Hmm, are you PeanutCoins' alt account by any chance?
Apparently so, as well as an AE of most of the other posters in this thread.
Topic: Israel: Operation Protective Edge - page 19. (Read 14685 times)
Hmm, are you PeanutCoins' alt account by any chance?
Apparently so, as well as an AE of most of the other posters in this thread.
I didn't realize that my threads were so popular.
Hmm, are you PeanutCoins' alt account by any chance?
But yes, given the needless loss of life that has been going on, it seems only natural that it will strike a chord with most people.
I didn't realize that my threads were so popular.
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
I don't think land is the main issue here, though it's often stated by extremists as such. As far as I can tell, Palestinians want their human rights to be respected - whether that is under a Palestinian state, Israel, or whatever, is a secondary consideration to the population. The problem is, Israel isn't interested in a one state solution, since that would be a "demographic" problem... so much for democracy.
I disagree land is central to the issue its the whole reason this mess started if Palestine was left to its people there would be no war
Well, I'm not Palestinian, or personally know any for that matter, so take it as you will - but let me try to clarify what I was trying to say. Of course, people don't want to be kicked out of the land they live in, and they want to have a government that actually represents them and respects their rights; but whether the country they are part of is called Palestine, Israel, or whatever, doesn't seem to be the biggest issue in most Palestinians' minds, for all I've read and seen about it.
For example, in the following interview Shir Hever expresses this same idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYeWeoQ-uQ (at about the 7 minute mark, though I definitely recommend the full interview).
Here's my peace process plan:
Point 1: Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In exchange, Israel gets 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s. Afterwards, it annexes all of East Jersualem and gives Arabs living their equal rights as Israeli citiizens. It then annexes the Golan Heights and gives everyone there equal rights as Israeli citizens.
Point 2: Mahmoud Abbas cuts ties with Hamas in exchange for an Israeli guarantee to never expand territory, even after winning any future defensive wars.
Point 3: Israel agrees to never expand territory as long as the Golan Heights, pre-1967 Israel, and a united Jerusalem (East and West) are recognized as Israeli and Ramallah becomes the Palestinian capitol.
Point 4: Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and with all of its neighbors and they work together financially and politically.
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?Point 1: Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In exchange, Israel gets 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s. Afterwards, it annexes all of East Jersualem and gives Arabs living their equal rights as Israeli citiizens. It then annexes the Golan Heights and gives everyone there equal rights as Israeli citizens.
Point 2: Mahmoud Abbas cuts ties with Hamas in exchange for an Israeli guarantee to never expand territory, even after winning any future defensive wars.
Point 3: Israel agrees to never expand territory as long as the Golan Heights, pre-1967 Israel, and a united Jerusalem (East and West) are recognized as Israeli and Ramallah becomes the Palestinian capitol.
Point 4: Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and with all of its neighbors and they work together financially and politically.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
There is the attempted deception, this has nothing to do with religion, that is merely the pathetic shield that true evil hides. This is about real living, breathing, bleeding, grieving, human beings caught up in state genocide.
Here's my peace process plan:
Point 1: Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In exchange, Israel gets 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s. Afterwards, it annexes all of East Jersualem and gives Arabs living their equal rights as Israeli citiizens. It then annexes the Golan Heights and gives everyone there equal rights as Israeli citizens.
Point 2: Mahmoud Abbas cuts ties with Hamas in exchange for an Israeli guarantee to never expand territory, even after winning any future defensive wars.
Point 3: Israel agrees to never expand territory as long as the Golan Heights, pre-1967 Israel, and a united Jerusalem (East and West) are recognized as Israeli and Ramallah becomes the Palestinian capitol.
Point 4: Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and with all of its neighbors and they work together financially and politically.
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?Point 1: Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In exchange, Israel gets 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s. Afterwards, it annexes all of East Jersualem and gives Arabs living their equal rights as Israeli citiizens. It then annexes the Golan Heights and gives everyone there equal rights as Israeli citizens.
Point 2: Mahmoud Abbas cuts ties with Hamas in exchange for an Israeli guarantee to never expand territory, even after winning any future defensive wars.
Point 3: Israel agrees to never expand territory as long as the Golan Heights, pre-1967 Israel, and a united Jerusalem (East and West) are recognized as Israeli and Ramallah becomes the Palestinian capitol.
Point 4: Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and with all of its neighbors and they work together financially and politically.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
I don't think land is the main issue here, though it's often stated by extremists as such. As far as I can tell, Palestinians want their human rights to be respected - whether that is under a Palestinian state, Israel, or whatever, is a secondary consideration to the population. The problem is, Israel isn't interested in a one state solution, since that would be a "demographic" problem... so much for democracy.
I disagree land is central to the issue its the whole reason this mess started if Palestine was left to its people there would be no war
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
I don't think land is the main issue here, though it's often stated by extremists as such. As far as I can tell, Palestinians want their human rights to be respected - whether that is under a Palestinian state, Israel, or whatever, is a secondary consideration to the population. The problem is, Israel isn't interested in a one state solution, since that would be a "demographic" problem... so much for democracy.
Notice, if you did miss the point, that I didn't mention land only (land is also part of the problem) but the right of existence of the state of Palestine is of most important and which is a total different story
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
I don't think land is the main issue here, though it's often stated by extremists as such. As far as I can tell, Palestinians want their human rights to be respected - whether that is under a Palestinian state, Israel, or whatever, is a secondary consideration to the population. The problem is, Israel isn't interested in a one state solution, since that would be a "demographic" problem... so much for democracy.
When do the millions of Palestinians currently living in exile get to come home and get their land back?
Here's my peace process plan:
Point 1: Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In exchange, Israel gets 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s. Afterwards, it annexes all of East Jersualem and gives Arabs living their equal rights as Israeli citiizens. It then annexes the Golan Heights and gives everyone there equal rights as Israeli citizens.
Point 2: Mahmoud Abbas cuts ties with Hamas in exchange for an Israeli guarantee to never expand territory, even after winning any future defensive wars.
Point 3: Israel agrees to never expand territory as long as the Golan Heights, pre-1967 Israel, and a united Jerusalem (East and West) are recognized as Israeli and Ramallah becomes the Palestinian capitol.
Point 4: Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and with all of its neighbors and they work together financially and politically.
Why should Israel annexes Jerusalem why not give Jerusalem to the Palestinians ? and why should Israel be armed even further ?Point 1: Israel withdraws from the West Bank. In exchange, Israel gets 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s. Afterwards, it annexes all of East Jersualem and gives Arabs living their equal rights as Israeli citiizens. It then annexes the Golan Heights and gives everyone there equal rights as Israeli citizens.
Point 2: Mahmoud Abbas cuts ties with Hamas in exchange for an Israeli guarantee to never expand territory, even after winning any future defensive wars.
Point 3: Israel agrees to never expand territory as long as the Golan Heights, pre-1967 Israel, and a united Jerusalem (East and West) are recognized as Israeli and Ramallah becomes the Palestinian capitol.
Point 4: Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and with all of its neighbors and they work together financially and politically.
Hamas finds it reason in existence, in the colonization of Palestine by Israel, if Israel, goes to pre-1967 there won't any war, especially is Palestinians are allowed to have their own country with real institution with police and army that could enforce order.
Quote
Seems a bit disingenuous to compare a formal war with an insurgency and terrorist related violence. The two aren't fought in the same way. Nor are they fought with the same weapons. You're stuck on WWII but it isn't the 40's anymore.
Not really. You can fight an insurgency with the same weapons one would use in a conventional war. Russia did so quite nicely in Chechnya by using massive conventional firepower on Grozny and other insurgent-held, civilian-populated targets. Indeed, the sheer indiscriminate nature, destruction, and terror imposed on the civilian population helps to deter their resistance.I’d suggest the fact that the Allies demonstrated a pretty clear resolve that killing civilians to achieve victory was acceptable is the entire reason why World War II was so successful while Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were not. Perhaps if America had opened up the war by turning Kandahar into a firestorm like Dresden, it would have sent a clearer message of what the price of attacking America is.
That worked out well for him didn't it? Considering he's dead and all and a Shia government is now in power in Iraq. And yet it is still unstable and isolated to this day. Good work
Quote
Hasn't worked too well in over 50 years, seems like a new tactic should be called for.
And your grand strategy for conflict has already been utilized over the course of decades in the Sudan, probably to the best that anyone could hope to realistically utilize it. Bashir literally got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing and has been since 1989. And it has completely failed him. Sure he has been able to stay in power, but he lost the southern half of his country, and is losing control of a half dozen other internal states as well.
It simply doesn't work; and now when Bashir has tried to backtrack he's found the SPLM-N announce today that it is joining forced with the Janjaweed against Khartoum. He ended up losing control of his own monsters.
You also mentioned Sri Lanka? That ended, but it took 26 years. Not really a big win, and even now the harshness of how it ended is causing domestic problems. In fact there were warnings of rising extremism just today within Sri Lanka over clashes which have threatened the country with renewed instability.
It took 26 years because they kept getting distracted by Western bleeding hearts forcing them into peace talks. When they finally decided to just crush the Tamils, it worked fairly quickly. Sudan doesn’t have anything remotely close to Israel’s overwhelming conventional force either, so it’s a bad example.And your grand strategy for conflict has already been utilized over the course of decades in the Sudan, probably to the best that anyone could hope to realistically utilize it. Bashir literally got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing and has been since 1989. And it has completely failed him. Sure he has been able to stay in power, but he lost the southern half of his country, and is losing control of a half dozen other internal states as well.
