240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[AlphaDeltaDelta]

Originally Posted by epchick

There might be some kind of "peace" if Israel would just do what they say and stops occupying Gaza & the West Bank.

Would you pull all of your military out of an area that at every chance keeps attacking your country? Come on, be reasonable... There are people on both sides who are largely in the minority and perpetuate this situation, but to blame one side or the other is pretty ridiculous IMHO.

To address the quote about ancient Israel being aggressive, if you/your mother actually read up on a bit of history, ancient Israel was constantly being attacked by the Romans, Greeks, Philistines, Babylonians, the list goes on. They weren't going around conquering more land. The only offensive battle I can ever remember hearing about by the ancient Israelis (Judea) was the battle of Jericho, in which they initially took the land of Israel.

I also resent the term aggressive. Israel is constantly provoked by countries whose leaders want every man, woman and child there dead. The Israelis do things no other army would do (drop leaflets ahead of time warning of bombings for one). Sorry I need to stop posting about this before I blow my top haha...

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaDeltaDelta

Would you pull all of your military out of an area that at every chance keeps attacking your country? Come on, be reasonable... There are people on both sides who are largely in the minority and perpetuate this situation, but to blame one side or the other is pretty ridiculous IMHO.

Both sides are to blame, but if your going to make a "promise" (of sorts) keep it. Israel gave those two territories to the Palestinians, yet continue to occupy the land. Yes they should pull out of "Palestine." Pulling out doesn't not mean they should stop protecting themselves, but Israel should protect themselves on their side, instead of keeping their soldiers on Palestinian "land."

Palestine is as much to blame as Israel, but let's not pretend that Israel is innocent either. Let's not forget they were the one that broke the ceasefire on the 4th of Nov, and again on the 18th of Nov. (according to the UN)

You can resent the term aggressive, doesn't mean it isn't true. You think other countries want all men, women and children of Israel dead? Hmmm...how many women and children in Gaza have died by the hands of the Israelis in the past week or so? Come on now.

ETA: Numbers don't lie. Numbers aren't slanted/biased. As of Jan 8.--763 Palestinians had died in Gaza, most of them children, while another 3000+ were injured. How many Israelis have been injured/killed?

[AlphaDeltaDelta]

Originally Posted by epchick

Both sides are to blame, but if your going to make a "promise" (of sorts) keep it. Israel gave those two territories to the Palestinians, yet continue to occupy the land. Yes they should pull out of "Palestine." Pulling out doesn't not mean they should stop protecting themselves, but Israel should protect themselves on their side, instead of keeping their soldiers on Palestinian "land."

Palestine is as much to blame as Israel, but let's not pretend that Israel is innocent either. Palestine is not attacting Israel "every chance they get."

You can resent the term aggressive, doesn't mean it isn't true. You think other countries want all men, women and children of Israel dead? Hmmm...how many women and children in Gaza have died by the hands of the Israelis in the past week or so? Come on now.

For one, many Israelis do not believe the Palestinians should have any land, and had no say in the matter (these are usually the more religious hard-liners). If you think about this from any other countries perspective, whether it is land that they gave to the other people or another country altogether, if they have the military might and are being constantly attacked, they will occupy that country to ensure these attacks are minimized... It's basic logic. I feel for the citizens of Gaza, because most of them just want a home in which to raise their children and live their lives, but when you make a stupid decision like they did in 2006, electing a known terrorist group as the leaders of your region, it really isn't going to end well for you. I really feel for the 43% who voted for the much more levelheaded Fatah party.

"Palestine" is not attacking Israel at every chance they get, but the Hamas militants are, and this has been going on for some time now, Israel has just gotten sick of it's citizens dying/being injured and its property being destroyed.

If you cannot see the distinction between a national ideology of exterminating an entire race of people and collateral deaths due to the enemy constantly hiding itself amongst the civilian population, I really can't have a reasonable conversation with you on this topic. Also, as I previously pointed out, some of those "women and children" being killed are either militants or the wives/children of militants. As I said before... I hardly consider a 16 year old wielding an AK-47 a child.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaDeltaDelta

Also, as I previously pointed out, some of those "women and children" being killed are either militants or the wives/children of militants.

Oh well then that makes it alright

For one, many Israelis do not believe the Palestinians should have any land, and had no say in the matter (these are usually the more religious hard-liners). If you think about this from any other countries perspective, whether it is land that they gave to the other people or another country altogether, if they have the military might and are being constantly attacked, they will occupy that country to ensure these attacks are minimized... It's basic logic. I feel for the civilians of Gaza right now, because it was not their choice for Hamas to come in there and take over, but Israel cannot stop defending itself because of this regrettable fact.

