Hamas shot first.

They made their choice.

It's not like they didn't know they were outgunned.

Hamas aren't the only ones dying though Wolf. It doesn't matter who shot first. What matters is hundreds of Palestinians are dying. An entire people is trapped in a war zone.

Blame the guys who set up their rocket launchers next to the houses, then.

There's a step in between them setting up their rockets and some completely unconnected child getting killed. It's the stage when an Israeli remote controlled drone targets a 12 year old on a roof. That is not Hamas' fault, that;s Israel's fault.

Too true. The Israeli's should just stand there and take it like men. Targeting those shooting at you is soooo last century.

Maybe you should read the article as well wolf...

Lets take this extreme ideal example:
Community one (C1) and community two (C2) are stuck on an isolated island with limited food. C1 and C2 do not like each other. C1 has control of food and decides to limit the food available to C2. C2 becomes starved. C2 then decides to attack C1 to get food.

As you can see through that example and other examples such as the American revolution or the French revolution, fault does not always lie at who shoots first.

As I have shown a tremendous amounts of time, Hamas most likely fired rockets at Israel because of the siege placed on Gaza where Gazans are going hungry and lack medical supplies. I have heard other reports where Israel led a secret mission into Gaza but I can not back it up so I will not use it but that does remain a possibility.

This situation is not as simple as "Hamas shoots first so it is their fault", this is a very large string of cause and effects. If you elect a government that says they will destroy Israel, Israel will start a blockade. If you blockade Gaza and prevent them from getting adequate food, they will fire on Israel. If Hamas fires on Israel, Israel will unlease a ground attack. If Israel unleashes a ground attack, Gaza will......

....lose the ability to attack Israel, when the Hamas leadership and infrastructure to do so are gone, thereby producing the right conditions for the 750 trucks per day to once again continue crossing the Israeli border.


Feel free to put your own ellipisis up and make a prediction. It should be easy, since you believe the chain of events is so predictable.

Actually, I can say this is Hamas' fault. Living conditions are terrible, food supplies are short and all the rest of that. However, there was another option.

That option was: not firing on Israel after the 6 month cease fire was over and saying, "See, we can be civilized people. Let's talk about sending in more food and making things better for the people we're supposed to be governing."

Instead, they fired rockets into Israel and acted all surprised when Israel decided enough is enough and spanked them. Hard. Then they go crying to the rest of the world about "poor us, they are killing our civilians". Should have thought of that before you launched the rockets, dumbass.

While it sucks to be a civilian in this situation, they are the ones that elected Hamas to rule there, in the midst of shouts about Death to Israel. They have placed themselves into this situation. They have made the choices to get themselves here. Now it's time to pay for those choices.

I think that's about as good a round-up of the situation as any Pierce.


[eta] Wtf...Onyx? *laughs* hallo. Didn't know you were back down here!

I prefer this description.

I wasn't making a prediction, I was showing the cause and effect of the situation. I have many possible predictions but not one that I believe will happen because I honestly have no idea.

This is the information I have:

• History of the situation
• Knowledge that many Gazans are supporting Hamas based on the situation and not necessary political ideals
• Knowledge that Hamas tends to see themselves as reactionary and the Gazans do as well
• Hamas and Fatah are not working with eachother
• Israel did not accomplish its objectives in Lebanon
• Israel is facing a different situation and have said to learn from their mistakes

So based on this knowledge, its reasonable to expect the following to occur. Lets first say that Israel does accomplish its objectives.

• Gaza will have lost its leadership and need a new one
• The blockade on Gaza will most likely go away

That can lead us to some diverse conclusions. It is possible that a well fed Gaza, assuming that happens, could change its views on Israel but I would say that is doubtful. It would be similar to seeing George Bush do something the liberal population agree with and see the liberal population change their views on him.

So then Gaza will need new leadership. Fatah is doubtful to regain control without force since one of Hamas objectives was to not be Fatah. That also means that since Fatah was seen as corrupt and not harsh enough on Israel, which makes it doubtful that the new leadership will be any different than Hamas. Remember, even if Israel do get rid of Gaza, they cannot get rid of the feelings held by the population. And also remember, most Gazans do not necessary support the ideals of Hamas but support them anyways.

