Ground Offensive Launched in Gaza

Post Reply New Topic

[Thread moved from News and Current Events to Politics, Philosophy and Religion]

Not all Israelis approve of what's happening.
http://mic.com/articles/94406/why-israe ... -285206837

I find it extraordinary the names of Mandela or Ghandi are being invoked to support HAMAS?

Please read this article "HAMAS killing their own" published in "The Australian" newspaper today about HAMAS tactics

**EVERYBODY here hates Hamas ... But they?re too afraid to say so publicly. Our food comes from Israel but what we give them in return is rockets.? A taxi driver from Gaza sums up the feelings of many whose lives are in danger, following increased rocket fire between Israel and Hamas, whose military wing is a listed terrorist organisation in Australia. Hamas terrorists have even gone on TV to urge Palestinians to stand on roofs and expose their ?bare chests? to incoming rocket fire.**
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... c57e1e9c4#

To Son of Ghandi,

I don't disagree that morally and ethically Israel is compromised in taking out so many Palestinian civilians in their pursuit of HAMAS operatives/cadres. I don't think they are deliberately targeting civilians as you and I both know that HAMAS are in the business of using human shields to hide. Israel really has not much choice but to counter-attack in areas populated with civilians. My understanding is that residents are warned prior to airstrikes but many prefer not to leave their homes or belongings until the last minute.

I notice in focussing on the Palestinian issue you seem to have ignored the other countries I listed. I estimate there are at least 35 countries that violate human rights and where the death toll exceeds that of Palestine over the last 10 years. Yet these countries are are allowed to continue murdering civilians without any threat of economic sanction. Strange? Palestine is a fashionable cause whereas places like Sri Lanka are not. Currently the Sri Lankan government actively abducts civilians from minority communities and from opposition groups and tortures and murders them. They carpet bombed northern Sri Lanka killing an estimated 40,000 civilians. Your buddies in the UN openly congratulated Sri Lanka on eradicating separatism in their country and rewarded their regime with holding the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Colombo despite concerns the government is responsible for war crimes.

Until there is equal action over humans rights violations around the world, Israel has every right to deal with HAMAS as they need to survive. What you call an overeaction on their part is historically their only option in order to ensure their border regions (Golan heights, west bank or Gaza) don't become staging posts for yet another pan-Arabic invasion.

And with the Gaza Strip being about the size of Philadelphia and nearly half of the area being told to evacuate, where exactly are they supposed to go?



I have for 2 reasons:
1. This thread is not about those countries. If we were to discuss all of them, every post of mine could take up an entire page in the thread.
2. The existence of human rights violations in the rest of the world has no bearing on a discussion of whether they are acceptable in another.



In my opinion, if Israel would have treated the Palestinians like human beings and allow them independence, we would not be having this discussion. The actions of Israel only drive more people to Hamas, which (in their beginnings) was a small fringe group of radicals with almost no support among the Palestinians. Hungry people with hungry children tend to do irrational things out of desperation.



Only Israel has the right to survive? That has been their justuification for denying people food and water and for destroying homes and seizing property for decades now. Is it only the eradication of Palestine that will achieve this?



So their massive sweep and raids (imprisoning over 500 people) and seizure of property of political disidents in response to the deaths of 3 people (who they have still provided zero evidence of Hamas involvement) should have just been accepted as just they way things are?

A person throws a rock, so you shoot them and claim self defense. The person's family (obviously unhappy about the event) threaten you. You execute one as an example and burn down their home. An angry family member shoots 10 round into the side of your house. You execute every family member you find that owns a firearm and lock any others you find in a basement (never to be seen again). A surviving family member shoots at you. You kill that person, then burn down the houses of their neighbors, the place that he worked, and anyone you think may be a friend of the family. And you can't figure out why this family does bad things to you, since it was all just self-defense.

I don't feel that rockets should be an acceptable solution, but I fully understand the why behind it:
In the past Israel has violated cease-fires, resumed settlement activities after agreeing to halt them, formed a blockade which is seen as illegal by the vast majority of the world, has (along with the US) denied Palestine independence in opposition to the majority of the world, has built a wall around an area and locked away an entire group of people and restricted their access to water and food (and denied a viable economy), has repeatedly advocated a one state solution that involves the removal of all Palestinians, has repeatedly jailed civilians based only on their words, and has seized property and destoyed homes (evicting their previous owners and occupants) with little or no justification. And all in the name of "self defense."

