ordered a major napalm strike on you and your family and neighbours. Seemed like the best option before things escalated. Hope you don’t mind.
Seriously though your post is scary. We’re not talking about a street brawl, but international relations. Disproportionate responses are exactly what escalates conflict.
Nothing chicken here. Could be that I’m ignorant and wrong, but I don’t believe for a second that I’d be in any danger. It just isn’t that easy for me to pick and go anywhere right now. If it was a trip to go sunbathe in Hawaii, I’d still have to say no. I can’t even go out to bars with friends or play in a band anymore.
It’s “sow” dissent, moron, not “sew.”
I have no ability to take you up on your offer. I have other responsibilities. As do you. Grow up.
Seems very easy to “call” him on it when you know damn well that any reasonable person is not going to run of to the middle east on the say-so of some random, anonymous name on the internet. This whole tangent is just moronic.
I am curious, would you have flown him business class? Would he have an expense account? What level of travel insurance? Will you pay for any shots needed? Phone calls home? How many days there would you pay for? Can his kids go too?
There are no answers needed for those questions, because nobody in their right mind will pay any attention to such a moronic offer. So as I say, its an easy offer to make. Doesnt prove fuck all about fuck all though.
‘Mildly offensive’ isn’t exactly the same as ‘killing civilians indiscriminately’. Disproportionate responses are the best way to get people to leave you alone; sure, breaking someone’s arm for punching you in the face makes you look a little unstable, but rational folk know not to punch you after that. Depending on the situation, giving up some popularity in return for not being messed with is a decent trade.
“You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone.”
Except in the real world you “get” Capone by trying him for tax fraud. Funny that.