That was only a limited amount of the possibilities but it can go either way. Those are the reasons I expect the situation to keep the same but only get more intense and not the other way around. It is possible that I am wrong as well. Only time can tell.


I see a few holes in your logic.

• You assume you can control your ability to be "civilized" in harsh situations.
• You do not state why it was unreasonable for Gazans to elect Hamas.

Lets look at the economic crisis situation in the United States. For the United States, I want to show how quickly and strongly blame is thrown around. For Republicans, most blame the Democrats. For the Democrats, most blame Republicans. I'm assuming you think citizens of the United States are civilized, but as you can see, we are fully irrational when it comes to who is at fault at our own circumstances. Now, the situation in the United States is NOWHERE near as bad as the situation in Gaza. So what gives you any credibility to blame the Gazans? If the majority of Americans were starving, I think it would be very hard to believe that violence will not be introduced.

Second, lets look at the last few presidential elections. Many foreigners do not like the United States because of their presidents. George Bush is one of the most hated figures in the world right now so it would be easy to for foreigners to say that the United States should just not have elected Bush. But, looking at the past two elections, we can see that it was not that simple. Both Kerry and Gore were seen as inadequate and many were voting for one so the other would not win.

So back to the holes in logic I see.

• Do you have any credibility to show that you, or Americans in general, would react any differently to the situation they are presented in.
• You state that Gazans are at fault for electing Hamas but you do not give the reasons why Gazans elected Hamas. Please state them.

*Note, as I have said many times in this thread, I do not think Israel is at sole fault either.

Harsh is relative. What I consider harsh some may consider easy, and vice versa, and for various reasons (culture, human rights, etc).

I didn't say it was unreasonable for Gazans to elect Hamas. I said in essence that a majority of Gazans elected Hamas for what they represented. Hamas followed up with their rhetoric and started messing with Israel again, just like they said they would do.

Getting their asses spanked is the consequence of the whole Hamas way of thinking: i.e. that firing missiles/rockets/whatever into Israel is going to in any way shape or form HELP the people that they are supposed to be governing (I'm assuming this is agreed upon to mean furthering their cause in a way that benefits the people within that cause).

If the majority of Americans chose candidate X to be president, than the same majority of Americans deserve the consequences brought about by that choice.

Does it suck for the minority who wanted candidate Y? Sure it does.

But you can bet that if an Al-Qaida terrorist wanted to use my roof to fire missiles into anywhere, he'd have to kill me first. And then I'd be dead, so I wouldn't care when the return fire destroyed my house.

You're right. And since I am neither Repulican or Democrat, I blame BOTH of them AND the American people who have lain dormant like sheep. If the American people were to stand up and say "Fuck this, we're not having a war in Iraq!" there wouldn't be. Instead it's hand wringing and mouth talk that means nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I *respect* Hamas for standing up for what they believe in, regardless of the cost. But Hamas and the people who ELECTED Hamas to be their representatives to the world are going to pay that cost, as terrible and as brutal, and as unfair to the innocent as that may be.


Sorry, I don't have any credibility, just like you. I'm just another schlub with her own opinions. Very very few people have any credibility these days.

Really? You think is there is no violence in America?? The United States is one of the most violent countries on the planet. And who are the most violent people in America? Poor, starving, uneducated people with no hope of a better future. Ghetto kids. Gang kids. Unemployed IT professionals, and even some black folks.

The president is not elected by popular vote. The popular vote doesn't mean a thing. I'm sure Radar can tell you all about it.

Well if Gazans aren't at fault for electing Hamas, who is? Are you saying that a bunch of non Gazans elected Hamas? (that was sarcastic.)

I don't *care* why they elected Hamas. The end result is that they did. The missiles don't care. The bombs don't care. Apperantly, the people in charge in Israel don't care. The point is, the Gazans elected an extremist military faction to be their voice. That voice spoke to Israel and the world with violence and hatred. Now they face the consequences.

