Sunday, 20 July 2014

Israel Invades Gaza. Again

quote [ Palestinian authorities say more than 330 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed during the past two weeks. Israel says militants have fired more than 1,600 rockets into Israel during that time. ]

341 palastinians to 5 Israelis killed. Many children, including some playing on a Gaza beach.

Where are those 1,600 rockets going?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/16/dispatch-israeli-strike-kills-four-children-at-a-gaza-beach/

Flechette shells being used :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israel-using-flechette-shells-in-gaza

Watching the bombing from a party nearby :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing

[SFW] [politics] [+10 WTF]
[by C18H27NO3@11:05pmGMT]

Comments

Dumbledorito said @ 2:47am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3 Underrated]
I don't think many Americans understand how small the area that Gaza represents. There's all this talk of how Israel is trying to limit civilian casualties, but Gaza City is one of the more densely populated places on the planet, which makes a lot of that talk meaningless. Also, given the illegal settling, I think the Palestinians have been fairly reserved compared to the rhetoric from Americans who say they'd happily shoot anyone who even set foot on their land without renouncing fiat currency, pledging allegiance to the United States of Jesus, and lobbing a hand grenade in the direction of the UN. Somehow, I think rockets would seem quite reasonable to them if an armed group tried to drive them off their land, claiming God gave it to them.

Sadly, I think the Israelis could (and may) steamroller over what's left of Gaza and the world wouldn't lift a finger to stop them. It's now gotten to the point where it's nearly impossible to voice opposition to Israeli action without being called a Nazi, yet the policies they're inflicting on their neighbor is hardly civilized or the moral high ground.
sanepride said @ 4:55am GMT on 21st Jul
I dunno, current criticism of Israel from the international community- even the US, seems pretty loud and clear.
Dumbledorito said @ 5:16am GMT on 21st Jul
Compared to previous actions by Israel? Perhaps.

NPR and the BBC are about the only places I hear anything about settlers and more land being taken when nothing's exploding in the area, and its hardly coverage I'd call critical. Everything descends into the person having the last word (an interviewee, usually) saying something along the lines of "Hamas is a terrorist organization, so everything's justified," as if Hamas represents the entire area's population. I'd further say those condemning them would be doing pretty similar things were positions reversed.
sanepride said @ 6:09am GMT on 21st Jul
It is pretty typical of US media outlets to not give much attention to places where there's not much dramatic happening.
iosef said @ 9:14am GMT on 21st Jul
In Israel itself, the situation is markedly different. Most secular Jews (who are in the majority in most of the country) are disdainful of Netanyahu and the illegal occupation, settlements and campaign of terror inflicted on Palestinians. Unfortunately the ultra-religious zealots have enough political influence that nothing is likely to change.
Bruceski said @ 2:30pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3 Underrated]
Ankylosaur said @ 11:44pm GMT on 20th Jul [Score:1 Funny]
Someone blew up Maverick?!
ENZ said @ 1:20am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Just what is the level of sophistication and magnitude of these rockets? I remember seeing something a few years ago where it was about as advanced as one of those cardboard things you can guy at a hobby shop, only made with plumbing implements. All it managed to do was leave a black splotch on the ground where it landed. Yeah, it'd kill any unlucky bastard it lands on, but it was hardly a weapon of mass destruction.

I'm not saying that king of shit should be ignored, but Israel has never exercised proportionate response. Some random thug kills one Israeli with some piece of junk they made in their basement, and they go and launch a military strike killing dozens of innocent people.

