Once again Israel shows it doesn't screw around

[Chill Cosby]

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.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

conveniently as usual, seem to have dodged despite the direct questions and clear calls for clarification on your part.

Again, I am happy to answer any question, so I am perplexed how I could be accused of avoiding any question. I may have missed a post here or there, it is a fairly fast thread.

I am having trouble following your arguments and have tried to be patient.

You have accused me several times of avoiding 'something'? What is it? What do you need to know???

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by blankall

You don't think total withdrawal of all settlers and military and freedom of goods was a "reward"?

Maybe you're right....but that's only because the intent wasn't to reward anybody. Israel was using Gaza as a small test case to see how withdrawal would work on a wider basis. Hamas chose to see it as a "reward" for their previous military action, and use that as a propaganda tool to excuse more attempted violence.

I don't disagree at all. Hamas ruined a good thing, I was simply seeking to clarify the point that Israel never fully withdrew from the Gaza, and that I think you'd be hard pressed to find one Gazan who felt "rewarded" by the experience. Sorry if it came off in a weird way, but denying Hamas ' role in the fact it never occurred was certainly never the point of my post.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

...due to the attacks from Hamas. I am really honestly trying to see what your arguments are, but there are none: Israel was supposed to give up control, never did give up 100% control, Hamas is bad and because of them Israel could not give up control, so see how Israel is wrong?

Your ability to create fantasy is truly remarkable. Read what I said. Where did I say Israel was wrong? Not everything has a slant.

I simply corrected a post. You have a lot of growing to do before you're ready to respectfully participate in threads regarding Israel I think. If you had read what I said, your understanding should have looked like this:

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Israel was supposed to give up control, never did give up 100% control, Hamas is bad and because of them Israel could not give up control

The end. Please. If you insist on reading my posts, just read them. I keep them simple, lay it out on the table, make a point of not hiding a lot of implications under the surface. If I wanted to say "That's why Israel is bad" then I'll just say it. If I don't say it, don't imply it. At that point you're just ignorantly arguing with yourself.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

My apologies if my assertion does not fit with your fictional narrative. Polls from Israel before the "disengagement" showed a majority of Israelis were in favour, with good reason: having your children conscripted to protect Israel is one thing, having them conscripted to protect the lunatic fringe quite another. Many on the Israeli Right were thoroughly against it - true - but Sharon managed to push it through.

As for this "Test Case" scenario - you are making this up completely. Your narrative here is completely fabricated. I'm not even sure why you are doing it, to tell you the truth. Sharon himself said of the disengagement that he wanted to consolidate Israeli resources around permanent West Bank settlements, and that it was for Israeli security. At the same time, four of the more remote settlements were removed in the West Bank that required disproportionate protection.

However, expansion of permanent settlements in the West Bank continued apace, and today there are approximately 75,000 more settlers in the West Bank than there were in 2006.

Firstly the Israeli polls did not indicate that....

As things got closer to the disengagement support fell below 50%. Keep in mind this is a population where 20-25% of the population is Arab. Even with that huge sway within the population they barely managed a majority in many polls and lost many polls:

http://zoa.org/2005/06/101974-new-is...n-drops-to-48/


There also no such thing as remoteness in Israel. Israel and the occupied territories are geographically tiny. Israel has many soldiers along the border with Jordan, regardless of whether they have settlements there. You're talking about the military deployment like they're deploying troops to far off Antartica. The Gaza Strip is 6-12 km wide. It's literally a 10 minute drive from the remotest parts to Israel.

What's going on is obvious and stated. Israel was fed up with negotiating and began their own unilateral plans. They were going to withdraw behind the West Bank barrier. At no point was it ever on the table that Israel would move back to 1967 "borders". The plan was always a final peace plan based on those borders with negotiated land swaps from territory in the North of Israel where there are Arab majorities

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

"Israel still maintained control of all borders, air space, sea, and all movement of people and goods in an out of Gaza."

Alright, let's say Israel controlled all of this. And? At what point did Hamas decide enough is enough we need to launch rockets at civilians? Was Hamas voted in as per any other routine election like what Canada has? What was their party platform that helped win that election? What happened to the politicians that did not win the election? How is any of this even a factor in launching rockets?

I could say Israel for ANY REASON giving up all of Gaza and no matter how you spin it, it was a chance for Palestinians to demonstrate goodwill and basically prosper. It took how long for Hamas to take over? And not peacefully, but violently.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Alright, let's say Israel controlled all of this. And? At what point did Hamas decide enough is enough we need to launch rockets at civilians? Was Hamas voted in as per any other routine election like what Canada has? What was their party platform that helped win that election? What happened to the politicians that did not win the election? How is any of this even a factor in launching rockets?



I could say Israel for ANY REASON giving up all of Gaza and no matter how you spin it, it was a chance for Palestinians to demonstrate goodwill and basically prosper. It took how long for Hamas to take over? And not peacefully, but violently.