[analogy]
If I poke my neighbors dog with a stick every single day for months and years, I HAVE NO RIGHT to be either surprised or pissed off at the dog when it bites me, nor do I have the right to petition the neighborhood to have the dog put down because it bites people, nor should I make the neighbor pay for my medical care to treat the dog bite.
[/analogy]

Maybe, maybe not. There really is no evidence to support that notion. So far it looks like Iraq is coming around, there is no reason to think that The Gaza could not do the same. As I said in an earlier post, Israel may be getting ready to go through their own little Iraq as well and all the pain that went with it.

Someone should just go and blow the whole lot of them up. Either that or just leave the bastards to it. Let them obliterate themselves.

There is no point debating the issue. There are no 'rights' in this issue. Only huge, mountainous, bloody wrongs!

At this point I have to support this. Isolate the lot of them, no support in material or monies, and let them all go at it. Those with the most toys at the end win.

OnyxCougar, even though I have a slightly different viewpoint I respect your last post. As I said many times, many different groups have fault in this situation and most of the actions by both Israel and Palestine are reactionary. Israel's attack on Gaza is reactionary as well.

I stated my reasoning in a post 71 to Undertoad. I think there is evidence to support my claim but it isn't overwhelming.


The possibility of an occupation of Gaza was mentioned but Israel said they had no intention of occupation. Gaza was already occupied until 2004 and in fact the original anti-Israeli groups began because of Israeli occupation.

And I do have a disagreement on the US-Iraq analogy and Israel-Palestine. The United States is half way across the globe from Iraq while Israel and Palestine are roommates and hatred between the Israelis and Palestinians are much greater. Its possible, but an Israeli occupation would be much much harder.

Your lack of overwhelming evidence only translates into nothing more than a guess.

An educated guess though.

Not.

I based my guess on history and evidence presented towards me. But that guess has more supporting evidence than any other theory, including yours.

Gaza was occupied by Israel for 38 years and they pulled out 4 years ago. Israel has also stated that they do not plan on occupying Gaza. I gave two large differences between the United States situation in Iraq versus Israel and Palestine. Mine at least has some support to it, yours is just a shot in the dark.

Still a guess.

A report came out by the International Crisis Group today. So we can sort some of the questionable aspects out.

A. The Ceasefire

• Six-month ceasefire began on June 19th, 2008
• The ceasefire was never strong and was destined to fail. Israel wanted a ceasefire while still blocking crossing with Gaza and Egypt and maintaining a blockade while Hamas wanted a ceasefire with no blockades on either Gaza or the crossing.
• Rockets were fired in Israel from Gaza in June but no action was taken. A separate movement claimed responsibility and said it was in response to two Palestinian deaths in West Bank and Hamas encouraged them to stop. Another rocket attack from Gaza into Israel was claimed by Fatah, an oppositional movement to Hamas. Later, more rockets were fired but no one claimed responsibility.
• On November 4th, Israeli troops, from Israeli Intelligence, crossed into Gaza using a secret tunnel made by Hamas to prevent a kidnapping of an Israeli soldier killing 6 Gazans.
• On December 13th, Israel said they would renew the ceasefire but Hamas was reluctant.
• On December 19th, ceasefire ended.

So it was in fact Israel who did actually break the ceasefire.

B. Why ceasefire was not renewed.

• Quote:

  Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’s main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 70 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity

• Quote:

  As the date approached, senior Hamas leaders increasingly made clear that, faced with the alternative between “starvation and fighting”, they would choose the latter, an unsubtle indication that they would intensify rocket fire in an attempt to force Israel to relax the siege.

As shown in the first quote, both sides seemed to have not lived up to the agreements. The second quote shows why Hamas did not continue with the ceasefire.


So as we can see, both sides had fault on starting this conflict and both sides seem to be acting as the reactionary.


TheMercenary-
While an occupation of Gaza may happen, it will only happen because Israelis are forced too, not because of a plan.

Even then...there is major skeptism

What? But getting a kidnapped soldier back? Are you nuts?
Only 15 or 20 rockets a month is NOT a ceasefire, not even close. Can you even imagine what it's like to live under that threat? Like London in WW II, knowing they are coming but never where or when. No, Hamas didn't live up to the agreement by a long shot, so why would the Jews? Their only shot at convincing the Pals to stop was hold up the trucks.