And of course, you can't expect any serious media outlet to give a fair report. Oh no, criticize Israel, and you're branded an anti-semite.
mechanical contrivance said @ 1:38am GMT on 21st Jul
Yea, those rockets must suck. They fired 1600 of them and only killed 5 people? Are they even aiming them?
ENZ said @ 2:02am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
The thing is, Israel didn't build major population centers right on their disputed borders. It's all farmland and country bumpkins out there. Those rockets can probably barely travel more than a mile. So here we have Hamas and it's sympathizers lobbing everything they have, which are basically homemade fireworks without any kind of guidance systems and probably aren't even aerodynamically tested, at mostly empty land. They're a nuisance, not a threat.
sanepride said @ 5:03am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
The rockets don't have guidance but they do have some range, some have been reaching Tel Aviv and even the West Bank. A lot have been getting shot down by the Iron Dome defense system. And they also have a lot of them- some estimate an arsenal of over 9000.
That being said, they obviously don't represent a threat to Israel's existence or overall security. Nevertheless, those responsible for firing them must have some realization that in doing so they are inviting massive retaliation.
foobar said @ 6:48am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
That massive retaliation then cements their power base and draws in international funds.
Onix said @ 8:36am GMT on 21st Jul
That's why I said, both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders should be cast to Hell. I wonder how many Israelies and Palestinians really hate each other,
sanepride said @ 1:40pm GMT on 21st Jul
See my recent post on the subject. It's not so much that they hate each other, they just don't know each other- particularly in the case of Gaza, which has been effectively isolated since the the Israeli disengagement of 2005.
Dumbledorito said @ 6:40pm GMT on 21st Jul
Except that's not enough to solve the problem. Even if you made the rockets and military strikes vanish tomorrow, the policies being enforced on Gaza and the people living in an around the area are oppressive to say the least.
sanepride said @ 7:06pm GMT on 21st Jul
Agreed. Not suggesting it would solve the problem, just trying to address Onix's question. Although it certainly wouldn't hurt to see the people on the other side of the fence as fellow people instead of 'the other'.
Onix said @ 2:35am GMT on 21st Jul
Yeah. They are responding to retaliation with genocide.
Resurrected Morris said @ 6:51pm GMT on 22nd Jul
lol
sanepride said @ 4:54am GMT on 21st Jul
Funny thing about perceived media bias is that it always seems to depend on whose side you're on. I'm hearing a lot of pro-Israel folks complaining that the bias is heavily against Israel.
Generally I'm finding most mainstream media outlets to be doing a pretty fair job of reporting the disproportionate numbers of casualties resulting from Israel's heavy hand.
Kama-Kiri said @ 7:38am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Yes, but the right of Israel to launch these attacks and the notion that they are a strikes on military targets is rarely questioned. Meanwhile the presumption of Palestinian culpability is taken for granted.
sanepride said @ 1:46pm GMT on 21st Jul
Obviously we're looking at different news outlets. I'm seeing a lot of prominent coverage of civilian casualties in Gaza and of international condemnation. Hard to say objectively, bu tit seems like more so than previous incursions, with a lot more journalists reporting from Gaza itself.
HoZay said @ 11:38pm GMT on 20th Jul
What, again?
Onix said @ 11:45pm GMT on 20th Jul
Somebody should cast the Palestinian and Israeli leaders in Hell and leave the people, the ones really suffering all this, alone.
_brody_ said @ 11:53pm GMT on 20th Jul
maryyugo said @ 8:20pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3 Good]
What this moron lawmaker said is offensive enough but the article misquotes her. She did not say all Palestinians should die. She said the mothers of terrorists who support their children and acclaim their terrorism should die. That's incredible cold and ruthless but it is not the same thing. Such misquotes are pretty typical in advocate news sources.
sanepride said @ 12:43am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Hot Pr0n]
Goddamnit why does she have to be hawt?

Bleb said @ 1:21am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:5 Funsightful]
I know you're a pretty thoughtful person, sanepride, so this isn't necessarily directed AT you, but: Jesus fucking christ, why do guys constantly have to lose their goddamned minds every time they see a photo of a reasonably attractive woman on the internet? It doesn't matter what forum: facebook, youtube, cnn, imdb. If there's a picture of an attractive girl, when you scroll down, guys will be typing out what they want to do to her. I'm not the world's biggest feminist, but could we not be stereotypically dick-driven fucking idiots at least once in a while?
_brody_ said @ 3:25am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:3]
I'd love to sit her down and dissuade her of her extremist views. I want to put my carefully reasoned arguments all up in her ears.
arrowhen said @ 5:51pm GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:2 Underrated]
I hardly think mentioning that an attractive woman is attractive -- in a community that was practically founded on showing each other pictures of naked ladies -- qualifies as dick-driven mansanity.
Bleb said @ 7:28pm GMT on 22nd Jul
If this were a post about naked ladies, it wouldn't be. But it was in response to an article about an Israeli member of parliament advocating genocide.