Christians believe Jesus Christ confronted an angry mob set on stoning a women accused of adultery. He told them that "he who is free from sin cast the first stone", according to narrative the mob dispersed as none were free of sin, the woman was thus freed.

This story has some bearing on whether member countries in the UN have the right to criticize or "throw stones" at countries like Israel or Russia over border disputes or internal civil issues based on perceived human rights violations. Many of the countries that are criticizing Israel are equally guilty of human rights violations in the name of "anti-terrorism" or anti-seperatism...In my view this undermines the validity of the criticism of Israel from countries like the US. I find it odd that countries like India whom are victims of islamic radicals trained in Pakistan have ignored violations by HAMAS against Israeli citizens in order to criticise Israel?

For instance the US has voiced concern over the Israel shelling of Gaza but recently US envoy John Kerry has stated that HAMAS has to share the blame for Israel's response. HAMAS is not purely a group of freedom fighters. They are radicalized and fundamentalist in addition to being highly militarised. The language used by their leadership is quite reminiscent of Al Qaeda in reference to their anti-antisemitism and dislike for non-muslims and the west. They have polarised the Palestinian community, I still have vivid memory of palestinian women and children celebrating and dancing in the streets after watching the attacks on the twin towers after 9-11.

The radicalisation of palestinians will happen unless the cancer of HAMAS is removed. The last thing the middle east needs is another radical population to join the ranks of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban and others...

More from Israelis that don't agree with their military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... -to-serve/

I hear there are moves to charge the Israelis with war crimes. We can only hope so. Since when is shooting fish in a barrel justifiably turned into " hey we're just protecting ourselves and our land"
Well news flash guys, it's not your land. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the place knows this.
They have a star wars missile intercept system, impenetrable walls around the Gaza strip, they control the sea, the airspace, the land and any road in or out. They have been "settling" Palestinian land for decades.

Shooting fish in a barrel

There is nothing inherently wrong with shooting fish in a barrel.

Depends if you believe in human/animal rights I suppose. It also depends if you are standing there with an AK47 and a barrel of guppies, saying

" I must blow the s**t out of these guppies to protect myself, my land, and the water I stole from these guppies! I am defending my waelf, my freedom and my way of life! This is ordained by god because this is America , sorry, Israel!"

In other words, yes it is.

The Israelis don't use AKs. They use the Tavor, and different variants of the Galil.

So no one in any nation can call out the atrocities of another because they have not been perfect throughout history? Am I summing up your argument adequately? We should never voice concerns over human rights violations because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?

The US government is definitely giving Israel a pass:
http://www.kabc.com/common/more.php?m=58&article=980DC53912E511E4B51EFEFDADE6840A&mode=2




How exactly do you propose to eliminate Hamas? Do you realy believe that every single member of that group can be killed or imprisoned.

My issue in the current situation is Israel's blatant disregard for Geneva convention combined with various justifications and rationalizations for their blatant human rights violations. I do not approve of the atrocities done by Hamas, but that does not diminish my disapproval of the revenge seven-fold mentality.

Whenever an American Christian discusses with me about the conflict:




How typical.

Much of the US people's support for Israel is based on religion, not on reason.

Yeah, apples and oranges.

You know, Bin Laden used the same justification against the American population voting for Bush for 9/11.

You're using the terrorist's logic.

...*Ahem*...

*This* is what the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is about.
http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/EYEont ... Resolution

In its history 44 out of UNHRC's 127 resolutions (34.65 percent) about human rights violations worldwide have been about Israel, with only 10 resolutions about Sudan and Syria each, 5 about North Korea and 2 about Iran.

This bias is so extravagant that it completely undermines the legitimacy of the UNHRC.

Furthermore, the recently replaced UNHRC "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967", Richard Falk, was a 9/11 Truther who had a history of anti-semitic remarks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Falk

Finally, here is the UNHRC mandate for the aforementioned special rapporteur (now Makarim Wibisono):
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EF7 ... D2004B1194


In other words, the Special Rapporteur can only investigate the actions of Israel, not those of Hamas or any other Palestinian group.

And the recently passed UNHRC resolution about an inquiry into the Gaza conflict doesn't even mention Hamas with a single word.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies ... 1-1_en.doc

Last edited by GGPViper on 25 Jul 2014, 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.