First, I only displayed the facts. Israel did cross into Gaza but Hamas did not claim any of the rocket fires. Those are the facts. They can be justified to fit either political side but those are the facts. Also, It was not to get a soldier back. Israeli intelligence got word of a supposed kidnapping and they went into Gaza to stop it. I do not know of validity of the intelligence.

The rockets might not have been Hamas related. Two other groups took responsibility for them for two early attacks but no one has claimed responsibility for all rockets following.

*keep in mind all above are facts from the latest sources

Nothing was said to imply that Israel started the blockade because of the rockets. The rockets were mainly ignored because there were no reports of Hamas breaking the truce.

Using the same argument as the reason Israel invaded Gaza, you can say that by blockading the Gazans of the most basic supplies, what did Israel expect from Hamas? If you starve a population they are going to fight back. If you fire rockets on a stronger enemy's civilians they are going to fight back. Like I've always said, all three sides have faults here and mostly everything is defensive.

And no, I can not image what it is like to live under that constant threat and I also cannot imagine what it is like to live under starving conditions as well.

Not just starvation. Palestinian society has ground to a halt in every conceivable way. Electricity, water supplies, medicines, access to places of employment (for the handful who have it) all erratic and subject to sudden withdrawal/destruction. It's also the violence and humiliation routinely meted out to ordinary Palestinian civilians as they try to make there way through the growing network of military roadblocks. It's the humiliation, for example, of living and working in a market street, above which is an Israeli settlement who drop their raw garbage down onto your heads. They've had to place wire meshing across the street to block it.

Day after day, year after year, ordinary people are subjected to humiliation, fear and violence. And there's nowhere they can go. No where they can take their kids. All blocked in. Somewhere on their street, or in their part of the camp, a Hamas fighter primes a weapon. I don't know what goes on three houses away from me, or in the house next door.

They were misfortunate enough to live in a place that is under permanent siege. A place where the resistance to that siege is embedded within their town and the families that live there. Judging by many people in this thread, that simple piece of misfortune renders them unworthy of even the most basic human sympathy or anger or their behalf.

Sundae now's when you should be slapping me....

Any sympathy and anger I may have on their behalf is assassinated by every single missile their chosen leaders fire at someone else. I don't think anyone here believes that life in Gaza is easy or fun.

What are they doing to make things better? How are they trying to accomplish peace and stability? Firing rockets throughout a cease fire and even more afterwards (in the face of overwhelmingly superior firepower, money and numbers) is stupid, not deserving of my sympathy.

If the Palestinians were to be totally pacifistic, and still Israel blockaded them and held them under siege, the world would be outraged and Israel would be forced to open up the borders. But the Palestinians have proven time and time and time again that they can't be trusted to keep their word, but you CAN count on them to be violent.

I don't deserve sympathy for my dog bite.

I agree with you Dana that it must be really difficult to live under those circumstances. Blaming Israel for their plight is not the answer nor is firing rockets at them going to make things better . . . only worse.

Misfortunate. They chose their route. They voted for Hamas. Hamas' very charter is to destroy Israel.

They had 750 trucks per day coming in before voting for the organization whose charter is to destroy Israel.
Old complaint. Settlements are gone 3-4 years now. The terrible "humiliation" of occupation is gone. They got the ethnically-cleansed land they demanded. They were even gifted greenhouses, economic opportunity, which they chose to destroy because they were built by Jews.

It ain't misfortune. So when you continue to give them charitable cover -- "oh here's why we're WITH you even when you vote for the terrorist organization! -- Oh actually, BECAUSE you vote for the terrorist organization!!" -- you're part of the problem.

The pity party is over.

The problem is ... this is a war that has literally been going on for thousands of years... can't think of any reason they'd give it up now... it is all they as a culture have ever known... on all sides.

I'm not saying it should be allowed to continue and I'm not saying that it isn't a sorry situation and a real tragedy for the new lives born into that mess, I certianly wouldn't want to live in that chaos, but every time the U.S. goes and sticks its nose into shite over there we create new enemies. Remember Osama was once our ally.

What solution could possibly be offered here? These groups have hated eachother for so long it is part of there genetic make up... how can we expect them to enter into and uphold agreements that require respect and trust when neither party will acknowledge the other's humanity and right to exist.