So yeah, it kinda is.
sanepride said @ 9:41pm GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Maybe on this new SE. On the old SE someone would have certainly posted this:



Just to clarify- noting the overt physical attractiveness of an abhorrent person is in no way an endorsement of her views.

arrowhen said @ 11:55pm GMT on 22nd Jul
The new SE is what you make it, just like the old one was.
sanepride said @ 2:27am GMT on 23rd Jul
Hey stay out of this- can't you see we're locked in a mortal struggle for the very soul of this site?
arrowhen said @ 2:51am GMT on 23rd Jul
No, you're the cancer that's destroying SE!
steele said @ 3:15am GMT on 23rd Jul
Cancer is a bit harsh. Lupus, maybe.
sanepride said @ 3:37am GMT on 23rd Jul
Let's just compromise and say it's the clap.
arrowhen said @ 4:26am GMT on 23rd Jul
It's never lupus.
arrowhen said @ 7:39pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Just because the locker room is full of smart people doesn't mean you shouldn't expect locker room talk.
Onix said @ 8:08pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Boys will be boys, girls will be girls. Even if they are smarter than average.
arrowhen said @ 10:40pm GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Humans will be the animals they are, and should stop apologizing for it so much.
Onix said @ 10:52pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Great phrase.
sanepride said @ 4:41am GMT on 21st Jul
Sorry, I thought this was SE.

Oh, right, I forgot...it's the new SE.
steele said @ 11:15am GMT on 21st Jul
Hey dude, I'm right there with ya. If I had it my way women wouldn't even be allowed to mod.

DOWN WITH WOMEN'S SEFFRAGE! ;)
sanepride said @ 1:54pm GMT on 21st Jul
OK, let me just state for the record that my mom raised me to be a proud feminist and defender of equality for all. My comment refers to what seems to be a markedly different mindset on this site regarding humor, attitudes, and- much as I despise the term- 'political correctness'. Obviously this forum is a complex organism- and I'm not saying that this kinder, gentler SE is a bad thing, it just takes a little getting used to.
steele said @ 3:29pm GMT on 21st Jul
I'm just fucking with ya. if you think this version is kindler and gentler you should see my inbox :P
sanepride said @ 4:02pm GMT on 21st Jul
I'd wager it's a lot kinder and gentler than St. Marck's inbox. Big diff of course is that you actually check yours.
steele said @ 4:18pm GMT on 21st Jul
I can only imagine how bad that was towards the end. The code actually has a limit with how far back it's willing to show you messages. I bet he had messages on there that would've never seen the light of day even if he did show up before the site died.
Bob Denver said @ 4:55pm GMT on 21st Jul
Are people seriously giving you a hard time? If so, that's unconscionable!
steele said @ 5:46pm GMT on 21st Jul
It's not that bad, I get much more kind words than bad :D
Bob Denver said @ 5:42pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Good! Because you're doing a great job. Thank you.
steele said @ 6:17pm GMT on 22nd Jul
You are quite welcome :)
HoZay said @ 6:30pm GMT on 21st Jul
sorry
damnit said @ 9:15am GMT on 21st Jul
You can't change sayane pride.

Onix said @ 1:04am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
Reacting to Shaked's remarks, the Turkish premier said Israel's policy in Gaza is no different than Hitler's mentality.

"An Israeli woman said Palestinian mothers should be killed, too. And she's a member of the Israeli parliament. What is the difference between this mentality and Hitler's?" Erdogan asked.

+++++

Sometimes I feel like the Israelies are passing to the Palestinians the bill on what Hitler did to them.
C18H27NO3 said @ 1:08am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Good]
I don't know about you, but visually striking with an ugly disgusting character/ personality isn't "hawt" to me. I tend to view the whole package.

I'll pass on that package.
Onix said @ 3:01am GMT on 21st Jul
I can testify that visually stricking women sometimes are evil incarnate. And looking at her eyes, I see a beast of huge proportions, ready to do anything to placate her thirst for human blood. Hell, my ex wife is just like that!
Bob Denver said @ 5:18am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
That's a dark place you inhabit, Onix. But...It's curious that Scarlet Johansson, who shares a look with this woman, has taken a pro-Israel stance. In particular acting as a spokesman for Sodastream, a company on occupied territory and while not related, she has also been noted to regard the animal anti-cruelty message with contempt irrespective of the group saying it.
Onix said @ 5:42am GMT on 21st Jul
She's pretty smart, being (IIRC) a Mensa member, but that does not make her intelligent enough to appreciate other creatures lives. And the pro-Israel stance could pretty well be related to being in Hollywood and all that about the jews controlling media. She is taking care of her career, no doubt. She is still the prettiest woman alive, but perhaps not perfect after all.

