It would be an extremely brave Palestinian living in the war zone, who was prepared to publicly condemn the types of people who use their own children as shields - albeit ineffective ones; they only slow a bullet down, and do nothing against a tank shell! - don’t you think?
Would you be willing to stick your head above the parapet?
How much blame do you want to attach to these people, for the actions of hateful extremists, of which Israel has plenty of its own?
Silly me, I thought that there are lots of terrorist groups, and even countries, calling for “the death of Israel”. When the United States went under one day of terrorism on it’s own soil, it send 10’s of thousand of soldiers overseas and spent billions of dollars to defend itself.
In contrast, Israel has had thousands of act of terrorism on it’s own soil. It’s not surprising that they defend themselves vigorously. The Palestinians could end this tomorrow by showing they are capable of a lasting peace. If that happens I’ll support a return to the pre-1967 borders.
The Palestinians are children who will not accept 95% of what they want, but instead stamp their feet and prolong their suffering. A peaceful Palestinian state would receive billions of dollars of foreign aid an could quickly become as prosperous as Israel. Instead they will have more generations of people living in refugee camps.
Well, I would consider a world bias towards major powers not an anti-Israel bias. I would not dispute that USA, Russia, and China get away with things because of their size and power. I don’t think that Israel gets mistreated compared to countries of similar size and strength.
I don’t believe UN resolutions is a good measure of much of anything beyond the structure of the UN. The middle east has gotten a ton of resolutions because it has been at war for really long time and it is a vital area to the world’s interests. You are going to have more resolutions if you have constant fighting than a couple of big events. If you note there have been many more resolutions against the Palestitians and other Arab nations as compared to Africa/major powers as well.
Iraq didn’t cause many resolutions because well the U.S. is permanent member of the security council, which makes them difficult to pass. I’d be happy to call the invasion of Iraq as wrongheaded as any action Israel has taken if you like.
Oh and isn’t like these resolutions have had any force behind them. From your site:
“In 2002, the PLO issued a report[46] prepared by Marc Weller of Cambridge University and Barbara Metzger comparing the international response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to similar situations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Rwanda, East Timor and Iraq. It contended that the international community, and the UN Security Council in particular, displayed pro-Israel bias because in these other cases
" the international community has both condemned violations of international law and has taken action to ensure that the violations cease. In the case of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, however, while the same condemnations have been issued against Israel, absolutely no enforcement action has been taken.”[47]
So a guy stays with his family even at risk to his personal well being. His family chooses to stay by him even at great risk to their own. In another time and place you would call these people brave or perhaps stupid, but certainly not evil acts. But you seem unwilling to see thing. But you are unable or unwilling to look with objective eyes so we might as well move on.
Let’s say they wanted you to kill them. Why the hell would you do what they want? What do you think it possibly will accomplish? Do you think if you take out enough Hamas leaders there won’t be more to take their place? Do you think killing woman and children will help you capture the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people? Do you think you will scare people willing to die for their cause? Even if we accept that Israel can do whatever it wants in their own best interest it is far from clear these bombings help them.
The guy says he wanted to be a martyr and sacrificed his family, needlessly, in order to place political pressure on his enemy. You’d prefer to cast this as “bravery” or maybe mere “stupidity”. And all that nonsense in service of dodging the fact that, yes, it was indeed an instance of a person using human shields in order to draw fire down on himself and cause political pressure against his enemy. Again, a man willingly sacrifices his wives and children in order to make a political point, and you try to ameliorate it… and I’m not the one being objective.
Perhaps you should have stuck with the “Well, I like to go camping with my family sometimes, too!” argument.
Wow. So when the military liaison of your enemy’s forces is a viable target, you shouldn’t kill him if he’s ready to be killed. You’ve actually just argued that any Hamas member ready to die should not be a military target.
Rationalizations coming in pretty heavy now, eh? Is this logic you have reserved specially for Israel, or do you use it for all situations? "Naw, don’t take our their command and control staff, they’ll just replace them. And heck while you’re busy holding fire, don’t kill the enemy troops either. Don’t you know that there will be more that’re born to take their place? "
Of course, that is exactly what I’m arguing, good call. There’s a bit of straw sticking out of your argument though… I’m sure that’s normal.
Do? Something that works, I suppose. Has the present policy worked? If so, do that, if not stop doing it.
How about building a robust government in Palestine that can keep order? Just kicking out the crazy ideas here.
It’s not that simple. Offering to live in peace on only a fraction of the territory Israel now occupies (Peel Commission)? Tried. Offering to live in peace on a bit larger piece of territory that was still smaller than the '48 or '67 shape of Israel? Tried. Offering to give back the territorial gains after ‘67 in exchange for peace? Tried. Offering roughly 97% of the Palestinians’ territorial demands, plus billions in compensation for refugees in exchange for peace? Tried.
