Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Perhaps he might not have been attacked if he hadn't been waving that extremely provocative sign around?

Come on now... the Star of David replaced by a Nazi swastika?... at a pro Israel rally?



He was asking for it.

Haha. You can't be serious. The sign he was holding might be offensive but in no way is anyone justified in assaulting someone because he doesn't like what they have to say.

[Flash Walken]

Prett good microcosm of the situation.

"I don't like your politics, therefore, VIOLENCE!"

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

http://www.unrwa.org//newsroom/offic...SNh_9A.twitter

Terrible development. Reports are that there are claims that militants were firing missiles from the school but I haven't heard any confirmation of that yet. Would like more information in that regard.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Prett good microcosm of the situation.

"I don't like your politics, therefore, VIOLENCE!"

HAHA that's hardly a declaration of politics - that's a sign designed to do nothing but illicit anger. Just because you have a right to say what you like doesn't mean it won't get you punched in the mouth for it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

HAHA that's hardly a declaration of politics - that's a sign designed to do nothing but illicit anger. Just because you have a right to say what you like doesn't mean it won't get you punched in the mouth for it.

Actually, having the right to say what you want implicitly means you won't face physical violence as a result of it.

[CaptainCrunch]

The proper thing to do would have been for the cops to arrest that punk and charge him with promoting hate, or whatever the name of the charge is.

there's no question he was out there trying to elicit a violent response.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well at this point there aren't a lot of options left, it seems like John Kerry has utterly failed to gain any meaningful traction that could lead to a ceasefire. The UN simply hasn't functioned there at all.

So what are the choices

1) Hamas and Israel agree to a ceasefire - not bloody likely. Israel will not agree to anything without assurances that the Rockets are gone and all tunnels are destroyed.

2) Hamas lays down their arms - They commit to stop fire rockets, properly prosecute other groups that fire rockets and destroy the rockets under international inspection, as well they commit to filling in the smuggling tunnels and the tunnels into Israel. Chance are next to zero, from a public relations standpoint this war is a huge bonus to them.

3) Israel calls a halt to their offensive - Not bloody likely, not until the last rocket launcher is gone, all the weapons caches are gone and the tunnels are gone. Israel is in this one for the long run, they have a definite end goal in mind.

So what can the international community do

1) The UN lays down peace-keepers - Unlikely to be effective, The concept of peacekeeping in my mind is dead. Unless your willing to put a peacekeeping force with teeth in it its going to fail. Hamas will hold them hostage, defy them and laugh when they die. Israel doesn't trust the UN or anyone when it comes to their security. A UN force will become the target of every extremist in Gaza period.

2) The Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt put the squeeze on Hamas and troops on the ground - realistically other Arab States don't really care about the Palestinian question, they were a great public relations sop for a long time "Look at the evil Zionists killing these people". But Hamas is firmly in Iran's sphere now and Egypt has tried to put the clamp on weapons smuggling into the strip. If they can broker a cease fire without cost they'll do that. But if it comes to boots on the ground, it won't happen.

Crystal Ball, what can each side do, what will they do

1) Israel - They have the choice of continuing what they're doing, which is going after weapons caches, launchers, tunnels and Hamas leadership until they perceived that the threats of attack are gone. The problem with that is its becoming a PR disaster that Israel is clearly losing. The only other option is to shift their offensive to a ground based seize every weapons storage site and launcher the old fashion dirty way with Infantry. The draw back is that these will become unsupported men with no artillery, heavy armor or air support. The casualty list will become extreme, because as we know, fighting a irregular force is bloody.

Israel's other option is to stay the course and finish the job and remove Hamas' ability to bring in and launch rockets, the problem with that is that the human cost to innocent Palestinians is really unacceptable. Even with the distribution of pamphlets and other warnings, People can't or won't leave target sites. I really want to emphasize that Israel won't stop this offensive until Hamas is either destroyed or there is a guarantee that the rocket attacks will stop.

Right now as this offense continues, Israel has to almost rely on media fatigue. We've seen it in Syria, when the world got tired of the butchering happening there and it went from the front page to the last. We've seen it in the Ukraine twice now, and we're certainly seeing it in Iraq. Israel is almost hoping that something bad happens somewhere else.