And believe me Bob, the place was even darker and it's just getting better ;)
sanepride said @ 6:05am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Insightful]
Scarlet Johansson's 'pro-Isreal' stance is about as dedicated as the paycheck she got from Sodastream. For the most part she seems pretty apolitical on the subject.
As for the part about 'the jews controlling the media', I'm just going to assume you're not serious, or maybe you're trying to suggest her views in an awkward way. For what it's worth, Johansson herself is part Jewish.
Onix said @ 6:42am GMT on 21st Jul
I was merely suggesting that she could be taking a stance in favor of Israel just to protect her paychecks. Nothing more really. I think I should have put some "and blah, blah" somewhere in my previous comment, in order to convey them in a better way. I don't really think they could have all that much control over the industry anyway. But I truly think media is biased on their favor, for more political than economical reasons.
sanepride said @ 7:16am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2 Insightful]
As i mentioned above, the strongly pro-Israel crowd I know is pretty convinced the media is biased against them.
Of course generally speaking- everybody with a viewpoint thinks the media is biased against them.
Onix said @ 7:45am GMT on 21st Jul
Yes. I agree. But most US media I have watched seems to be pro-Israel, while other outlets, like Mexican and Russian, tend to be more pro Palestinian. Maybe I am wrong, but that feels like US media being partialized due to political interests. In Mexico the conflict has no direct impact on politics, so they focuse more on the human side of things, presenting the side with more loss of life as the victim, while the Russians generally seem to react against whatever the US TV is showing. At least IMHO.
arrowhen said @ 5:56pm GMT on 22nd Jul
"Pardon me, miss, but my penis and I couldn't help but notice your attractive physical appearance. As you know, however, looks aren't everything, so would you mind filling out this brief political survey before we spend the rest of this bus ride picturing you in a Catwoman outfit?"
C18H27NO3 said @ 8:26pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Huh?

What's your point, or are you just being antagonistic and argumentative for no reason?
arrowhen said @ 9:00pm GMT on 22nd Jul
"Antagonistic and argumentative."

Christ on a fucking crutch.
C18H27NO3 said @ 9:51pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Christ owned a fucking crutch? Like a reciprocating dildo? Is that like the machine gun fake leg in planet terror? Man, that would have been something to see in Luke, or whatever. It would have changed christianity forever.
Bob Denver said @ 5:25am GMT on 23rd Jul [Score:1 Funny]
He used religion as a crutch...
arrowhen said @ 10:51pm GMT on 22nd Jul
It was pretty much a Fleshlight on a stick. In the original texts, Jesus didn't exactly HEAL the lame, He just helped take their minds off their troubles. It was a neat couple of verses, complete with a lube recipe featuring a rather clever "milk and honey" pun in Aramaic. But, as usual, those dour bastards in the Council of Nicaea edited out all the good bits.
C18H27NO3 said @ 11:20pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Ok, this girl is HOT.



http://youtu.be/I-j-iUwaykQ
C18H27NO3 said @ 11:21pm GMT on 21st Jul
Ok, that was totally fucked. Never intended it to be so big. WTF? Can someone fix this? Tell me how to fix it?

And the youtube :

C18H27NO3 said @ 11:23pm GMT on 21st Jul
Huh? HTML fail.

Fuck!!
Bob Denver said @ 12:27am GMT on 22nd Jul
Don't you hate it when you're about to post something and you're thinking, "Oh boy this is gonna be gooo-ood!"...and it comes out all wrong and you feel like a tit?
HoZay said @ 12:54am GMT on 22nd Jul
If you posted the pic to imgur, then you can edit it in place, including resize.
sanepride said @ 1:07am GMT on 22nd Jul
Yep.
shiftace said @ 1:02am GMT on 21st Jul
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14
lilmookieesquire said @ 3:38am GMT on 21st Jul
To hide her hallow insides?
_brody_ said @ 11:50pm GMT on 20th Jul
AssBastard said @ 7:14am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2]
(Not pictured) A 2nd missile is also fired at anyone who criticizes Israel.
midden said @ 1:56am GMT on 21st Jul
Does it actually work, or is this just the concept they are working towards? I've seen some pretty impressive demos of this idea applied to RPGs fired at moving vehicles.
robotroadkill said @ 3:00am GMT on 21st Jul
I saw a statistic (I think on NPR) that it's 80% effective or so.
_brody_ said @ 3:33am GMT on 21st Jul
Seems to have improved to 90% this year.
captainstubing said @ 11:29pm GMT on 21st Jul
I think an actual iron dome might take it up to 100%. They could then build a temple under it. Something to aim for. Plus, what a fantastic tourism asset that would be!
XregnaR said @ 7:33pm GMT on 22nd Jul
I see Iron Dome, but in my head I hear:

steele said @ 2:32am GMT on 21st Jul
So... WTF is up with 1600 rockets? Are they just recycling old press releases?