The security barrier? Tried and it’s actually quite successful in preventing suicide bombings/infiltrations. Military campaigns? Tried and they tend to somewhat disrupt enemies’ ability to wage war, but only temporarily.
The only things that haven’t been tried are complete surrender and total war. Neither is an option.
How do you just “build” such a thing?
They’ve tried to find a reasonable negotiating partner on the Palestinian side who can make and enforce a peace. Don’t you think if they could just ‘build’ one, they’d have done it by now?
Probably not. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Of course the PA under dear old Yassar turned down a very generous deal. The Saudis pointed out such a rejection was “not a mistake, but a crime,” but of course the Israelis have also withdrawn the offer.
I never agreed to the military response to 9/11 anyway.
I’m from the UK. We had more than one terrorist incident to deal with here, but we never sent missiles into urban areas. Of course, we hadn’t endured a Holocaust to fuck up our collective psyche.
That’s good of you.
Don’t tell me! - Israel is the wise old patriarch, merely trying to steer the wayward Palestinian children onto a more productive path.
And you truly believe the Palestinian people are so corrupted by violence and hate for Israel that they want the latter?
They sound like The Neighbours From Hell… have you ever considered moving?
That’s quite true. So Hamas shouldn’t be making hospitals and schools into targets by hiding behind them.
Regards,
Shodan
So the only tool they have isn’t a hammer.
Finish the sentence.
…after Arafat didn’t just turn down the deal but started a war in response to it and then after the Palestinians elected Hamas which rejects Israel’s right to exist and supports the genocide of the Jews and which explicitly said that all previous treaties and agreements with Israel were null and void.
All of which gets to the point: if the Israelis could have found a partner for peace in 2000-2001, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The issue is why Israel is treated as a “special case”. The fact that other great military powers are insulated from criticism goes part-way to explaining it … the fact that there is a block of Muslim countries, in most of whom anti-Israel sentiment is automatic and entrenched, provides a further explaination.
There is no doubt in my mind that the UN does not treat Israel in the same manner as other countries, and objective facts prove the case.
For example, Israeli ethnic nationalism has in the past, uniquely, been declared in an official resolution to be a form of “racism”.
As far as I’m aware, this is a rather unique distinction.
Other facts - Israel is (again, uniquely) the subject of half of the (critical) resolutions of the UN Human Rights Commission - the fact that the UN has two agencies responsible for refugees, one for the Palestinains and one for all of the other refugees in the world … the list goes on and on.
The fact that the UN GC is toothless isn’t relevant; the issue is whether, overall, Israeli is treated as a 'special case". The evidence that it is, is overwhelming. There are plenty of reasons for that situation, of course: Israel is a comparatively small country; Israel has few friends internationally and lots of enemies … but none have to do with the actual alleged brutality of the Israeli regime, which is mild indeed compared to many others - including all of the major powers and all of Israel’s immediate neighbours.
Fact of the matter is that, as ethnic conflics caused by the crack-up of the European colonial empires following WW2 go, the Israeli situation is small potatoes, and the damage is only being kept alive (quite deliberately) by Israel’s enemies. It pales in comparison with, say, the partition of India, in which nearly as many people died as the entire population of Israelis and Palestinains combined, and amidst scenes of incredible brutality and carnage.
If we invaded part of Mexico because the drug cartels were getting out of control and mexico obviously couldn’t handle its business, we would have to minimize civilian casualties to a degree much higher than israel has observed.
If we invaded Mexico and stripped them of any ability to fight drug cartels on their own and then inflicted civilian casualties, I think it would take a LOT of chutzpah to insinuate that Mexicans should somehow have been taking care of these drug dealers on their own.
So if we were fighting an enemy that wore no uniforms, operated out of Mexico City and used human shields, you really expect us to have an ever better ratio of military to civilian casualties than 1:2?
Can you provide cites of similar wars in dense urban environments with even better ratios?
So Hamas can no longer maintain control over Gaza through force?
Cite that that too please.
I’m not an American - but if mexican “insurgents”, run by the Mexican government (taken over violently by narco-cartels) were randomly firing missiles into Texas, hiding in among the population because in their opinion Texas belongs to them because it was unjustly seized and they wish to drive the current Texans out … what response do you truly, realistically think the US government would have?
You just perpetrated one on the Irish.
(At the danger of asking a serious question in a screaming thread, does Israel recognize Palestine’s right to exist? I note the Arabs have done the contra-wise for going on a decade now.)
Yes, if and but and so on.
Still Israel does have a partner. A bunch of killers and bandits. The same sort of people who have gathered around every peace table for the last couple of centuries. You have to make peace with Bad Guys, making peace with Good Guys is unnecessary.
Did Dan Blather just compare British treatment of the Irish to The Holocaust?
I’ll admit we committed our atrocities, but that seems a bit of an extreme viewpoint.