Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
I see similar attitude in the press and it strikes me as insane.
Israel can fight back, but it's required to do so with one arm tied behind its back, basically?
No.
Imagine a situation that a group of Canadians fired rockets at civilian areas in New York. Also imagine that the Canadian government is unwilling to do anything to prevent it and is actually politically affiliated with the group engaged in the rocket fire. You think the appropriate response disallows a ground war? That's crazy to me. The obligation to defend New Yorkers is much greater than the obligation to the country harboring people killing New Yorkers.
Oddly, changing the situation to parallel that the land the Canadians were firing from had been land previously occupied by the US makes me think that the mistake was in withdrawing from the land in the first place.
|
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to get at. How would Israel be fighting with "one hand tied behind it's back?" If the US & Canada (per your analogy) started fighting, would we be fighting w/ one hand tied behind our back because we aren't occupying Canada? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
And what is it that you think they were trying to prevent getting in?
|
Yes, they were probably were trying to prevent guns & such to enter Gaza, and I totally agree with that. But by putting a blockade on that, they also prevented much needed supplies (like food) to enter Gaza. That is the reason that the UN had asked for a ceasefire (back in Oct/Nov) in the first place, to prevent the people of Gaza from starvation.
ETA: Maybe I should try to clarify what I mean when I say that Israel shouldn't be "occupying" West Bank/Gaza. I mean that Israel should take away the blockades, and checkpoints they have set up in those areas. Those checkpoints are not allowing Palestinians to go from point A to point B within their "own land."
Threaded Mode