And now a word from Europe. Funny how we're not hearing about attacks against Muslims, huh? Not funny as in strange, funny as in incredibly sad.

Gaza conflict spreads to Europe with Jews attacked
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:50 AM EST
The Associated Press
By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer


PARIS (AP) — Signs are mounting that the conflict in Gaza is starting to spill over into violence in Europe's towns and cities, with assaults against Jews and arson attacks on Jewish congregations in France, Sweden and Britain.

Assailants rammed a burning car into the gates of a synagogue in Toulouse, in southwest France, on Monday night. A Jewish congregation in Helsingborg, in southern Sweden, also was attacked Monday night by someone who "broke a window and threw in something that was burning," said police spokesman Leif Nilsson. Neighbors alerted rescue services before the fire took hold.

Someone also started a blaze outside the premises last week. And on Sunday slogans including "murderers ... You broke the cease-fire" and "don't subject Palestine to ethnic cleansing" were daubed on Israel's embassy in Stockholm.

In Denmark, a 27-year-old Dane born in Lebanon of Palestinian parents is alleged to have injured two young Israelis last week, opening fire with a handgun in a shooting that police suspect could be linked to the Gaza crisis.

France has Western Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities and a history of anti-Semitic violence flaring when tensions in the Middle East are high. In 2002, some 2,300 Jews left France for Israel because they felt unsafe.

President Nicolas Sarkozy warned in a statement Tuesday that France would not tolerate violence linked to the Gaza crisis. A day earlier, his interior minister said she was concerned about the prospect of contagion and met with the heads of the two main Muslim and Jewish groups and police officials to stress the need to "preserve national unity."

Damage to the synagogue in Toulouse was limited to a blackened gate, and there were no injuries even though a rabbi was giving a course to adults inside, authorities said. They said unlighted gasoline bombs were also found in a car nearby and in the synagogue's yard. A local Jewish leader, Armand Partouche, said he believed the assailants had planned to torch the synagogue, but fled when the building's alarm went off.

"It could have been very, very serious," Partouche said in a telephone interview. "There were people inside; there could have been deaths."

He said Jewish leaders are asking Toulouse authorities for reinforced security for the city's synagogues.

"We really fear that anti-Semitism will spring up again and that the current conflict will be transposed to our beautiful French republic," he said.

In Britain, the Community Security Trust, a Jewish defense group, said it had seen a rise in anti-Semitic incidents since the start of Israel's offensive against Gaza. The group said it had recorded 20-25 incidents across the country in the past week that it believed were connected with Gaza, including an arson attempt on a synagogue in north London on Sunday.

London police are investigating the attack, in which suspects splashed flammable liquid on the door and set it on fire.

Community Security Trust spokesman Mark Gardner said that in another incident last week a gang of 15-20 youths walked along the main street in Golders Green, a largely Jewish neighborhood in north London, shouting "Jew" and "Free Palestine" at passers-by.

"It could get worse," Gardner said. "We tend to see these things happen in waves."

The government in Belgium on Tuesday ordered police in Antwerp and Brussels to be on increased alert after recent pro-Palestinian protests ended in violence and dozens of arrests. Police said burning rags were shoved through the mailbox of a Jewish home in Antwerp last weekend. Damage was limited and no arrests were made.

In the Danish shooting, one Israeli man was shot in the arm and another in the leg as they were selling hair care products in a shopping mall. Eli Ruvio, who owns the company that operated the stands, said his employees have been harassed by Muslim youths since they set up three kiosks in the shopping center in August.

"They kept cursing and shouting at us," Ruvio told The Associated Press. He added that the Muslim youths also threw mud and firecrackers at the employees and spat at them.

Ruvio recalled an episode Dec. 27 when some of the youths shouted "slaughter all the Jews."

"I told my employees not to speak in Hebrew and lie about where they come from, they should say there were from Spain or somewhere else. If people ask you where you are from, never say you're from Israel," he said.

You shouldn't feel bad for Hamas though. They're declaring victory. Oh and a larger war against Jews, especially Jewish children, who haven't had anything to do with oppressing them:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129242

And BTW

No they didn't. This line in the ICG analysis notices it but fails to notice the implications:

I.e., bombs. Missile parts. Many people think they imported them through the smuggling tunnels into Egypt. Some others think they reeled in boxes thrown off of ships off the coast.

