HaAretz - a very left of center Israeli paper - opinion pieces are hardly supportive of your claim as to public opinion at large. OTOH HaAretz does note this.
Politically the problem is that the military action is very popular among the general public. As that overall very critical article continues
Not too helpful to not have any idea of what would be an appropriately proportionate response. If you are going to tell Israel what it shouldn’t do you should be prepared to tell it what would be an acceptable alternative. Should Israel perhaps wait for Hamas to fully deploy more effective rockets so more Israelis die first and then respond so the death toll is more even? Give some guidance.
*A * major paper at least - no. 3 of Israel’s three major daily papers, as far as distribution goes.
Ha’aretz is highly respected and has a spotless reputation, but it’s also, by its own admission, a left-wing paper. As someone who reads all three, I’d put it somewhere between the New York Times and the Village Voice, politics-wise.
As for Israeli public support - I don’t have any hard data, but in general, most people I’ve spoken to support the action. I guess most of them are sick and tired of feeling sick and tired.
No, I see no note that it was addressed to anyone in particular and it followed my post to you. Had you made it clear who you were addressing this misunderstanding would not have happened.
It shows how the whole issue is framed that one can condemn the Palestinians without explanation or apology but any condemnation of Israel has to be couched in stronger condemnations of the Palestinians and it seems no amount of condemnation is enough. Fuck that. This thread is about the Israeli blockade and it is the Israelis who these days are doing wholesale slaughter of civilians.
I condemn human rights abuses anywhere and everywhere by anyone. And I condemn the aid given by America to those who carry out such abuses.
You misunderstand. As you feel like sending me your regards I am also sending you my regards, Shodan.
You have been told many times it is annoying and condescending and in fact you are breaking the rule that states signatures can only be used once per thread. In any case, I am responding to the entirety of your post. If you do not want me to respond to your stupid signature just don’t use it. But as long as you use it others can respond to it.
Bombing military targets embedded within a dense population center* and having less than a hundred civilian deaths you call “wholesale slaughter of civilians”? I call it a tragedy but if one accepts that taking out the military targets is appropriate then pretty damn good minimizing of civilian deaths. For contrast look even at the relatively mundane Gulf War 1 in which despite coalition forces allegedly doing their best to minimize civilian deaths
*Gaza has “one of the highest … population densities in the world. … a population density of 4,270 persons per sq km (11,060 per sq mi).”
America has created the problem in Afghanistan and is asking for other NATO countries to help sort out the mess. I was extremely pleased to see and hear premier Zapatero say he will definitely NOT send Spanish combat troops to Afghanistan under any circumstances, no matter how hard they pressure him. He said Spain has peacekeeping forces on a humanitarian and reconstruction mission and that is what they will keep doing.
I agree with him. Heavy handed and trigger happy tactics have seriously backfired both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If American generals want to create enemies by killing civilians then let America deal with the consequences.
You are asking me a question which I believe is framed wrongly.
First it implies the Palestinian rockets come out of nowhere. Like the Israelis were all having dinner when a rocket fell and nothing had happened before that. The Palestinians might have a different view and say the rockets are a response to Israeli actions. What you have is not one side responding to attacks from the other side. What you have is two sides mutually engaged in exchanging attacks. Of course, Israel knows how to work the press and frame these questions to their advantage.
So, I start by denying your assumption that Israel is merely responding to an unprovoked attack.
I further do not accept the implied assertion that I have to supply an alternative which Israel could do and which would resolve the issue. Killing civilians just because they can’t think of anything else is wrong. Just like Hamas may have very legitimate complaints but killing civilians just because they cant think of another way to “do something” is wrong.
I know Americans tend to think you can solve many problems by just killing people but in fact it tends not to work that way as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown recently. Besides the immorality of it most times it just makes things worse.
My first set of questions were very abstract and imply nothing about the particular situation. Please answer those at least. (You’ll excuse me if I do not respond until sometime next year!)
Well sure. The Palestinians probably launched those rockets in response to the Israeli’s whacking some Hamas leadership which was in response to a suicide bombing which was in response to a street fight which was in response too a different suicide bombing which was in response to some obscure fight in Lebanon which was…
…ultimately due to the the initial invasion of the nascent state of Israel by all of it’s neighbors bent on wiping them out and the Palestinians fleeing toward the glorious Arab armies who were going to deliver them from the nasty Jews and give them a home land they never had before under either the Turks or the English (fat chance those victorious neighbors would have given the Palestinians the sweat off their balls or pissed on their backs if they had been on fire, but c’est la vie)…which didn’t happen (any of several invasion attempts) because Israel hasn’t lost. Yet.
Yes, there has been a cycle of violence…but no matter how you parse it, it’s been the Palestinian’s/Hamas who bears the lions share of keeping this thing going for so long. They have been given chance after chance but they just can’t resist keeping the cycle of violence going by periodic suicide bombs and rocket attacks. Those poor stupid bastards just don’t realize that they WOULD be the victims in this comic tragedy if only they would wise up and stop the killing and violence. Israel is able to portray itself as the victim because they are under constant attack by people who’s express goal is to wipe out the Jewish state and probably most of the Jews living there, and who not only directly attack civilian targets but attack them from the cover of their OWN frigging citizens areas…thus killing more of their own people (deliberately) than Jewish civilians, as they attempt to make people (like several in this thread) think Israel is the bad guy.
I don’t think anyone believes that Israel is never in the wrong or doesn’t do some fairly heinous things on occasion…but it’s hard to blame them when one actually LOOKS at the situation and the history. If the Palestinians ever wise up and cut the throats of the blood thirsty rabid dogs in their midst they are going to figure out what Gandi figured out…you get more traction with honey than with bullets, especially on the world stage.
you should put all relevant information in the body of the post because the edit line is there to say why you edited the post, not to include the changes themselves. I have no interest in reading at what time or why you edited your post. And while this is true in every case it is much more so in your specific case because I stop reading when I get to your annoying and fuckingly stupid signature which you insist on using more than once per thread in spite of it being against the rules.
The UN was a creation of the USA at the end of WWII and the USA has used it when it serves its ends.
So let me get this straight. When the rest of the world agrees with America then the rest of the world is right but when the rest of the world disagrees with America then the rest of the world is wrong. That’s what the UN is? It is a place where other countries are allowed to agree with America? And just to make sure America has veto power.
I get the impression America has a rather inflated and unrealistic sense of its place in the world (and is going bankrupt in the process of trying to keep up with that impression).
I find it hypocritical to claim the UN should be awarded respect and authority when they rule in your favor and then claim they are “a joke” when they rule against you. I find it hypocritical to demand others abide by UN resolutions when you are in the breach of many. America is quick to demand others abide by the resolutions it favors but it looks the other way when it’s friends do the same and America itself has not abided by some resolutions. To demand that others comply with the UN while you do not comply is just hypocritical and others take note.
I find it hypocritical to blame France for mentioning it could use its veto while America uses its veto all the time.
Maybe it’s just me but if you are going to preach right and morality I expect your actions to match your words.
If by “you” you mean me - when have I ever claimed that the UN should be awarded respect and authority? When have I ever preached right and morality?
Anyway, it’s not hypocritical to to compliment someone when he agrees with you while dismissing him when he doesn’t. In fact, I’d call it normal human behaviour, evident in roughly 500,000 posts on the SDMB.