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

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So that what? We'd be better able to discuss it on message board about Greek Life?

I don't think anyone disputes that that Hamas intentionally launches its rockets from civilian areas. Have you read the stories about how Israel used to call in advance to let civilians in the area know they were about to hit the area?http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/0...-calls-th.html

Seriously? Since when can we only discuss Greek-related things on here? That isn't even worth discussing.

Seeing has how the Palestinians don't have an army, every area is a civilian area.

So Israel tells Gaza residents they have 10 minutes to leave their house or else it's gonna get bombed. Where are these residents suppose to go? The neighbor's house? A UN school? Make a run for the border?

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And furthermore, and this may just be a personal quirk, I have little doubt that if Israel could know without certainty that it wouldn't be attacked, the Israelis would live in peace with their neighbors. I can't say the same for the groups that plague Israel with violence.

Israel can't live in peace with their neighbors, because Israel refuses to try and negotiate. Hamas wants Israel to recognize the rights of Palestinians. Hamas wants to gain land back from the 1949 Armistice agreements (which Israel agreed to). Hamas wants those two things for there to be peace.

Do I think that if that stuff were to happen that there would be peace? Who knows, but if that were to happen and Hamas turns around and reneges on the agreements, then at least Israel could say they tried. Then maybe the views of the "International Community" would change, and Israel would gain more favor.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

Seriously? Since when can we only discuss Greek-related things on here? That isn't even worth discussing.

Seeing has how the Palestinians don't have an army, every area is a civilian area.

So Israel tells Gaza residents they have 10 minutes to leave their house or else it's gonna get bombed. Where are these residents suppose to go? The neighbor's house? A UN school? Make a run for the border?

Well, notifying them at least allows them to escape with their lives. It's not an "or else" message as I understand it. It's a "hey, we're going to bomb this building in 10 minutes; get your family out." Which it kind of counter to the strategy of suicide bombing or random rocket fire.

Perhaps I should have said, heavily populated area vs. civilian area. My point is still that the selection of where to fire from and where to store weapons seems to be to intentionally place them in areas that will be troubling to outsiders should they get hit, rather than say a warehouse on the outskirts of town. (Here's a strike on a Mosque: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw) Is that Israel's fault? Does that mean Israel should ignore the presence of weapons that threaten its security?

I didn't mean there was anything at all wrong about our discussion. I'm obviously enjoying participating in it. I just think that we all in the US tend to think we should know stuff and that our opinions matter as much to the rest of the world as they do in our country. Knowledge of what was really happening in Gaza could theoretically change our domestic policy towards Israel, but we can probably wait until after Obama takes office to really fret too much about making a change.

ETA: Even if you knew for sure that Israel was absolutely in the wrong, what would you do? Protest? Write a letter to your political representatives? I'm not trying to single anyone out; I'm not planning any pro-Israel actions myself. I just mean there's something a little bit silly about thinking that our opinions should matter to Israel, rather than to each other talking in this thread.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, notifying them at least allows them to escape with their lives. It's not an "or else" message as I understand it. It's a "hey, we're going to bomb this building in 10 minutes; get your family out." Which it kind of counter to the strategy of suicide bombing or random rocket fire.

Perhaps I should have said, heavily populated area vs. civilian area. My point is still that the selection of where to fire from and where to store weapons seems to be to intentionally place them in areas that will be troubling to outsiders should they get hit, rather than say a warehouse on the outskirts of town. (Here's a strike on a Mosque: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw) Is that Israel's fault? Does that mean Israel should ignore the presence of weapons that threaten its security?

I didn't mean there was anything at all wrong about our discussion. I'm obviously enjoying participating in it. I just think that we all in the US tend to think we should know stuff and that our opinions matter as much to the rest of the world as they do in our country. Knowledge of what was really happening in Gaza could theoretically change our domestic policy towards Israel, but we can probably wait until after Obama takes office to really fret too much about making a change.

ETA: Even if you knew for sure that Israel was absolutely in the wrong, what would you do? Protest? Write a letter to your political representatives? I'm not trying to single anyone out; I'm not planning any pro-Israel actions myself. I just mean there's something a little bit silly about thinking that our opinions should matter to Israel, rather than to each other talking in this thread.

That is why i'm saying we need more media in the area. All we hear (from Israel) is that Hamas is putting their weapons and people in civilian houses, UN schools, mosques, etc. but is that fact? Has it been proven that those places really did have weapons? If Israel claims there are weapons stored in a certain location, why can't they raid the location instead of bombing it?

I think notifying them is a good thing, it allows the innocent Gazans to escape, but for how long? No place in the Gaza strip is safe, so these people are just gonna keep running from place to place everytime they get a call from Israel. It's a game of cat & mouse, eventually the people aren't gonna have anyplace to run. What's gonna happen then?

800+ Palestians have died since Dec. 27 while only 13 Israelis have died (10 of those being soldiers). You can't tell me that most of those 800+ are actual Hamas militants.


I don't think that us, as Americans, should think our opinions matters more than anothers, but I think it is in our best interest to gain as much knowledge as we can (on both sides) so that we just don't blindly support one side or the other.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

That is why i'm saying we need more media in the area. All we hear (from Israel) is that Hamas is putting their weapons and people in civilian houses, UN schools, mosques, etc. but is that fact? Has it been proven that those places really did have weapons? If Israel claims there are weapons stored in a certain location, why can't they raid the location instead of bombing it?

