Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[nik-]

Voting isn't a right in some democracies. That doesn't mean they're not democracies though.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Not to mention how Hamas prevents civilians from leaving areas that Israel has warned are going to be targeted. Gotta up the civilian death count. International outrage is the only chance Hamas has.

If that is Hamas' strategy Israel is falling for it...I would hope Israel would not let itself get outstrategized so blatantly.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

A 3 day ceasefire was agreed to and broken within about 2 hours. With an IDF soldier having been abducted you can pretty much say goodbye to any chance of this ending soon. Israel will likely respond very harshly.

The IDF soldier in question is Lieutenant Hadar Goldin, cousin to the current Israeli defense minister. They were ambushed from one of the tunnels after an attack by a suicide bomber killed two of the soldiers with him. This looks to be the intentional kidnap of the officer.
http://www.channel4.com/news/gaza-is...amas-ceasefire

Hamas then proceeded to fire missiles and mortars into southern Israeli cities. Can there be any denying that Hamas is the average Palestinian's worst enemy at this point? Breaking a cease fire within two hours of signing it just so you could capture a high value target in the hopes of getting another Galid Shalit? Israel is going to go all out war at this point. If Hamas ceased functioning and the violence stopped, at least the international pressure on the Israelis to improve the Palestinian situation would be far greater and the collateral damage would be far less.

For reference, Galid Shalit was the captured IDF soldier that was controversially exchanged for a thousand Israeli-held Hamas affiliated Palestinians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_S...soner_exchange

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by nik-

Democracy doesn't guarantee religious diversity in the population. So, yes.

In the Canadian Charter it says everyone has the freedom of religion.

If we were only allowing Christians into the country, would you be ok with that?

All religions have equal rights in Canada, so I disagree that it would be considered democratic to have a rule that would only allow Christians to come here and take citizenship.

My point is that everyone points to Israel being a democracy but I just don't see it that way.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by nik-

Voting isn't a right in some democracies. That doesn't mean they're not democracies though.

True, but it also totally negates claims like this:

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

(Israel is) a modern liberal democracy

Israel is a democracy, but there is nothing liberal or modern about it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

In the Canadian Charter it says everyone has the freedom of religion.

If we were only allowing Christians into the country, would you be ok with that?

All religions have equal rights in Canada, so I disagree that it would be considered democratic to have a rule that would only allow Christians to come here and take citizenship.

My point is that everyone points to Israel being a democracy but I just don't see it that way.

You're asking a different question now. You said if a country was setup for one religion only, can you consider it a democracy. Yes, you can.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by nik-

You're asking a different question now. You said if a country was setup for one religion only, can you consider it a democracy. Yes, you can.

I disagree. That goes against the fundamental values of democracy.

If I can walk to the Israeli border and what god I believe in distinguishes if I am allowed in the country then to me that is not a democracy. A democracy respects the rights of all beliefs.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

True, but it also totally negates claims like this:




Israel is a democracy, but there is nothing liberal or modern about it.

I guess it depends on what you use to define "liberal". Honestly, I think Israel's democratic process is pretty low on the list of things people should worry about.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

I disagree. That goes against the fundamental values of democracy.

If I can walk to the Israeli border and what god I believe in distinguishes if I am allowed in the country then to me that is not a democracy. A democracy respects the rights of all beliefs.

It goes against the ideal values of a democracy. But that doesn't mean it isn't one.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Israel is a democracy, but there is nothing liberal or modern about it.

Too far.

I think Israel is an undeniable liberal democracy, and is very modern. There is much to admire.

However, I do think that under times of duress, societies can ebb and flow temporarily into unfamiliar territory that strays them from their guiding principles. The US after 9/11 is a textbook example.

I have faith that Israel will right the ship. This just happens to be a time when those with the loudest voice aren't necessarily those that best represent the long term direction and character of the nation.