It simply doesn't work; and now when Bashir has tried to backtrack he's found the SPLM-N announce today that it is joining forced with the Janjaweed against Khartoum. He ended up losing control of his own monsters.
You also mentioned Sri Lanka? That ended, but it took 26 years. Not really a big win, and even now the harshness of how it ended is causing domestic problems. In fact there were warnings of rising extremism just today within Sri Lanka over clashes which have threatened the country with renewed instability.
You can’t realistically hope to stop insurgencies by providing a “legitimate alternative.” It’s basically never worked in a situation like Israel-Palestine. OTOH, the brute force method worked well in the North Caucasus in the 1940s and has been a lot more effective at pacifying Chechnya compared to American efforts in Afghanistan. It also did pretty well in 1991 when Saddam crushed Shia uprisings against his rule that, at their peak, caused him to lose control of the vast majority of Iraq.
Quote
Similarly, Pashtun villages that collaborate with insurgents should be demolished by carpet bombing. Gaza’s civilians must be taught to stop supporting people who attack Israel, so it makes sense to collectively punish them.
Once again, this policy has been tried by the Assad Administration in Syria, the Bashir Administration in the Sudan and the Maliki Administration in Iraq (all have used indiscriminate bombing, particularly the use of barrel bombs) and it has done little but backfire on all of them. Quote
Personally, I’d be far less restrained than the Israelis were being if insurgents in some neighboring country were firing rockets at mine
And then you'd end up generating massive amounts of sympathy for your enemy allowing them to leverage that political capital into obtaining their objectives over your desires and you'd end up either marginalized (having failed your country) or even possibly at the ICC. Your tactics are especially poor because they completely ignore international response. In your make believe world you seem to have the ability to do whatever you want without having to worry about any sort of domestic or international political consequences. A nice fiction, but the world doesn't really work that way. Quote
It took 26 years because they kept getting distracted by Western bleeding hearts forcing them into peace talks. When they finally decided to just crush the Tamils, it worked fairly quickly. Sudan doesn’t have anything remotely close to Israel’s overwhelming conventional force either, so it’s a bad example.
Sure they did, especially when Libya was in Sudan as well. What really held them up though was international interference by other countries, which is what tends to happen when you act like a ruthless dictator. Quote
Of course using collective punishment like that in the Congo is stupid. It would be stupid to kill civilians in Herat or other non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban’s insurgency for the same reason. In either case, they’re far removed from the conflict and don’t really have the ability to intervene.
We saw the kind of collective punishment that you are advocating take place in the Congo, and all it did was intensify the fighting and cause the creation of more militant groups through the establishment of self-defense Mai-Mai militias. What you're advocating is nothing new in conflict, indeed it is well understood and it has been found to be both ineffective as a general practice and highly immoral.Quote
In contrast, the Salafists are operating amongst civilians in Gaza. The civilians aren’t making any serious attempt to stop them and in all probability, are actively aiding them.
Salafists are arrested and killed in Gaza all of the time. Quote
If the M23 were getting support from particular villages, then it would make sense to target those civilians.
They were and from specific countries as well (Rwanda) and they did target said civilians and guess what? it made the fighting worse and saw a blooming of new militia groups increasing the instability in the Kivus. Your policy failed. Quote
It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates.
Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population.Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them.
There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory.
Of course using collective punishment like that in the Congo is stupid. It would be stupid to kill civilians in Herat or other non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban’s insurgency for the same reason. In either case, they’re far removed from the conflict and don’t really have the ability to intervene.
In contrast, the Salafists are operating amongst civilians in Gaza. The civilians aren’t making any serious attempt to stop them and in all probability, are actively aiding them. If the M23 were getting support from particular villages, then it would make sense to target those civilians. Similarly, Pashtun villages that collaborate with insurgents should be demolished by carpet bombing. Gaza’s civilians must be taught to stop supporting people who attack Israel, so it makes sense to collectively punish them.
Personally, I’d be far less restrained than the Israelis were being if insurgents in some neighboring country were firing rockets at mine.
2.) The notion of collective responsibility is the same exact justification that the Al Qassam brigade uses to justify launching rockets at Israeli civilians. Congratulations, you're a supporter of terrorism.
3.) The concept of collective responsibility in Gaza doesn't even make any sense seeing as how it ignores the fact that Hamas doesn't rule there with the direct consent of the people. They weren't elected overlords of Gaza and there was no referendum on rocket attacks. They seized Gaza by force after the civil conflict with Fatah. Even outside of this, the notion of collective responsibility and thus the oking of collective punishment is not recognized as valid or legal under either international law, or Israeli law.
Miko is son of an IDF general, served in the IDF for many years and his grandfather was one of the founding fathers of Isreal.
if you cant listen to a guy who's entire family served Isreal with their lives then who can you listen to?
Jump to: