Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
It's freakin give and take. I don't understand why you don't get this Chill.
Israel started the unilateral withdrawal. Gaza SHOULD have went on with their lives and started negotiating for border access and various other infrastructure.
Instead, Hamas moved in within months. How could any agreements or "reward" have been done in that short period of time?
Yet you give Israel 100% blame for something that was logistically impossible. I just don't understand.
All your statements STRONGLY IMPLY that Israel should have just left the border wide open (even canada and the US don't do that, but I digress). You can keep stating that you never said that explicitly, but it is obvious to anyone with half a rational mind that it is the message you are trying to push. In fact, you quoted yourself being the voice of reason with "I'm not saying they shouldn't have protected their borders", when several posts above that, you state in a negative manner that: "Israel still maintained control of all borders, air space, sea, and all movement of people and goods in an out of Gaza."
Maybe English isn't your first language, but the way that statement is phrased implies that you disagree that they should have maintained control of said borders/air space and movement - thus, your voice of reason remark really means you are just trying to play both sides and doing a really really poor job of covering up your bias.
|
You are jumping to conclusions.
Please, re-focus, re-read, and I promise you'll understand.
A claim was made that Israel withdrew and rewarded citizens. I simply responded that the statement was false.
How does this imply that Israel should have left the borders wide open? How do you grasp a "negative manner" from a simple, factual statement like "Israel still maintained control of all borders, air space, sea, and all movement of people and goods in an out of Gaza."
It's not negative, it's not positive, it just IS. It is just simply a fact. A poster made a statement that was factually inaccurate, I respond with "Actually, that's not true, just so you're aware" and yet you've pulled a significant amount of context, intent, and implication from that post.
Reading into posts and implying your own context, tone, and implication into them helps absolutely nobody, as you are essentially creating further conflict out of nothing.
If someone says "For 2 years the Flames wore blue jerseys" and someone replies with "Actually you are misinformed, that never happened, the Flames always wore red jerseys" would you take that to mean something any more significant than a simple fact correction? Certainly not, I hope.
Careful with inserting your own context and implications into posts, ask for clarification if you're confused.