[Igottago]

A great interview, and voice of reason.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/3...ng_voice_of_us

Given his background, what American Jewish leader Henry Siegman has to say about Israel’s founding in 1948 through the current assault on Gaza may surprise you. From 1978 to 1994, Siegman served as executive director of the American Jewish Congress, long described as one of the nation’s "big three" Jewish organizations along with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Born in Germany three years before the Nazis came to power in 1933, Siegman’s family eventually moved to the United States. His father was a leader of the European Zionist movement that pushed for the creation of a Jewish state.

"When one thinks that this is what is necessary for Israel to survive, that the Zionist dream is based on the repeated slaughter of innocents on a scale that we’re watching these days on television, that is really a profound, profound crisis — and should be a profound crisis in the thinking of all of us who were committed to the establishment of the state and to its success," Siegman says.

Responding to Israel’s U.S.-backed claim that its assault on Gaza is necessary because no country would tolerate the rocket fire from militants in Gaza, Siegman says: "What undermines this principle is that no country and no people would live the way that Gazans have been made to live. … The question of the morality of Israel’s action depends, in the first instance, on the question, couldn’t Israel be doing something [to prevent] this disaster that is playing out now, in terms of the destruction of human life? Couldn’t they have done something that did not require that cost? And the answer is, sure, they could have ended the occupation."

[Flash Walken]

Here's a question:

For those that view this as a 'war', if you are a settler, living in occupied territory during an 'active war', aren't you responsible for any violence you experience while choosing to live in a war zone?

The standard for Palestinians seems to be that Hamas is ordering people to stay in harms way.

If Rocket and Mortar attacks originating from Egypt and Gaza are impact settlements that have been constructed on contested land in an 'active war' zone, isn't that the same situation as the Palestinians?

Shouldn't we be saying Israel is using human shields by providing an environment which entices settlement building?

Isn't that the same standard? If you don't want to get hit by rockets, don't live in occupied territory?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Too far.



I think Israel is an undeniable liberal democracy, and is very modern. There is much to admire.



However, I do think that under times of duress, societies can ebb and flow temporarily into unfamiliar territory that strays them from their guiding principles. The US after 9/11 is a textbook example.



I have faith that Israel will right the ship. This just happens to be a time when those with the loudest voice aren't necessarily those that best represent the long term direction and character of the nation.

nik responded in the ideal way:

Originally Posted by nik-

I guess it depends on what you use to define "liberal". Honestly, I think Israel's democratic process is pretty low on the list of things people should worry about.

It really does depend on what you use to define liberal or modern. It is, in comparison to some countries in the area, both those things. But when comparing to actual liberal and modern democracies, it is a stretch to call it either of those things. Perhaps it is on it's way, but much like "bastion of right" comments, it's a disingenuous comment to make if you're looking at it critically.

EDIT: Though, I may be looking at it the wrong way. By definition, it is, I simply take issue with that being used as a defence of Israel over Palestine, considering the political climate of both.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Ah, language. They key to life.

Who said Hamas refuses to protect their citizens? Do you think they refuse to have the same weapons that Israel does? That they refuse weapons aid from the US?

Also note that you said both sides commit atrocities. Your words. So then what is the value of a "liberal democracy" that commits atrocities?

Language is so important, and can do a great deal to reveal what we truly know, what we feel, and what our biases are.

Hamas openly says they are not concerned with protecting citizens and that their deaths are a necessary means of breaking up the resistance. That's their own words. What do you think the situation would be like in Israel if Hamas had the same armaments? Do you honestly believe they would not hesitate to use all force possible to destroy Israel and as many Jewish people as possible... such as they do today?

The value of a liberal democracy that commits atrocities is that it allows for the development of peace in a post war situation and provides a limit on power. Hamas isn't interested in peace at all, merely the destruction of Israel and eradication of the Jews.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I have no real thoughts on the conflict but just want to ask the question.

Aren't both sides guilty of terrorism, albeit by different means?

And if not, apart from the methodology what is the difference?

The difference is that the goal of Israeli military action is to neutralize violence against it's citizens.

The goal of Hamas' is to murder and terrorize as many Israeli citizens and Jewish people as possible.

