palestine/israel, what would it take?

[RTR ATL]

Wow, Hamas actually launched an amphibious attack on Israel. It failed miserably, but that is far more bold than they have ever been.

Missiles would have reached Tel Aviv if the gate didn't get them. Honestly, I'm shocked Israel hasn't invaded already.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

both sides suck ass and until the hardliners from both sides are removed then nothing will solve this issue. Except maybe this:

 

[hydrobadazz]

I googled "Israel Palestine Peace Talks"

Found this link which kinda alludes to Palestinians bending over backward for peace but Israel not cooperating.

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/42801-us-culpability.html

 

[weed]

Your location indicates : "brightest heaven of invention" which is probably Colorado and you must be stoned as shit.

This guy & his exquisite ability to intelligently & effectively contribute to collective discussion.


Bravo, bravo.

 

[Jukai]

I googled "Israel Palestine Peace Talks"

Found this link which kinda alludes to Palestinians bending over backward for peace but Israel not cooperating.

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/42801-us-culpability.html

It's true. Bibi really fucked over the last round after Olmert made so much fucking headway. It's frustrating.

 

[jmadtx]

they should all have a giant smoke-out session together.

 

[weed]

they should all have a giant smoke-out session together.

High five on it.


I'll gladly start burning again if it even game down to that

 

[Marsupial]

& the settlements still exist, prospering everyday

Don't be ridiculous. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between building houses on disputed land and firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas, from civilian areas in turn (double war crime).

 

[LionExMachina]

Don't be ridiculous. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between building houses on disputed land and firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas, from civilian areas in turn (double war crime).

They are building houses on stolen land.

 

[Marsupial]

And Israel sends in airstrikes to Gaza each night.

In response to indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians, in order to degrade Hamas' terror capabilities. Quite simply, even if the Israeli government didn't want to carry out these airstrikes it is obliged to in order to fulfill its duty to protect its citizens. Israel, in effect, has no choice but to defend itself in this way.

Also, given the low number of casualties in Gaza (most of which even Hamas has confirmed were militant/terrorists) resulting from such airstrikes, on one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it is clear that the IDF is carrying out extraordinarily precise attacks and going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Israel is acting with immense restraint under the circumstances.

 

[jeffk]

I haven't watched this yet but plan to tonight. If you want to know what is going on, these guys will fill you in a lot better than some of what I have read here.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320301-1/israelipalestinian-conflict

The one state agenda is going nowhere. People who advocate it are not looking at an important reality. One side rejects it and will always reject it and they have more power. And the international community supports a two state solution. So anyone other than clueless college students (there will always be some) who advocate the one state agenda need to get off that a viable solution. It isn't.

Most people know what compromises will be needed for peace but the current leaders dare not try to push for those compromises.

Basic outline is the Clinton Parameters. - 1967 lines with swaps, Jers split - Israel gets where Jews live, Palestinians get East Jers where Palestinians live, no right of return beyond a symbolic right of some older Palestinians to reunite with their families to live out their remaining years. Water right is an issue but that can easily be solved. What Olmert proposed was pretty close to what a settlement would look like.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Don't be ridiculous. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between building houses on disputed land and firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas, from civilian areas in turn (double war crime).

Is there is moral equivalence when Israel launches air strikes into traffic jams to target a single individual and kills innocent civilians as a result or would you simply classify that as 'collateral damage'?

 

[weed]

What the.. stupid phone dup

 

[weed]

Don't be ridiculous. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between building houses on disputed land and firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian areas, from civilian areas in turn (double war crime).

Moral equivalence? Please tell me where I've applied this notion?

Next, the fact that you even use the term "disputed lands" just spells out you are not looking at all of this " down the middle".

I acknowledge the Palestinians not helping & disgustingly firing missiles & rockets towards Israel, the very same I acknowledge there are renegade Israeli Settlers illegally living on & occupying Palestinian land.


Why acknowledge one wrong & not the other? Factoring bias are we? Or to take it a step further, bigotry?

 

[Marsupial]

They are building houses on stolen land.

No they aren't.

Who controls and owns what land is subject to a final negotiated peace settlement, if we want to get all technical and invoke international law in the matter. If the Palestinians stopped rejecting and walking away from peace negotiations they could have had that land a long time ago.

Until then, as both sides have agreed, Judea and Samaria is under Israel's control.

Besides, Hamas isn't motivated by a desire to end settlements and the occupation of Judea and Samaria. Rather, it seeks the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Settlements are quite irrelevant to Hamas' genocidal terrorist violence.

 

[Marsupial]

Is there is moral equivalence when Israel launches air strikes into traffic jams to target a single individual and kills innocent civilians as a result or would you simply classify that as 'collateral damage'?

I'd say no because, as you say yourself, they're targeting a single individual (i.e. a terrorist involved in the planning and carrying out of bombings, shootings, kidnappings, etc.) as opposed to Hamas' tactics of indiscriminately targeting any and all Israelis.

Israel has issued warnings to civilians in Gaza to stay as far away as possible from senior Hamas figures in the coming days, incidentally.

(What specific incident do you have in mind in your post above?)

 

[Jukai]

Is there is moral equivalence when Israel launches air strikes into traffic jams to target a single individual and kills innocent civilians as a result or would you simply classify that as 'collateral damage'?

I totally agree that the Israelis need to reign it in, but I do think there is a moral difference between knowing a terrorist is in a car and launching a bomb at home hoping (but not REALLY hoping) that no one else is killed.... and firing rockets indiscriminately in pure civilian, non-military areas.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

I totally agree that the Israelis need to reign it in, but I do think there is a moral difference between knowing a terrorist is in a car and launching a bomb at home hoping (but not REALLY hoping) that no one else is killed.... and firing rockets indiscriminately in pure civilian, non-military areas.

I don't. I don't condone the actions of either side nor do I really support either side both have their fair share of scumbags but if you launch a missile into a traffic jam at a single car and you know there are innocent civilians in the surrounding cars that is just as bad as indiscriminate killing.

You know there will be casualties who are innocent but you pulled the trigger anyway. It shows a total disregard for human life imo.

These threads give me a headache anyway, I just think it is laughable that people don't see that both sides are fucked. It is always pro israel or pro Pali. I am in the neutral corner of both sides suck.

 

[Jukai]

I haven't watched this yet but plan to tonight. If you want to know what is going on, these guys will fill you in a lot better than some of what I have read here.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320301-1/israelipalestinian-conflict

The one state agenda is going nowhere. People who advocate it are not looking at an important reality. One side rejects it and will always reject it and they have more power. And the international community supports a two state solution. So anyone other than clueless college students (there will always be some) who advocate the one state agenda need to get off that a viable solution. It isn't.

Most people know what compromises will be needed for peace but the current leaders dare not try to push for those compromises.

Basic outline is the Clinton Parameters. - 1967 lines with swaps, Jers split - Israel gets where Jews live, Palestinians get East Jers where Palestinians live, no right of return beyond a symbolic right of some older Palestinians to reunite with their families to live out their remaining years. Water right is an issue but that can easily be solved. What Olmert proposed was pretty close to what a settlement would look like.

Damn, you and Dan need to come back to these threads. I miss reasonable voices.

 

[Jukai]

I don't. I don't condone the actions of either side nor do I really support either side both have their fair share of scumbags but if you launch a missile into a traffic jam at a single car and you know there are innocent civilians in the surrounding cars that is just as bad as indiscriminate killing.

You know there will be casualties who are innocent but you pulled the trigger anyway. It shows a total disregard for human life imo.

These threads give me a headache anyway, I just think it is laughable that people don't see that both sides are fucked. It is always pro israel or pro Pali. I am in the neutral corner of both sides suck.

You've always been very unbiased in spreading your hate on both sides, I ain't got no complaints. I just disagree. Not caring about civilian deaths to take out a high enemy leader is different from purposefully targeting non-enemy combatants to make a point.
I also think it's rather irrelevant in the big picture, and more relevant to see what is actually causing it. And not just going back to the year 2000 to make an opinion.