HELL ON EARTH; CRISIS IN MIDDLE EAST++ Toll Hits 73 as 1,600 Rockets Rain Down on Region Children Killed in Israeli Attacks on Militant's HQ - November 19, 2012
TheThirstyMonk said @ 3:32am GMT on 21st Jul
Maybe it's their lucky number?
steele said @ 3:43am GMT on 21st Jul
Focus group approved?
TheThirstyMonk said @ 4:06am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:2]
Kid tested, Palestinian mother approved?

Yeah, I think I'm going to hell for that one.
yunnaf said @ 5:20am GMT on 21st Jul
I know nothing but I’ll repeat what I understood from the Sunday talk shows.

Hamas is funded by sympathetic Sunni donors in the region, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and is supplied with Iranian rockets and rocket making supplies.

In 2012 Egypt’s President Morsi, from the Muslin Brotherhood had sway with Hamas because Hamas was an offshoot of the Muslin Brotherhood and had influence to produce a cease-fire.
Egypt’s current President el-Sisi has no ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and has thwarted Hamas by closing tunnels between Egypt and Israel (rocket supplies) and has little sway with Hamas.
Domestically Hamas is losing favour with the electorate of Gaza.

Israel perceives that Hamas is on the ropes and with raids will try to destroy it’s rocket arsenal and leadership, to back Hamas in a corner and settle for a cease fire from a position of weakness.

That's what I heard,


ubie said @ 6:29am GMT on 21st Jul
I assume the bomb it, burn it, salt it, nuke it from orbit until it's a lake of molten glass option for the entire region is still off the table?
Taleweaver said @ 7:02am GMT on 21st Jul
Well, until you somehow get some nukes into orbit. Then it becomes an option.
KingPellinore said @ 12:27pm GMT on 21st Jul
Well, it IS the only way to be sure...
Bob Denver said @ 7:11am GMT on 21st Jul
For what it's worth, here are the reasons I have difficulties with Israel. They have set themselves up to be above criticism—we are justified in doing what we do because Holocaust, because Diasporae. To criticise Israel in any way is anti-semitic. Three generations ago, most Israelis were European. They have brought Eastern European prejudices with them—rejecting Ethiopian Jewry, for example. There were a few mass exoduses, many Jews remained in the area under the Babylonians and were considered citizens of that empire. Under the Romans, the Jews revolted over taxation, which while onerous, wasn't any more difficult than other conquered territories. The Roman conquest of Judea essentially ended with Masada. So, those unwilling to tolerate Roman rule left. A scattered people, they were as "legitimately" conquered as the Celts, the Gauls and who knows how many other peoples around the world throughout history. But, only they have the right to reclaim land that they abandoned millennia ago. Why is this?

They are invaders akin to the Romans from all those years ago with superior technology and brutal tactics. They do not crucify but their missile strikes and wall-building are done in the same spirit. The big difference is that, unlike the Romans, they continue to claim that they are the victims and individually and as a nation, they loudly shout down any reasoned arguments to the contrary.
HoZay said @ 9:23am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Informative]
Three generations ago, most Israelis were European.
Europe didn't treat them so well. Israel was created by Holocaust survivors as a place where Jews could defend themselves, because clearly, nobody else was going to. Completely understandable after seeing how defenseless they were in Europe in the 30's when an industrial Jew-killing system was created with great success.
Europe was just as glad to see them go. The Christian west saw the Palestinians as heathens who weren't really using that land anyway. The Israeli pioneers encouraged that view, and used the Bible to justify taking the land because "God gave us this land." Europe and especially, the US, ate this up. The Jews deserved a country of their own after what they'd been through.
Heroic, hard-working Kibbutznik pioneers were making the desert bloom. Palestinians who fought back were depicted as savages. The movie Exodus is a great depiction of the attitudes of the day. Nobody saw the removal of Palestinians as ethnic cleansing, it was an empty land, like the American west.
The Israelis have the right to claim that land because they're willing to fight to defend it, just like anybody else. The US had a big part in helping them get established, and we're invested in their success. It's hard to criticize Israel for doing what we've always helped and encouraged them to do in the past.
It just isn't working as well now as it used to.
Bruceski said @ 10:21am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
I'm actually related to Golda Meir, third prime minister of Israel and one of the major players in it being established. I was a lot prouder of that as a kid than I am having grown up and learning what she's actually said.