I think notifying them is a good thing, it allows the innocent Gazans to escape, but for how long? No place in the Gaza strip is safe, so these people are just gonna keep running from place to place everytime they get a call from Israel. It's a game of cat & mouse, eventually the people aren't gonna have anyplace to run. What's gonna happen then?

800+ Palestians have died since Dec. 27 while only 13 Israelis have died (10 of those being soldiers). You can't tell me that most of those 800+ are actual Hamas militants.


I don't think that us, as Americans, should think our opinions matters more than anothers, but I think it is in our best interest to gain as much knowledge as we can (on both sides) so that we just don't blindly support one side or the other.

Sure, but I can also understand why Israel has some higher priorities right now.

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.

And yep, I think the arms storage thing is pretty proven. Did you see the You-tube and the double explosions?

Some of the lopsidedness of the causalities lies with Hamas's methods rather than with Israel's. I'm not sure what more Israel could do, especially as it appeared that Hamas's rockets were gaining both range and accuracy. Having one hit an nuclear plant in Israel was a completely unacceptable risk.

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.

[epchick]

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.

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.

[AlphaDeltaDelta]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.



I can understand that.

Israel wouldn't have checkpoints in the Palestinian areas if the Palestinian leaders would keep Palestinians terrorists from constantly harassing the state of Israel...

Attacking with ground troops vs airstrikes... If you send in ground troops, you are putting their lives in major danger... If you send in ground troops, it may take them some time to get there, and by then all these mobile rocket launchers will be gone.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaDeltaDelta

Attacking with ground troops vs airstrikes... If you send in ground troops, you are putting their lives in major danger... If you send in ground troops, it may take them some time to get there, and by then all these mobile rocket launchers will be gone.

Well, if Israel truly is surrounding Gaza City, I doubt it would take them long to get there.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.



I can understand that.

But the problem, I think, is that the weapons are typically placed in this type locations deliberately.

Here's an old story from 2007 about outcry over a Palestinian mortar launcher being placed on a UN school.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/....N.-School.php

So basically there's a pattern of choosing to put weapons in the very places that Israel will look terrible for striking.

ETA: Here's a link to the recent UN school controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fakhura_school_strike
I wanted to post it so as not to be seeming to misrepresent what happened most recently since there's debate about whether there were mortar fired from the school recently.

On the other hand, Israel could choose to use ground forces and carefully monitor from within Gaza, but that's going to equal occupation in a lot of people's minds, or they could try to keep weapons from entering from the outside of the area, but then it's a blockade.

Other than relocating the Jewish homeland to Wyoming, I'm not sure there's much that Israel is ever going to be able to do to promote peace and be able to protect themselves at the same time.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

Seriously? Since when can we only discuss Greek-related things on here? That isn't even worth discussing.

Seeing has how the Palestinians don't have an army, every area is a civilian area.

So Israel tells Gaza residents they have 10 minutes to leave their house or else it's gonna get bombed. Where are these residents suppose to go? The neighbor's house? A UN school? Make a run for the border?



Israel can't live in peace with their neighbors, because Israel refuses to try and negotiate. Hamas wants Israel to recognize the rights of Palestinians. Hamas wants to gain land back from the 1949 Armistice agreements (which Israel agreed to). Hamas wants those two things for there to be peace.

Do I think that if that stuff were to happen that there would be peace? Who knows, but if that were to happen and Hamas turns around and reneges on the agreements, then at least Israel could say they tried. Then maybe the views of the "International Community" would change, and Israel would gain more favor.

I'm quoting again to address the last part.

I don't think that what's happening is because of a failure of Israel to negotiate; it's a failure to completely give in.

You may hold out more hope that I do, but the cost of "being able to say they tried" is unacceptably high.

Basically, I think that if you fight a war and win that negates having to honor a previous negotiated treaty. If the war you fought can also be cast as being defensive out your part, that's all the more reason why the previous treaty can be null. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

ETA: To offer another half baked analogy, mentioning the 1949 Armistice and expecting Israel to honor it in regard to Gaza, makes about as much sense to me as if Russia sought to enforce the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You may hold out more hope that I do, but the cost of "being able to say they tried" is unacceptably high.

Basically, I think that if you fight a war and win that negates having to honor a previous negotiated treaty. If the war you fought can also be cast as being defensive out your part, that's all the more reason why the previous treaty can be null. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

ETA: To offer another half baked analogy, mentioning the 1949 Armistice and expecting Israel to honor it in regard to Gaza, makes about as much sense to me as if Russia sought to enforce the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact.

Neither side is every gonna win this war. It's just going to be constant fighting over and over.

I maybe do hold out more hope, but there are gonna be high costs of negotiating and high costs of not negotiating. If Hamas is saying, "hey let's go back to the way it was in from 1949-1967, so that we can get more land for our people and everything will be cool" then why not try it? Israel got the land in 1967, and they undoubtly could regain the land back if this treaty failed.


I don't understand why it doesn't make much sense (as you mentioned in your ETA).