No matter how they did it, they obviously did it. 6000 launches don't lie. And no matter how they did it, it was against the rules of the cease-fire.

And one does notice that they are importing missile parts and not, you know, food and medicine and other such goods.

Lastly
You favor the Pals...? awesome.
-- You hate what Israel has done to them...? granted.
---- You support a terrorist organization ruling them and attacking Israel... destroying Gaza and killing Palestinians to do it...? you've lost the plot.

I don't recall Pierce ever saying that he supports Hamas.

Out.
At your own request I am here to escort you out of this thread.

Git!

*looks guilty* yeah. I said that. 'm outta here.

i dont know who im sick of more, the people railing against the big mean evil israelis, or the people railing against the rabid hateful evil palestinians.

both sides fucking suck, here, guys. both of 'em. im just sick of it.

Hahahaha. Do you really think I repeat "both sides have faults in this" just so I sound unbiased to put forward my biased pro-Palestinians pro-Hamas opinions? If I thought Israel was at sole fault I would have said it and my posts would have been much different.

I have been pointing out the pro-Israeli posts because I disagree with them. This for example...

There is nothing wrong in terms of facts in this post. But he has made assumptions on what the Palestinians demand and what the actions of Hamas are.

Palestinians do not want to live as dogs. They are currently dependent on humanitarian sources for survival. Classicman is making the claim that Palestinians should be content with this and stop the fighting so they can live their lives as dogs without disturbing the Israelis. [sarcasm]Hell maybe they can learn to be civilized as well like the Israelis if they took up their culture and religion[/sarcasm].

Hamas is not looking for peace until the state of Israel is taken over. Basically, they would like to see the situation switched. They would like to see the Jews living like dogs so the Muslims can live in peace.

Maybe you can understand now why I don't side with either of those groups because neither side is realistic. The Palestinians have shown they will fight before they live as dogs and we know the Jews will fight to the death before they live like dogs again. Both sides are unrealistic and will bring more fighting and death.

I do not go against your views because I hate the Jews, even though I strongly disagree with Zionism, but because it cannot happen. That is why I said there are faults on both sides, neither ideology can lead to a peaceful solution.


If you still side with the belief that the Palestinians should give up their attempts at self-sufficiency so both sides can live in peace, I honestly don't really care. You can believe that a peaceful solution can come out of this and maybe you are right, but I disagree. I do not see a solution coming out of this and hence my views.


Are you serious? Everyone knows that Hamas was importing weapons. It wasn't a secret by any means. If it makes you feel any better, the reason why Hamas agreed to the six month ceasefire was to gain complete control over Gaza. This could only happen if the population was fed (siege) and Hamas was supplied (border crossings). Israel provided neither so Hamas attacked, probably actually as bait. Israel took the bait and now support for Hamas has grown throughout Gaza and even now the West Bank. Many news sources are now criticizing Israel's actions and and foreign leaders are telling Israel to stop. If Hamas gets taken out from their government role by Israel, they will return to an underground movement. It might be possible that Israel will be able to suppress Hamas, but I guess we will have to see.

Originally Posted by Classicman
Pierce:
That is not differenct from what Classic just said. In the end I don't see any specific point you are trying to make on this issue. And there is no way you can really defend Hamas. I don't like what Israel has done with targeting areas with so many civilians but they are going to do as much as they can to cut the head of Hamas off before they are forced, I think via international pressure, to back off. Time will tell.

I NEVER made that claim, far from it. No one should "live like dogs."

What's their plan B? Cuz history has proved that one isn't going to work.

Although Dana made it sound like I was directing at you, I wasn't. I was pointing out that you were wrong about the cease-fire earlier but my last message was directed to all.

cite

1) European news sources?
1a) They haven't failed to criticize everything Israel has ever done. An Israeli picks his nose in Tel Aviv and the French report it as an offensive against innocent boogers.
2) This is confused, isn't it? News sources report facts, opinion sources criticize. When the news sources criticize we can no longer trust their facts.


"Hamas has nothing left but rockets"

I am making the point that the current view on the situation is flawed because of unrealistic ends. If we took a poll about the solution each dwellar would like to see on this issue, we would most likely see (and tell me if I'm wrong) something like....
"I would like to see the Palestinians stop firing rockets at Israel, which would allow Israel to stop firing rockets at Palestine, which would allow Israel to live in peace and supplies to go into Palestine"

I am saying that most likely can never be a realistic scenario because if that happened, the Palestinians could not be self-sustainable and will dependent on humanitarian supplies for an extremely long time. I have not seen anything to show that Palestinians will settle for that. It is possible, other cultures have settled for less, but as I said I have my large doubts.

As I said earlier, by agreeing to this solution..."I would like to see the Palestinians stop firing rockets at Israel, which would allow Israel to stop firing rockets at Palestine, which would allow Israel to live in peace and supplies to go into Palestine"...it says the Palestinians should live like dogs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling you an asshole or even says you want the Palestinians to live like dogs, but that is how the situation is. It would be similar to saying you would like to keep white privileged and get mad when someone points out that that you support racism (racial privileged is a product of racism).

With the blockade, 80% of Gazans are dependent on foreign aid, I don't have any number without it but it would still be high because the Palestinian economy is completely shot. To be fed food, especially by people that you accuse of taking your land, cutting you off from the rest of the world, and starving you, can be considered living like a dog. If no more rockets were fired from this day forward, the economic situation in Palestine would not be different, it would still be shot and Palestinians would still be fed from outside sources.

So even if you don't believe any person or population should live like dogs, by saying that the rockets should stop and everyone live in peace you will also be saying the Palestinians will need to be fed from outside sources. If you want one, you get the other.

Death? Keep in mind, Hamas could only be temporary. Hamas is looked at in high regards because it is standing up against Israel, not necessarily because of their ideals.

I could find the quote that said that many Gazans are now becoming more supportive of Hamas but here is two other quotes for Fatah supporters.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/d...ar_in_gaza.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/wo...ed=1&ref=world

No, United States.

I was not talking about open criticism. Sources can display certain facts in certain ways to make the situation seem like it happened a certain way. The facts given are not wrong but there is much more than what is seen.

So Islamic papers are saying Hamas won and Jewish papers say Hamas has lost? I don't know the credibilities but what are you trying to point out?

I disagree. Your conclusion of
"Hamas stops firing rockets = Palestinians should live like dogs"
is quite a stretch.

I find my little Pal girl video more compelling. But at that time you said If you could find a report of the majority of Gazans thinking that Hamas is at fault, then it would devastate my post, but not one out of the millions that live in Gaza.

Yeeeah. They're taught in Journalism school never to do this, and then, when asked why they have the cajones to do this, they point to their gravitas because they went to J-school.

You're not supposed to notice. But you're too smart. Now apply critical thinking skills to the problem. When paying attention to the "secondary message" communicated as news, do you get closer to the truth, or further from the truth?

It's a classic SAT question. If the "news" reports, for five days in a row, The Administration today again denied that there had ever been waterboarding used at Guantanamo Bay, do you believe A) There probably was waterboarding at Guantanamo, B) There probably was not waterboarding at Guantanamo, or C) Not enough information to determine?

(Answer: C of course. But it's also a trick question. The people who already believe A will find that the reports confirm their truth. The people who already believe B will find that the reports confirm their truth as well. The same report will be heard as liberal if aired on MSNBC, and conservative if aired on Fox.)

Who to believe. Who to believe. It's a toughie innit.

I made a mistake on my post. I should have wrote, I couldn't find the quote that said that many Gazans are now becoming more supportive of Hamas but here is two other quotes for Fatah supporters.

The quote I couldn't find is somewhere in a 28 page report but I did post a similar quote in the post where I argued against your video. The quote I wanted did actually imply majority while this one does not.

The first quote was from an individual, I am aware, but not the second. Stats are not available to determine how large this group is, but there is a group and it seems to have grown since the start of the bombings, or at least they have become more vocal.


Alright, I'll go with you on this. Not to patronize your statement but this is off from my original point. I was saying that popular opinion from around the world has shifted away from Israel on this event. Many disagree with their latest actions. I won't use the word criticize though.


I will show the a proof (like a mathematical proof) of how I got there. If you disagree with any part, state it and show me evidence of why you believe the contrary.

1. Hamas/other Palestinian resistant groups stops firing rockets indefinitely
2. Israel stops firing rockets indefinitely
3. Two-State solution appears on current boundaries
4. Palestine's economy not strong enough, has the infrastructure, size, funding, etc to become self-sufficient.
5a. Palestine becomes dependent on foreign aid
5b. Maybe Israel/other Arab countries will open borders for some and they become second class citizens
6. Living like dogs statement

Obviously saying that "Hamas should stop firing rockets" does not mean you wish to see the Palestinians living that way but I am saying if a peace happens in this current scenario, that is what will end up happening. That is why many Palestinians don't want peace at this moment.

As I've said numerous times, things do change and maybe I will be wrong, but looking at the current scenario that proof is strong and will most likely hold.

1. Hamas/other Palestinian resistant groups stops firing rockets indefinitely
2. Israel stops firing rockets indefinitely
3. Two-State solution appears on current boundaries
4. Palestine's economy not strong enough, has the infrastructure, size, funding, etc to become self-sufficient.
5. Palestine becomes dependent on foreign aid
6. While living on foreign aid, without war draining attention and resources, turn to rebuilding their economy and become self sufficient.

As long as the irresponsible sort of Palestinian keeps crying "Victim! Victim! Victim!" while his every behavior, day in and day out, year in and year out, for decades on end, says "Perp! Perp! Perp!" he has no hope of ever having the moral ascendancy.

The assholes attach more importance to their feud with the Jews than to living a good life, or to recuperating their losses! The surrounding countries have pursued only destructive policies, believing apparently that they can conquer the Israelis. They can't; the Israelis simply are not going to leave no matter what the surrounding Arab nations try. They don't even want to take over Jordan -- the other two thirds of the British Mandate.

Mass migrations, displacing the original inhabitants from a given place, have occurred all through history. There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about this one. The Palestinians have been carefully prevented from finding new homes or new fortunes -- as if they had much fortune before the twentieth century.

A lot of these symptoms, these dysfunctional wars, go back in their origin to the Ottoman Empire, which in its long span was hardly a model of social enlightenment, and which did not encourage creative thinking from the provinces. Nobody paid much attention at all to that swatch of Eastern Mediterranean littoral until a bunch of Jews moved in and made a success of the place.

There you have it then. That, if correct, is a HUGE part of the problem.

This may be an ignorant question, but

Why do the Palistinians have to live like dogs once all the rockets have stopped? Why can't they live off aid while they rebuild (or establish) their infrastructure, economy and government?

...(Just thought of this) because to Israel, letting them do that puts them in a better position to really hurt Israelis and rearm and all that stuff, since they are known to be deal breakers.

So it is in Israel's best interest not to let them do that, based upon past history.

Sheesh. That just crystallized a whole bunch for me.

Hmmmm.....I actually have never have thought of that before. Maybe you can go over there and establish their infrastructure, economy, and government for them. But if I were you I would try to get some experience, might want to start in Africa, South America, Central Asia, or any other third world country. I'm sure there's will be just as easy.

Hint....there might be a difference on why Israel was able to be successful and Palestine will not.

I hope they all chill out over there....this could be the real deal, a la WWIII.... :neutral:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

So now we are posting extreme individual incidents to make them seem to represent the majority. I like that game. My turn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...acuees-zeitoun

Hamas did it! Hamas did it! Hamas did it!


P.S. I did read your article on the other thread and I assume that is why you posted that quote. You posted a quote from an extreme individual who one, really doesn't represent the majority and two, said "they should be happy too", meaning that they were not at the moment. I agree that the two cultures are fundamentally different but you took that to the extreme.

If that's the game (if), then I understand the projected majority that would be represented by Undertoad's example; but what is the projected majority that piercehawkeye45's example is supposed to represent? Walk me through that one, I don't get it.

yer face

That incident is being investigated, possibly for being a war crime. But, that incident is a minority. The Israelis are not systematically rounding up Palestinians, mainly children, into "safe" houses, telling them not leave, and then later shelling the houses.

It is the same as war crimes that happened in Vietnam by the United States, rare and not representative of the majority of the US Army.

FTFY