You say this in response to the fact that Israel already offered the Palestinians their own autonomous state? And no, “the Arabs” have not “for decades”.
If those “killers and bandits” wont’ make peace then rather obviously they’re not partners for peace. And your claims are simply false, they are not “the same” as are always involved in peace negotiations recently. Groups like Hamas are genocidal and rejectionist, there is no ‘mid ground’ point for negotiation.
So this guy has his family follow him around to provide some sort of constant human shield? If so then I don’t see any way around killing his family but I did not get the impression that he constantly surrounded himself with his children.
Nope. I agree that you would rather kill only the couple of terrorists firing rockets from teh roof of the school building when you blow up that school full of children but you are minimizing the civilian casualties. I agree that things would be a lot simpler for you if Hamas would engage you in direct combat but so what?
If you killed every Hamas leader with a single bomb, would Israel be safe from rockets and terrorism from that point forward? If you really think Hamas is supported by the populace to the degree that you imply then you are never going to achieve peace through conventional military means, every Hamas leader killed will be replaced by another unless youa re simply willing to kill all Palestinians and I don’t think Israel has the stomach to commit genocide. You are stuck with endless war or trying to win hearts and minds.
And you believe Israel has been observing this balance?
Putting aside the fact that these rocket attacks are generally pretty ineffective compared to what an organized military force can achieve:
I get the feeling that you believe that there is not a reasonable alternative to what Israel has been doing that would result in lower civilian casualties?
I don’t know if bulldozing homes with people in them is any better bombing those homes but the attitude of at least some of the IDF seems clear:
“I didn’t see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. and I didn’t see house[s] falling down on live people. But if there were any, I wouldn’t care at all.”
Jenin doesn’t really sound like house to hosue fighting to me.
Then why are you comparing what you are doing with Dresden?
I don’t think the IDF is entirely indifferent to Palestinian lives. I just think they are more indifferent than they should be.
Did I use “The”? Holocaust is a word all by itself, look it up.
ETA: and even in your post you said that the UK had not endured a Holocaust. And that is what I responded to.
Your denials are not exactly convincing. The military liaison for a group waging war against another nation chooses to stay with his family even after he’s given warning that he’s going to be targeted, and your response is to say that unless he had his family follow him around he wasn’t using them as human shields.
Non sequitur plus strawman. Taking out command and control (as well as bomb/rocket makers) gives you breathing room. Your argument is nonsensical. We routinely target generals and key military personnel even though, of coruse, others can be promoted.
I’ve pointed this out to you several times. Please show me another war waged in a dense urban environment where enemy forces wear no uniforms, attack from population centers and use human shields that has a lower casualty ratio than 1:2.
You’re free to cite one.
Which is rather obviously was.
That’s an interesting cite. Its also interesting to note that there are more resolutions against Palestine and the palestinians than against israel. Maybe the UN is picking on the Palestinians.
There is certainly a lot of focus on the middle east. Perhaps it is because the creation of Israel is one of the first and most momentous things the UN ever did. The Palestinian issue is the oldest issue the UN has been dealing with.
Yes, Holocaust with a capital “H”. Which holocaust did you think I meant? :rolleyes:
…what?
That claim has already been refuted. The UN did nothing and in fact refrained from creating the state of Israel and the state of Israel’s creation was informed by the war, not the UN. Why are you repeating something that isn’t a fact?
So you don’t think its racist to say that anyone can become an Israeli citizen by marrying an Israeli except Palestinians. If a Palestinian maries an israeli, they cannot become a citizen by reason of their marriage.
You don’t think it is racist to say that children born in Israel are Israeli citizens unless one of tgheir parents is a Palestinian? If a child born in Israel has a Palestinian parent, they do not become citizens by reason of their place of birth even if one of their parents is an Israeli citizen.
You think that Israel cannot be racist against Palestinians because Israel took in Arab Jews that were expelled from Arab countries. that just proves that Israel isn’t racist against Arabs generally. If a Syrian marries an Israeli, the become Israeli citizens, not so for Palestinians. Does the fact that Israel doesn’t discriminate against Syrians mean that they are not racist against Palestinians?
The Palestinians aren’t a race, Arabs are allowed to gain citizenship in that manner, and the issue is one of a nation that is at war with Israel, not a ‘race’ they don’t like.
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:148, topic:538840”]
You think that Israel cannot be racist against Palestinians because Israel took in Arab Jews that were expelled from Arab countries. that just proves that Israel isn’t racist against Arabs generally. [/qutoe]
… and makes choices about Palestinians based on their nationality rather than their race.
No, the fact that all Palestinians who stayed in Israel now form roughly 1/5 of their population and have full rights and citizenship under the law, but those who have a different nationality are treated differently does that.
How is this about security and not racial demographics?
A Palestinian that marries an Israeli isn’t expelled because they are a security threat. They can stay and remain married to the Israeli, they simply cannot become citizens or vote as a result of their marriage. how does that imrpove Israel’s security?
If this law is for security pruposes, why doesn’t the law apply to Lebanese or Syrians? Why only the Palestinians?