If the pioneers had seen the Palestinians as neighbors to cooperate with rather than pests to be removed, things would be very different today.
C18H27NO3 said @ 11:57am GMT on 21st Jul
I read somewhere that the original zionists were looking at west africa first, but the land was already "occupied."

How is "occupied" determined?

C18H27NO3 said @ 11:58am GMT on 21st Jul
oops. East Africa. In and around Somalia.
Bob Denver said @ 12:37am GMT on 22nd Jul [Score:1 Good]
The saddest thing is that Israel was born out of a paroxysm of anti-judaism. Given how historical events have severely scarred the Jewish psyche, I suspect the nature of the country's birth is behind much of their actions. Worse, they are the "adult" in that relationship and they are acting like a damaged child.
Onix said @ 1:19am GMT on 22nd Jul
You nailed it Bob.
C18H27NO3 said @ 11:55am GMT on 21st Jul
"The Jews deserved a country of their own after what they'd been through. "

Really? So I guess that means the Palestinians deserve their own country, as do the Armenians, Tibetans, American Indians, and scores of others. Lets just carve up some more Arab land and hand it to them because we feel morally superior. Y'know, because we know better.

"The Israelis have the right to claim that land because they're willing to fight to defend it, just like anybody else."

And that justifies the injustice of the land grab?
HoZay said @ 4:12pm GMT on 21st Jul
I didn't mean they actually deserved it, but the "feeling" in the west was that they deserved it. Actually, nobody deserves anything, but it helped the West feel justified in approving Israel. It was a part of the story, like God giving them the land in the Bible. The mostly Christian west didn't know much about the Arab story, so it was easy to disregard them.
As for the right to claim land you're willing to fight to defend, that's just the way all countries work. There's no justice involved. Even if a deal is negotiated, everybody has to be prepared to defend that deal.
C18H27NO3 said @ 6:47pm GMT on 21st Jul
Oh. Ok. I misread your comment. I get it.
sanepride said @ 7:22am GMT on 21st Jul
The idea that criticizing Israeli policies is necessarily anti-semitic is a fairly extreme, antiquated viewpoint. Many of Israel's most vocal critics happen to be American Jews.
Bob Denver said @ 8:40am GMT on 21st Jul
It might be an "extreme, antiquated viewpoint" but it is a fairly common experience. And, given that America has the second largest Jewish population in the world, I'd argue that those who are vocal critics are drowned out by the majority who aren't. Not to mention that many fundamentalist Christians support the rights of Israel over those of the Palestinians.

And, let me be clear. If I felt (as I do) that I had an absolute right to be where I am and some group I considered external started lobbing explosives into what I now consider my home country, I'd be pretty antagonistic towards them. The whole thing just sucks but Israel isn't making it any better.
Bruceski said @ 10:17am GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
I've seen fewer accusations of being anti-semitic and more using "if I speak out against Isearl I'll be called anti-semitic" as a point against them.

It's like letting your anxieties keep you from going to a party because you're afraid everyone will laugh at you, then calling the people there jerks because they'd do something like that when it didn't actually happen.
sanepride said @ 2:06pm GMT on 21st Jul
I think a lot of folks hesitant to criticize Israel for fear of being labelled 'anti-semitic' are missing the distinction between criticizing policies and leadership and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. It's also semantics- referring to Israel itself and not 'the Jews' or even Zionists is perfectly legitimate. As for the folks who casually accuse critics of Israel of anti-semitism, IMO they're as bad as actual anti-semites - especially when they use the epithet to cover up real human rights abuses.
AssBastard said @ 7:18am GMT on 21st Jul
Oh hey, Palestinian death toll is at 501, the vast majority of which were civilians!
Kama-Kiri said @ 7:47am GMT on 21st Jul
My reading of this is it goes back to the killing of the three Israeli teenagers, and the revenge killing of the Palestinian teenager, and Israel arresting and detaining hundreds of Palestinians, particularly senior government officials.