2) Palestinian (Hamas) options - They really only have one option, agreeing to a ceasefire won't help them reach their political end game. Their only option is to double down, increase missile launches into Israel to illicit attacks as a response and then control the story going out to the world. Hamas has had a public relations boon with this war, they've got piles of bodies and destroyed buildings. They've created a serious fracture in Israel's international alliances with the U.S. and Europe that probably won't be fixed. At the same time they've shown Iran that they're in this fight no matter what the costs which means more money and arms flooding in from China through Iran and from Iran itself.

[Flash Walken]

Captain, why isn't it an option for Israel to unilaterally cease military operations in the occupied territories, scale back settlement building, re-orient their political position to promote a 2 state solution and to rely on their effective weapons defense systems to keep their country secure while they negotiate meaningful peace conditions?

Why isn't it an option that Israel do something that doesn't involve violence?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Captain, why isn't it an option for Israel to unilaterally cease military operations in the occupied territories, scale back settlement building, re-orient their political position to promote a 2 state solution and to rely on their effective weapons defense systems to keep their country secure while they negotiate meaningful peace conditions?

Why isn't it an option that Israel do something that doesn't involve violence?

That isn't a option until Palestine unilaterally agrees to remove the rockets, and recognizes Israel as a state.

And you can't rely on a defensive weapons system for protection, that's fiction, bullets eventually defeat armor, there is no such thing as a perfect defensive system, someone will always eventually defeat it. That's why the Star Wars program in the 80's was a fools errand.

At some point Hamas will get a weapon that can go under or around the iron dome. Or if they were smart, find a way to load up the rockets with a chemical or dirty warhead package so when the Dome destroys a missile over Israel there is a threat of contamination.

Or double down and buy longer ranged artillery since there is no defense against it. The Iron dome is a ballistic interception system and it works very well against ballistic options. While I doubt that Hamas would be able to get their hands on a low altitude cruise missile, or stealth technology, you never know.

I mean I agree it would be great for Israel to come to the table with some of the above, but there certainly has to be some give from the other side before the talks even start. Neither side trusts the other side to unilaterally give up anything.

So I don't think what your saying is an option unless Hamas agrees to fully lay down their arms initially and sign an unbreakable truce that's long term.

[Bill Bumface]

If any of us are ever in a situation where we are googling swastika clipart or there is a swastika slowly feeding out of the ol' bubble jet.... I hope we'd stop and think for a minute.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Whoa, slow down. I might be reading it wrong, but I think he's using that reasoning to give legitimacy to the Arab people, not the Jewish people as you seem to think he's saying. Or at least, that the argument could be made that even though some say Palestine was never technically a country, it shouldn't matter, because the people still lived there before, even if it wasn't officially recognized. Much like the native peoples here.

Not to beat a dead horse, but how does one derive legitimacy??

Is it land ownership, some sort of historical or holy claim, or something else?

I think that everyone technically could have a legitimate claim to the land as it was ruled by every major empire at some point in history. Should Italians have claim to Jerusalem, Judea or maybe even Lebanon since they used to rule it 1000's of years ago as part of the Roman empire? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Palestinians are a distinct people with their own unique culture, food, etc. They have as much right to be there and to have their own state, as much as anyone else.

However, I would argue (and this is just playing Devil's advocate) that one loses all rights and claims to things when they declare war on you and try to exterminate you. Then when you defeat them on 3 separate occasions they complain about it and demand land based on some historical claim.

I'm originally from a country that was ripped apart by war, many times over, and conquered just as many if not more. The borders of Europe have been drawn and redrawn countless times due to military victories and losses. The difference is that the Arab people are a proud people, to a fault. They will never accept defeat in any way shape or form. And that, in my honest opinion, is the biggest impediment to peace. Accepting a two-state solution is accepting defeat, from everything that I've read and been told.

I would love to see an honest document or report where Hamas actually accepted a two-state solution which recognized Israel's right to exist.

I am PRO Palestine and PRO Israel. Why can't I be both? I want there to be peace and I think it's possible if both sides have a few more moderates at the table. When will that happen? No idea.

