Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
Can you see that you're sort of talking about of both sides of your mouth? On the one hand Israel shouldn't "occupy" the territories; the other hand, they shouldn't use air strikes, they should raid every suspected storage area or combatant hide-out.
|
Ok, so I said that Israel shouldn't have so many checkpoints in the land occupied by the Palestinians. I also said that instead of bombing places, they should raid the suspected hideouts/storage areas to see if they are in fact hideouts/storage. I don't see those two comments as "talking [out] of both sides of my mouth."
If Israel thinks that epchick's house in Gaza City is housing weapons, instead of bombing epchick's house (and killing her family, and any civilians in the area cause bombs aren't just nice little things that stay contained in that one little area) why don't they send in troops to snoop around and see if there are actually weapons. If no weapons are found, don't bomb the house, and allow epchick's family to continue to stay there safely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
ETA: the reason it doesn't make much sense to me is that it demands a pretty big concession from Israel when there has been absolutely no reason to think it will actually result in increased Israeli security. To the contrary, it exposes Israel to much more risk. Also, it refers to entities that don't really exist as they did in the initial treaty.
|
I can understand that.