Assuming Hamas was not responsible (and it seems reasonable to assume that it was instead an isolated incident, presumably score settling on personal level, given the lack of evidence to the contrary), and in any event that's how Palestinians see it, then Hamas has a legitimate grievance .. .which is relayed as a rocket barrage .. .. which induces the inevitable military response from Israel.
Onix said @ 8:56am GMT on 21st Jul
You know what? I would really love to see the angels of the Judeochristian religions somehow manifesting and disarming Palestinians and Israelies, forcing them to peace. Or Superman, or aliens or whatever.

It is kind of hearbreaking to see that no force on Earth is able or willing to change the tide of violence and there is no force in Heaven doing that either. Mankind is left to roll on its mud and feces like pigs. No empires or nations in history would have ever tolerated something like this. The Romans would have intervened in favor of one or other. Napoleon would have chosen one side. Alexander would probably conquered both sides and forced them to live side by side. The Mayan and the Aztec would probably taken the beligerant males to be sacrificed already. The Mongol would have conquered them. Even the Popes in the times when they were men capable of using an armor would have taken Jerusalem just to shut them up.

There is no rationality behind this, just resentment and hate. They both need to be shaken from the ground up, taken to the skies and dismembered so the people gets freaked out and stops the conflict once and for all, just for fear of retailation. But there is no superior force willing to intervene, no nation with ethics, no heroes.

Is this bloodshed allowed for something other than political and economical reasons? Is it some kind of ritual to appease an angry god or something more? Or is it just plain stupidity, taken to the next level? Is it revenge or a strong desire to exterminate a whole people, like a strange version of the Stockholm Syndrom, now committing the same sins that were committed on you? Do the raped child ends up, by force, as a rapist? Do the martyr ends up as a torturer? Why does it have to be this way?

How could we explain it to someone outside Earth, for example? How could we justify it if we don't even understand it? Because, if we did, this would have been stoped a long time ago.

Anyway, I guess I'll better go to sleep. It's 4:00 am and I really can't stop thinking about it. I guess I'll have a cigar and then hit the bed. Too many questions for such a late time.
sanepride said @ 2:17pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Interesting]
I think your reading of history is a bit flawed. The empires of old couldn't necessarily impose order throughout their realms, nor was the order they did impose particularly desirable for the average citizen. Also it needs to be pointed out (yet again) that despite our perception of overwhelming violence and chaos in current events, when measured historically humanity has actually become steadily and dramatically less violent. Believe it or not things are actually much better now than at any time in human history.
No offense, but your casual deistic references might indicate some skewed perception. Angels, heaven and hell, even if there were such things, would have precious little influence over human activities.
HoZay said @ 4:24pm GMT on 21st Jul [Score:1 Underrated]
Belief in the supernatural is at least part of the problem.
Dumbledorito said @ 6:41pm GMT on 21st Jul
Saying that the people being killed and wounded now are better off than people in the past smells a lot like saying the poor in this country aren't that bad off because they probably have a fridge and a cell phone.
sanepride said @ 7:10pm GMT on 21st Jul
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is a lot less people are being killed and wounded than in the past. Obviously for the ones who are it still sucks.
Onix said @ 9:47pm GMT on 21st Jul
You may be rigth. I am just pissed and sometimes get too extreme and perhaps have this romanticized view of the past. But his is a modern conflict that is allowed to be burning over and over again and nobody is really doing anything. But the US is always ready to invade another country under the excuse of protecting the peace at any moment, while the Russians have their own reasons and excused to do the same. The idea of a third force that could intervene leaves me with no other choice but calling for the supernatural, since nothing in the real worlds seems to be able or willing to do anything.

And I love your posts, btw.
Onix said @ 9:50pm GMT on 21st Jul
And I really need a corrector or a way to edit my posts. Also, new reading glasses would really help.
sanepride said @ 1:11am GMT on 22nd Jul
You're OK by me Onix, even if you happen to believe in that stuff (the religious stuff that is). Maybe one day we'll have a cerveza en Ciudad de Mexico. Love to visit there sometime.
Onix said @ 1:18am GMT on 22nd Jul
I am more spiritual than religious, believe me. Yeah, we can have a beer and you can crash home whenever you come. That's for certain mate.
LurkerAtTheGate said @ 1:31pm GMT on 21st Jul
every time Israel & Gaza comes up, I think of this fight scene. Took me days of searching memory to remember what movie it was from.

LurkerAtTheGate said @ 1:32pm GMT on 21st Jul
well, I borked that. Fine -- here
Resurrected Morris said @ 3:04pm GMT on 21st Jul
Proportional response is a crock.