Well that's the problem (Israel not believing Palestine has any rights to the land). I mean, who's land it was prior to 1948? Pretty sure it was Palestine until the British (and several other countries) gave the land back to the survivors of the Holocaust, and that is where the trouble really began.

You do have a point about occupying the land, but Israel isn't just occupying the land and attacking when needed. They are killing Palestinians without being provoked by them first. That isn't just "occupying" anymore.

I totally agree with you, I feel for the people of Gaza. I don't think they knew what they were getting into when Hamas was elected. And Israel does have a right to protect themselves. With that said, I DO believe Israel is going a little too far. They claim they won't stop until Hamas is exterminated, but is that even feasible? If one Hamas leader is killed, there will just be another one to take his place. Instead of constantly bombing houses, schools, "churches," etc, and claiming there were weapons (have any of those claims been proven true yet?) they should be a little more secretive. Infiltrate Gaza and find the true Hamas members, instead of blind bombings.

True, 16 yr olds are not children, but I hope you aren't thinking those are what are being considered "children" cause I KNOW there are infants, toddlers, etc that are dieing.


ETA:

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

This is not a war based on land or history. It is based on theology. I personally believe Israel has a biblical mandate to that land.

Well if we are gonna go there, then Israel only has a "biblical mandate" to part of the land they currently claim. (According to the maps in my bible) The biblical Israel stopped short of Jerusalem, and extends into present day Jordan. The Gaza strip (and the land around it) was not Israel but Philistia and the land from Jerusalem down was Judah and Edom.

You can see what land biblical Israel claimed and what current day Israel claims here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/kingdoms.gif

[AlphaDeltaDelta]

Originally Posted by epchick

Oh well then that makes it alright

Yes, lets not kill the militants because they are women or under 18... Great war strategy!

Originally Posted by epchick

You do have a point about occupying the land, but Israel isn't just occupying the land and attacking when needed. They are killing Palestinians without being provoked by them first. That isn't just "occupying" anymore.

Firing over 8,000 rockets into Israel since 2007 isn't sufficient provocation? Do we need to wait for the big 10k mark or something?

Addressing whether any of the claims of weapons are proven/true, the big news story that a UN school was bombed rarely came along with the interesting tidbit that both Israelis and Palestinian witnesses admitted that about 10 minutes before the shelling, a bunch of rockets had been fired in Israel from that spot. Yes, some infants and toddlers are dying, but the large numbers being reported include the 14-17 year old militants that are a major part of Hamas.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaDeltaDelta

Firing over 8,000 rockets into Israel since 2007 isn't sufficient provocation? Do we need to wait for the big 10k mark or something?

See this is where you and I are probably getting our wires crossed.
I DO believe Israel has a right to retaliate. So they should retaliate on the land that is firing those rockets. BUT, I believe that Israel should fire from their land. They don't have to occupy Gaza or the West Bank to retaliate.

Israel might not be condoning it, but I do believe the Israeli soldiers that occupy the West Bank/Gaza sometimes take things into their own hands. So they don't have to be provoked to fire on an cars/trucks/ambulances/etc carrying Palestinian children (and they weren't 14-17 year olds), etc.

[SWTXBelle]

FWIW, NPR (relatively unbiased, I believe) reported that 28 Israelis have died as a result of rocket attacks since 1999. Most of the rockets have until fairly recently been laughably inept.

Elephant in the room no one is discussing - the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

See this is where you and I are probably getting our wires crossed.
I DO believe Israel has a right to retaliate. So they should retaliate on the land that is firing those rockets. BUT, I believe that Israel should fire from their land. They don't have to occupy Gaza or the West Bank to retaliate.

Israel might not be condoning it, but I do believe the Israeli soldiers that occupy the West Bank/Gaza sometimes take things into their own hands. So they don't have to be provoked to fire on an cars/trucks/ambulances/etc carrying Palestinian children (and they weren't 14-17 year olds), etc.

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 think Israel has right to exist and protect itself. I have much greater faith in Israel to leave other "countries" alone if they would just leave it alone and make an active effort to suppress groups they harbor who seek to harm Israel. If they fail to do so, then Israel must act.

(Did you see the articles that suggested that the rockets from Gaza were getting increasingly likely to hit an nuclear power plant in Israel? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430133.ece. Doesn't that provide the kind of urgency that puts concerns about temporary "occupation" on the back burner?)