I was just merely responding to some narrative that I consistently saw in the thread. Didn't mean to stir things up.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Captain, why isn't it an option for Israel to unilaterally cease military operations in the occupied territories, scale back settlement building, re-orient their political position to promote a 2 state solution and to rely on their effective weapons defense systems to keep their country secure while they negotiate meaningful peace conditions?

Why isn't it an option that Israel do something that doesn't involve violence?

Because Jewish/Christian/Islamic extremists don't want it.

I'd like to see a policy like that as well...it might mean that Israel might have to take a few extra punches...but would be much better off long term.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

So 15 dead at a UN school from a tank shell....

Anyone who does such things needs to be held accountable...it's simply not acceptable

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The proper thing to do would have been for the cops to arrest that punk and charge him with promoting hate, or whatever the name of the charge is.

there's no question he was out there trying to elicit a violent response.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would disagree, the cop isn't allowed to be selective in law enforcement because of what a person has on.

It goes against freedom of expression especially if the guy is non violent.

If the guy gets assaulted because he's wearing a Israeli flag the cop has to intervene and arrest the assaulter and offer protection to the assaultee.


Its not up to the cop to say, well you got assaulted for wearing that flag, oh well lesson learned.

The cop was wrong.

Interesting how your opinion flips when it's reversed. Really you should think that the cop has no other duty but to arrest the person committing the assault, not the counter protester.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Palestinians are a distinct people with their own unique culture, food, etc. They have as much right to be there and to have their own state, as much as anyone else.

However, I would argue (and this is just playing Devil's advocate) that one loses all rights and claims to things when they declare war on you and try to exterminate you. Then when you defeat them on 3 separate occasions you they about it and demand land based on some historical claim.

Honestly I'm not seeing anyone make the "who was there first" claim in this thread. Apologies if I've missed it coming up over and over.

But your point is still arbitrary. It depends when you want to start your historical clock. My view is to forget about deciding when the history in a region starts and start respecting the fact that we need to keep humans alive and living in peace and freedom.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Because Jewish/Christian/Islamic extremists don't want it.

I'd like to see a policy like that as well...it might mean that Israel might have to take a few extra punches...but would be much better off long term.

In order for that to work, you'd have to have faith that the Palestinian side would reciprocated. But when you have a organization who's definition of ceasefire is re arm and reload, why would Israel do that without a huge pre-emptive gesture from the other side.

Neither side has earned or would give the benefit of the doubt.

If Hamas started pulling rockets out of the street and destroying them. Or arrested members of other radical groups that were launching rockets, you'd have a basis to open discussions in Israel's side.

But in Israel's mindset, its a fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you for lack of a better word.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Honestly I'm not seeing anyone make the "who was there first" claim in this thread. Apologies if I've missed it coming up over and over.

But your point is still arbitrary. It depends when you want to start your historical clock. My view is to forget about deciding when the history in a region starts and start respecting the fact that we need to keep humans alive and living in peace and freedom.

I wasn't arguing for that, sorry if it seemed that way. I agree, there is no good way to do that and that's what I was also trying to say.

Yes, the killing needs to stop but everyone is too entrenched in their positions right now. It's very sad and a tragedy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

Interesting how your opinion flips when it's reversed. Really you should think that the cop has no other duty but to arrest the person committing the assault, not the counter protester.

Dude its a massive difference between a guy carrying an Israeli flag at a protest and a guy carrying and Swastika laden flag.

Unless your saying that carrying an Israeli flag should be treated as an expression of hate?

There is a massive difference between the two cases.

Give me a break.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Dude its a massive difference between a guy carrying an Israeli flag at a protest and a guy carry and Swastika laden flag.

Unless your saying that carrying an Israeli flag should be treated as an expression of hate?

There is a massive difference between the two cases.

Give me a break.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Sorry, the guy was non-violent and got attacked. I personally think he deserved it and am fine with a cop not arresting the guy, but you are the one who stated that the cop has to arrest the offender.

You can't have it both ways.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Sorry.

Bullsh%t

So I guess you're ok with white supremists walking down the streak calling people n%gger during their rallies and holding up banners that advocate lynichings.

Or the hastag hitler was right

Or Westboro Baptist church and their idocy, I guess that's freedom of expression and not inciting hate.

Or is it just in this case that you're ok with equating Israel with Nazi's?