Hamas and the other terrorist groups have been launching missiles into Israel...what proportionate response is there to fire and flee attacks? Attack the launch site after they have left?

There is only two responses available. Do nothing or eliminate the threats. I realize that if you chose to make your battlefield a crowded city there will be civilian casualties, and Hamas realizes this too. Civilian casualties work in favour for Hamas, each dead child is a propaganda victory, the more the merrier. Otherwise they would store their weapons away from hospitals, schools and such.

sanepride said @ 4:08pm GMT on 21st Jul
Very convenient that you countered your own argument-

Civilian casualties work in favour for Hamas, each dead child is a propaganda victory, the more the merrier.

From both a strategic and political viewpoint this is exactly why the disproportionate response is a bad idea- because in the long run it doesn't work. Unless of course you just go all out and kill everybody- but that creates a whole new set of problems.
Dumbledorito said @ 7:23pm GMT on 21st Jul
If, as you say, they've fled from where they were launched, how are the retaliatory strike zones being chosen, then? How could they not help but kill loads of people with nothing to do with the attacks? And Israel itself is why Gaza is so crowded in the first place.

It's like putting a bunch of fish in a barrel and complaining you can't hit the one you want with your shotgun.
Resurrected Morris said @ 12:53pm GMT on 22nd Jul
You know it's been in the news for a few days...the strike zones.. Storage facilities, tunnels, lines of communications and hamas fighters.

Dumbledorito said @ 1:00pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Funny how they resemble hospitals, isn't it?
Resurrected Morris said @ 5:04pm GMT on 22nd Jul
The Geneva Convention is quite clear, the presence of a protected structure does not make a valid target immune to attack.

If you position fighters, weapons in an orphanage, the orphanage becomes a legal target.

1)This serves Hamas two ways, the possibility that they will indeed be immune to attack.
2) Dead babies make good PR.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5912189/yes-gaza-militants-hide-rockets-in-schools-but-israel-doesnt-have-to

I would argue they do have to bomb them. Twice even.
Bob Denver said @ 4:59pm GMT on 21st Jul
I'm curious. Does anyone know if Israel has actually paid Palestinians for the properties seized at Israel's start?
sanepride said @ 5:46pm GMT on 21st Jul
Paid? Hah, good one there little buddy.

Also, it should be noted that while many Palestinians were either forcibly displaced or coerced into leaving, many others left either on their own or at the behest of neighboring Arab states. Still others managed to stay and became Israeli Arab citizens.
HoZay said @ 6:07pm GMT on 21st Jul
There was some pretty limited compensation, but mostly not. If nobody was living on a piece of land at the moment, it was considered abandoned and seized by the state.
Proper compensation would be one of those things to be determined in the never-to-be-agreed-on treaty.
HoZay said @ 6:10pm GMT on 21st Jul
Hey C18H27NO3, pretty good first post. I hope we hear from you again.
C18H27NO3 said @ 6:47pm GMT on 21st Jul
Thanks.
Bob Denver said @ 8:05pm GMT on 21st Jul
Yes, it was a hot post...
maryyugo said @ 8:16pm GMT on 21st Jul
"Assuming Hamas was not responsible (and it seems reasonable to assume that it was instead an isolated incident, presumably score settling on personal level, given the lack of evidence to the contrary), and in any event that's how Palestinians see it, then Hamas has a legitimate grievance .. .which is relayed as a rocket barrage ..."
*
Which of course is the source of the problem. Only cynical ayholes would put their population at wanton risk of immense retribution in this manner. Rocketing Israel with devices which are basically made out of junk makes no military or other sense whatever.

Obviously, much more fruitful avenues of protests via international groups, foundations, societies and the UN are available to them.

As someone else said, what Hamas wants is the slaughter of their own people to mobilize world opinion and local anger against the Israelis. One can only hope that the Palestinian people are smart enough to recognize the ploy and will react accordingly. Of course, it is very dangerous to ones person and ones family and home to confront Hamas. That's a major part of the problem.
Resurrected Morris said @ 1:01pm GMT on 22nd Jul
Except the evidence shows that many of rockets are not home made, but being supplied by Iran. That being said, the home made rockets, the Qassam are illegal under international law.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/21/iran-admits-giving-hamas-technology-for-missiles/?page=all

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/iran-hamas-rockets-gaza-mosul-isis-regypt.html#

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR