Israel vs Hamas thread.

[Josquin des Prez]

Why the hell was the thread locked? Are we not allowed to discuss what is essentially the most important political event of the last few months?

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10672.0.html

[karlhenning]

You might consider spelling Israel correctly.  (Just a note.)

[Josquin des Prez]

You might consider spelling Israel correctly.  (Just a note.)

Done.

[drogulus]

     Iago posted a cartoon that was dangerously truthful about the difference between hiding behind civilians and protecting them from harm. I don't mean Israeli citizens, I mean Gazans. The IDF is more concerned with protecting the lives of Gazans than Hamas, because Hamas wants large numbers of Gazans to die. It's built into their strategy. You see, they have this insane notion that if they hide behind their own citizens while Israel tries to avoid killing them, any collateral damage will be blamed on the Israelis. I know, it's hard to believe that anyone can be that naive. It sounds like something a Hamas spokesman would try. But, to think anyone would actually fall for it?
     
     And yet:

     

Consider Israel recently bombed a school, not to mention several hospitals, I'd say that this picture is out of date.

      So, there's no difference between hitting a school and deliberately targeting it because it's a school the way Islamic terrorists do all the time. Who says propaganda doesn't work? Such moral blindness is worth its weight in gold.

      Just to clarify: When Hamas targets a school, it's not because there are Israeli soldiers hiding behind children in it, it's because there are children in it that are the targets. It's the children that they want to kill. Get it?

[Lethevich]

So, there's no difference between hitting a school and deliberately targeting it because it's a school the way Islamic terrorists do all the time. Who says propaganda doesn't work? Such moral blindness is worth its weight in gold.

I was trolling a troll thread, actually.

Edit: Although I didn't get the response I was seeking from the OP - I was hoping for more hysterics.

[greg]

Edit: Although I didn't get the response I was seeking from the OP - I was hoping for more hysterics.

you bad 

     Iago posted a cartoon that was dangerously truthful about the difference between hiding behind civilians and protecting them from harm. I don't mean Israeli citizens, I mean Gazans. The IDF is more concerned with protecting the lives of Gazans than Hamas, because Hamas wants large numbers of Gazans to die. It's built into their strategy. You see, they have this insane notion that if they hide behind their own citizens while Israel tries to avoid killing them, any collateral damage will be blamed on the Israelis. I know, it's hard to believe that anyone can be that naive. It sounds like something a Hamas spokesman would try. But, to think anyone would actually fall for it?

Maybe it's not being naive, but just being a group of stupid apes.

[Renfield]

Excuse me, what?

I'm always amazed by how innocuous all sorts of bad things can be made to sound in favour of making other bad things sound even worse.

There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200. End of story for me, perhaps because I'm not a Jew, or an Arab. When civilians get relegated to collateral and you need to come up with justifications of why you've bombed a school, it's already too far.

That is my personal, politically/racially-neutral view. I was going to ignore this thread, but I thought I might as well contribute some neutrality.

[aquablob]

There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200.

I guess if you choose to completely ignore the Israeli deaths from Hamas rocket attacks over the years, then 13 is an accurate number.

When one is waging war, isn't it generally strategic to keep one's own death count low? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

[Renfield]

I guess if you choose to completely ignore the Israeli deaths from Hamas rocket attacks over the years, then 13 is an accurate number.

When one is waging war, isn't it generally strategic to keep one's own death count low? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I refer to the onlookers' assessment of the moral high ground of this war, and thus not including long-term Palestinian casualties, either.

And an efficient war is not a justified war, it is simply a successful one; in fact, it would be a travesty if Israel could not guarantee a low casualty rate with their present arsenal, but this is completely irrelevant to my previous comment.


I am, however, still impressed by how often it seems to be the case that Hamas' is the side one is challenged to prove innocent, rather than Israel (also) guilty. Setting aside the fact that these conclusions are distinct, what makes any side in a conflict a priori "right" as such?

[Iago]

Why the hell was the thread locked? Are we not allowed to discuss what is essentially the most important political event of the last few months?

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10672.0.html

I myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so.  And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes from Josquin De Prez and his ilk.

[Harry]

The cartoon Iago posted is not outdated and depicts the truth. Usually I disagree with the old fellow, but in this instance he is right.

[Renfield]

With all due respect, I am suspecting that not everyone taking part in this discussion is neutral to it.

Regardless, I'd like to affirm I don't really care about semites or anti-semites, which is exactly why my offered opinion was based on a body count. That might also be the case for many people, speaking both for and against either side, and not necessarily anti-something.

[Joe_Campbell]

You're anti-antisemites/semites!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The thing I wonder about (not just in this case but more generally) is how much pain and inconvenience Americans are willing to put up with in order to maintain their support for Israel. It seems to be the case that most Americans sympathize with Israel, but such sympathy is broad, vague and generalized, rather than militant and fervent.

If it comes down to (for instance) a choice between supporting Israel and paying lower prices for gas, which choice is your average Joe going to make?

Also, Congress is out of touch with the country as a whole. It supports Israel almost unanimously, whereas the population is much more split. A poll last year, in fact, said that 71% of Americans thought the USA should not take sides in the Israel-Palestine dispute.

[Renfield]

the USA should not take sides in the Israel-Palestine dispute.

My sentiments exactly.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so.  And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes.

Iago,

Seriously, how could you post that cartoon in the original thread ?

I suggest you read this editorial and do some reflection. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/18/gaza-israel-palestinian

[Bulldog]

I myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so.  And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes from Josquin De Prez and his ilk.

So you expected an Israel love-fest from all board members?  Sorry, but when you started your thread, you opened the opportunity for opinions from all sides.  Poor decision-making on your part.

[aquablob]

I refer to the onlookers' assessment of the moral high ground of this war, and thus not including long-term Palestinian casualties, either.

And an efficient war is not a justified war, it is simply a successful one; in fact, it would be a travesty if Israel could not guarantee a low casualty rate with their present arsenal, but this is completely irrelevant to my previous comment.


I am, however, still impressed by how often it seems to be the case that Hamas' is the side one is challenged to prove innocent, rather than Israel (also) guilty. Setting aside the fact that these conclusions are distinct, what makes any side in a conflict a priori "right" as such?

I think I did misunderstand your point earlier; thanks for clarifying.

In my opinion, this situation is not about moral high ground; just like any war, really, this one is not even about right vs. wrong. For each side, it's about something different.

Is it a "justified war?"

Again, I don't think that a "justified war" comes down to "being in the right," which is merely a fantasy. For Israel, the immediate objective is getting Hamas to stop shooting rockets at the former, a practice that has gone on for years, resulting in hundreds of civilian Israeli injuries and deaths. Three days before Israel started the recent offensive, do not forget, Hamas fired 87 rockets at Israel in a single day!

I wouldn't say that Israel is "in the right," but I also wouldn't be so quick to say that Israel's actions are unjustified or unwarranted. It's a complex issue.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I wouldn't say that Israel is "in the right," but I also wouldn't be so quick to say that Israel's actions are unjustified or unwarranted.

Really ?

That's revolting.

[aquablob]

Really ?

That's revolting.

What a thoughtful and substantial contribution to the discussion!

Do you believe, then, that in every "justified war," one side is necessarily "right" and the other necessarily "wrong," that there exists some indisputable good-vs-evil dichotomy?