One action ceases and resumes, and one has been persisting for nearly a century.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Hamas openly says they are not concerned with protecting citizens and that their deaths are a necessary means of breaking up the resistance. That's their own words. What do you think the situation would be like in Israel if Hamas had the same armaments? Do you honestly believe they would not hesitate to use all force possible to destroy Israel and as many Jewish people as possible... such as they do today?

The value of a liberal democracy that commits atrocities is that it allows for the development of peace in a post war situation and provides a limit on power. Hamas isn't interested in peace at all, merely the destruction of Israel and eradication of the Jews.

As to first part, it's all conjecture. You think they would push Israelis out to sea. I think it would be like the cold war, mutual deterrence as both sides know things could turn out badly for them. In the world today, military violence tends to take place only when one side has an overwhelming advantage.

As to the second part, I really think you need to calibrate the meaning of a functioning liberal democracy with the meaning of the word atrocity. They're at opposition, and your continued use of them together speaks volumes.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

One side has killed civilians as their main goal in this conflict for generations. Their government's main goal is the eradication of an entire nation.

Israel is guilty of killing civilians within a sphere of war where their opposition refuses to protect their own citizens. However to equate that to terrorism is simply immoral.

Walking onto a bus or pizza parlor full of innocent people in a time of peace (meaning NON-WAR/TRUCE/NEGOTATION) period and killing them indiscriminately will never be the same as civilian deaths during a war period.

I believe the attempt to equate Hamas, a known and globally identified Terrorist entity whose stated goal is destruction of an entire nation/race, to a modern liberal democracy engaged in warfare, is rather disgusting. Does this excuse the atrocities being committed? Of course not. But the entire cycle definitely is brought about by the actions of these terrorists. Those that excuse terrorism as justified in the name of land disputes merely perpetuate the further cycle of violence.

Agreed. Keep in mind too the Palestinian leadership had on the table an offer, made by Israel, to create a Palestinian state just a few years ago but the Palestinian leadership instead rejected the offer and responded by launching a new terror campaign w/ rocket/mortar attacks and kidnapping through tunnels.

Israel finally agrees to an unconditional cease fire for three days and it gets violated in two hours with the kidnapping of a high profile IDF officer w/ 2 soldiers dead. How can there be peace with this type of duplicity? How can you make peace with an a side that only takes that period of peace to re-arm, rebuild it's weapons and build future fighting networks instead of working to improve the lives of it's people? Israel may be extremely heavy handed in it's response, but at least they at least try to make overtures of peace.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The difference is that the goal of Israeli military action is to neutralize violence against it's citizens.



The goal of Hamas' is to murder and terrorize as many Israeli citizens and Jewish people as possible.



One action ceases and resumes, and one has been persisting for nearly a century.

Do you know why Hamas exists?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Daradon

What he (FF PHD) said. I agree fully. You're (eoj) framing the argument how you want to. The Palestinians don't have an Iron Dome to protect their citizens. They are crammed in a far more dense area. And the last few bombings from Israel show that yes, they are in fact guilty of targeting civilians. There was a UN worker on CBC last morn saying there were no Hamas or weapons in the last UN school bombed and there were no human shields.

You're either willfully wrong to try and protect your point, or very misinformed.

There's no evidence whatsoever that Israel is targeting civilians. The facts are that we know Israel has taken actions to avoid civilian casualties through leaflets and warning.

We also know for a fact that Hamas has used UN schools and hospitals to hide weapons, and even attack from. We know Hamas encourages the use of human shields and isn't interested in protecting their own citizens, and often have even killed their own people.

It's a terrible atrocity that this happened, but based on the stories out of both sides I think the most likely explanation is that Hamas was attacking either from within this school or nearby in order to provoke an attack and succeeded in their goal of Israeli counter fire killing innocent civilians. But to pretend Israel is purposely targeting the school in order to kill these people, is rather ridiculous.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Do you know why Hamas exists?

Hamas Charter says they exist to struggle against the Jews and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.