What point are you trying to make? I'm finding it impossible to figure out at this point.

In one sentence, go.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly the Israeli polls did not indicate that....

As things got closer to the disengagement support fell below 50%. Keep in mind this is a population where 20-25% of the population is Arab. Even with that huge sway within the population they barely managed a majority in many polls and lost many polls:

http://zoa.org/2005/06/101974-new-is...n-drops-to-48/


There also no such thing as remoteness in Israel. Israel and the occupied territories are geographically tiny. Israel has many soldiers along the border with Jordan, regardless of whether they have settlements there. You're talking about the military deployment like they're deploying troops to far off Antartica. The Gaza Strip is 6-12 km wide. It's literally a 10 minute drive from the remotest parts to Israel.

What's going on is obvious and stated. Israel was fed up with negotiating and began their own unilateral plans. They were going to withdraw behind the West Bank barrier. At no point was it ever on the table that Israel would move back to 1967 "borders". The plan was always a final peace plan based on those borders with negotiated land swaps from territory in the North of Israel where there are Arab majorities

That's the worst poll ever. Even the pollsters seem disbelieving, and clearly Sharon didn't believe it. Regardless, at least your link mentions some other polls.

I think it's funny that you state "Israel was fed up with negotiating" and follow with "negotiated land swaps". Sounds likely.

You are right in this sense: Sharon was very worried about the future demographic threats to Israel and the Gazan withdrawal was part of a plan of unilateral action (along with the wall construction) to create a "new reality on the ground". It sounds like you support this type of unilateral action, and believe Israel should not have to give up its settlements because - hey - they're no big deal, and we'll trade them for some Palestinian areas in the North that we don't want anyway.

It's just never going to happen.

Here is a quote from an Israeli blogger (who is certainly no left-wing peacenik) on Gaza http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-m...za-withdrawal/:

In June 2005, two months before the withdrawal seven soldiers and civilians were killed in terror attacks, in January 2005 12 people were killed by terrorists operating out of the Strip. Hamas were even conducting attacks around the Gaza Strip rather than just in it. In December 2004 5 soldiers were killed at once when terrorists detonated a massive 1.5 tonnes of explosives underneath the Rafah crossing, it had gotten to the point where the army could no longer look after itself let alone settlers. It’s not surprising that the former military man Sharon looked at this situation and saw the writing on the wall.
The list of dead and wounded killed in Gaza when we were there provides a gruesome comparison as to the difference in casualties sustained in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think you forgot to mention that while Israel certainly did leave Gaza, the Palestinians certainly were not exactly a peaceful entity. This was a token of good measure yet Israel was certainly cautious about it. Keeping some security measures was vital, and proved reasonable considering Hamas started killing Palestinians and took over.

And do you honestly think the UN is on Israel's side?

The terms Palestinians and Hamas are not interchangeable. It's an important distinction that is sometimes not made.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

That's the worst poll ever. Even the pollsters seem disbelieving, and clearly Sharon didn't believe it. Regardless, at least your link mentions some other polls.

I think it's funny that you state "Israel was fed up with negotiating" and follow with "negotiated land swaps". Sounds likely.

You are right in this sense: Sharon was very worried about the future demographic threats to Israel and the Gazan withdrawal was part of a plan of unilateral action (along with the wall construction) to create a "new reality on the ground". It sounds like you support this type of unilateral action, and believe Israel should not have to give up its settlements because - hey - they're no big deal, and we'll trade them for some Palestinian areas in the North that we don't want anyway.

It's just never going to happen.

Here is a quote from an Israeli blogger (who is certainly no left-wing peacenik) on Gaza http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-m...za-withdrawal/:

Except that blogger has the dates all wrong.

Sharon proposed his plan far before those attacks, in December of 2003. The actual vote took place in June of 2004. So it was already done before any of those attacks took place.

And a poll conducted by Channel 2, a major news network, is most certainly a valid poll.

But nice try.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The terms Palestinians and Hamas are not interchangeable. It's an important distinction that is sometimes not made.

I think you just stumbled on the undercurrent of nage Waza's opinion making process.

The generalities of hate and dehumanization.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think you just stumbled on the undercurrent of nage Waza's opinion making process.

The generalities of hate and dehumanization.

That sounds a little over dramatic.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by blankall

Except that blogger has the dates all wrong.

Sharon proposed his plan far before those attacks, in December of 2003. The actual vote took place in June of 2004. So it was already done before any of those attacks took place.

And a poll conducted by Channel 2, a major news network, is most certainly a valid poll.

But nice try.

You completely missed the point of the blog. Do you really want me to look up statistics on Israeli casualties on the ground in Gaza in the years prior to December 2003? Because they are not pretty. The author's point concerning the years immediately preceding withdrawal, however, is that withdrawal served to prevent Israeli deaths. Which the statistics demonstrate.