I can’t believe anyone would actually defend this law. It is clearly designed to slow the demographic shift in Israel, in fact Israeli politicians have alluded to the demographic purpose of the law (they also cite security reasons but I still don’t understand how letting these people into your country but not letting them become citizens enhances security) “Those in favor of the law, such as Ze’ev Boim, say it is aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and that “We have to maintain the state’s democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature.”[3]”
Because member of the Arab race aren’t the target? Because people who claim nationality in a hostile nation to Israel are?
As just a very, very basic example, being able to get through checkpoints with Israeli plates.
You tell me. How many of the last, say, dozen suicide bombers infiltrated from Lebanon or Syria?
While allowing other Arabs to shift the demographic.
I guess we’re back to Israel just being incompetently racist.
Israel remains the Jewish state as long as the Law of Return is in effect. But if someone could vote to rescind that law and, say, institute Islam as the official religion of the state? That might just change things.
The issue is taht the conflict between the Israelis and Palsetinians is treated by the UN (and, really, by everyone else) as a ‘special case’. Different rules are applied to it, more attention is paid to it, and it comes in for a critique that is unique - from all sides.
The UN did not in fact “create” Israel - warfare did that - the original UN partition plan being rejected by Israel’s neighbours and the creation of Israel being taken, by them, as a declaration of war.
More to the point, the excessive and indeed obsessive focus on Israel has led to all sorts of bizzare and absurd distortions. A person unaquainted with the situation (say, a visitor from Mars) examining the UN’s records could be foregiven for thinking that Israel is the single most important issue in the world today, and actions by Israel the most brutral - after all, if you examine the UN Committee on Human Rights, a full half of their declarations are concerned with this conflict (pretty well unanimously contra Israel); the UN has two refugee organizations - one to deal with Palestinian refugees, and one to deal with all other refugees in the whole world; etc. etc.
Does Israel commit abuses and excesses? Of course it does. Every country involved in a lengthy conflict will. Have these been particularly or uniquely “bad”? No, they have not - in fact, in comparison with other worldwide ethnic conflicts, that between Israel and the Palestinians/proto Palestinian state is positively gentlemanly.
Just look at the pivotal year, 1948. The Bitish empire was cracking up in both Palestine and India. Which was worse or more significant? Judging by world interest, one would guess Palestine …
Now, those bizzare and absurd distortions have had their effect: Palestine has become emotional and symbolic, to many in the first world, of colonial-era grievances. They tend to look at Israelis as if they were European colonists. Israelis are not, however, “colonials”. They have no ‘metropolitan’ to ‘go back’ to. More than half of their population is in ancestry, middle eastern anyway (Shephardic or Mizrai). Most of the rest were born there and have no connection whatsoever with Poland or Romania or wherever their grandparents came from. Even symbolically, this excessive and obsessive focus appears to me wrong-headed, as it is based on a bunch of wrong assumptions about who the Israelis are.
I didn’t realize that was your main point. So if I can find some number of Palestinians that denounce terrorism, then what? Then do you have toa gree to everything I say? If EVERY single Palestinian sees Hamas as freedom fighters, does that make unneccessary civilian casualties any more acceptable?
My point was that I think that peaceful resistance is likely to get a lot further when you have rocks and the other side has guns and tanks. After 60 years, you would think that these guys would have at least that much figured out by now.
How exactly would Israel fight peaceful Palestinian demonstrations? If this became the modus operandi, how would you justify the discriminatory laws or withhold the right of return? Unless you view peaceful demonstrations (even illegal peaceful demonstrations) as a security threat, how could you follow the road you follow now?
you are assuming they are asking for everything they want. If you were to give hamas 95% of what they want, you would end up with 5% of Israel. BTW, I don’t think the right of return is 5% of what they want. 1967 borders isn’t supposed to the Palestinian offer to the Israelis to which the Israelis can counteroffer with 95% of the land they proposed (guess which 5% of the land Israel wants to keep).
That is a crazy idea because that robust government would have to have sufficient military and police power to throttle internal dissent from terrorists and Israel isn’t about to allow any Palestinian organization that much firepower. If Mahmoud Abbas had an army, you think that Gaza would be under Hamas control?
Do you have a cite for that comment by the Saudi prince? I have looked for a credible source but it is always hearsay rather than reporting.
Nope.
I cited it once directly to you. Twice. Once from mideastweb and once from the New Yorker. Your ad hom denial is rather arbitrary. People citing Bandar’s words aren’t “real” reporting because, we can imagine, real reporting involves citing Bandar’s words.
How are we doing in Kandahar?
OK who do you think is Mexico and who do you think are the drug cartels in this anaolgy because you either think Hamas is both, in which case you might as well declare war or you think hams is Mexico (in which case I am at a loss to identify the drug dealers).
The problem with the PA is not that it lacked the raw power do do down its opponents, it is that, through its endemic corruption, inefficiency, and contempt for the well-being of the average Palestinian, it lost credibility and thus the ability to rule a united Palestinian proto-nation.
Many Palestinains in the end favoured Hamas - because of their social-welfare schemes, and reputation for caring about keeping order. They won democratic elections, defeating Fatah, in 2006.
I don’t think we would do a better job at minimizing civilian casualties. After all the Mexicans are going to be our neighbors after the narco-government fails.