This "test case" scenario you have fabricated is complete baloney, and even Israeli right-wing politicians and pundits who supported the withdrawal do not subscribe to this revisionist hogwash.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think you just stumbled on the undercurrent of nage Waza's opinion making process.

The generalities of hate and dehumanization.

Pretty safe to say that "hate and dehumanization" is practiced by both sides.

Neither has a monoploy on it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Pretty safe to say that "hate and dehumanization" is practiced by both sides.

Neither has a monoploy on it.

This is what most of us are suggesting, that it's both sides and that Israel isn't a perfect little angel. That means we're anti-semites to some apparently.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Hamas aren't ####ing dickbags.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

You completely missed the point of the blog. Do you really want me to look up statistics on Israeli casualties on the ground in Gaza in the years prior to December 2003? Because they are not pretty. The author's point concerning the years immediately preceding withdrawal, however, is that withdrawal served to prevent Israeli deaths. Which the statistics demonstrate.

This "test case" scenario you have fabricated is complete baloney, and even Israeli right-wing politicians and pundits who supported the withdrawal do not subscribe to this revisionist hogwash.

If I pretend to agree with you for a moment regarding the Israeli's motivations for leaving, let me ask you: In 2000-2005, were the Gazans right to mount suicide bombings and rocket attacks towards the Israeli's causing such casualties that Israeli's chose to withdraw in order to save their own lives?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is what most of us are suggesting, that it's both sides and that Israel isn't a perfect little angel. That means we're anti-semites to some apparently.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Hamas aren't ####ing dickbags.

Sadly not all are suggesting it.

[nik-]

Well no, unfortunately some are extreme on either side. However, right off the bat the OP is inflammatory and then you have Nage Waza going full Nage Waza calling people pathetic and anti-semitic in his very first post in the thread.

This discussion had no chance ... just like peace in the region.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well no, unfortunately some are extreme on either side. However, right off the bat the OP is inflammatory and then you have Nage Waza going full Nage Waza calling people pathetic and anti-semitic in his very first post in the thread.

This discussion had no chance ... just like peace in the region.

Meh, I ignored the OP.

I would suggest that is Nage Waza has gone Full Nage Waza, then _Q_ has gone Full _Q_, and Chill Cosby..............


I can agree that it looks like peace doesn't stand a chance, which is sad.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Regorium

If I pretend to agree with you for a moment regarding the Israeli's motivations for leaving, let me ask you: In 2000-2005, were the Gazans right to mount suicide bombings and rocket attacks towards the Israeli's causing such casualties that Israeli's chose to withdraw in order to save their own lives?

I strongly sense you are hoping for some type of tacit support on my part for the violent actions of Hamas during those years. I will say this: one of the major reasons for disengagement from Gaza was the particularly violent nature of maintaining and protecting those settlements. It's pretty easy to understand that protecting Israeli settlers in one of the densest areas on earth required an exorbitantly high cost.

It is clear to me that the combination of violent settlers, scared soldiers, and a well-funded and -armed local terrorist organization was a uniquely dangerous powder keg. In addition, international condemnation for the ongoing Israeli presence in Gaza had become a black-eye, something Sharon explicitly mentions in his memoirs.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

That sounds a little over dramatic.

It is over dramatic, but it isn't out of left field.
It's obvious, to me at least, that there is a either a hidden motive or a fair amount of hate behind Nage's involvement in this discussion.

Almost every one of his posts is based entirely on a straw man argument, ignoring the posts of others or purposely distorting them to better suit his own narrative. His sympathy to the Palestinian people who are the largest victims of this whole engagement is shallow and fleeting, while his sympathy to Israel is overwhelming to the point of obvious bias. It's a situation where he has shown he clearly believes Israel has full justification for it's actions, and every innocent Palestinian dead is dead for just and noble reasons, or some inevitable occurrence.

The value of life is not equitable. Whether this is from hate and dehumanisation, I can't really say for sure.

Originally Posted by nik-

This is what most of us are suggesting, that it's both sides and that Israel isn't a perfect little angel. That means we're anti-semites to some apparently.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Hamas aren't ####ing dickbags.

I think a couple people are. There are some people in this discussion that are certainly dangerously bias towards the Hamas, much like Nage's bias towards Israel. This, unfortunately, leads to a fair amount of confusion and anger when the less bias contributors to the discussion say anything critical of Israel, as they are bizarrely attacked under the false assumption that they are defending Hamas or suggesting Israel give up entirely.

Though I think talking about fallacies is a little pretentious (and I've already done it once in this post), you could burn this entire place down with the amount of straw men being built by some contributors.

Assumptions can be made towards intent of course, but the amount of attacking that occurs based on very simple and calm claims is truly bizarre.