Amir is an Israeli.
Scores die in Israeli air strikes
- Thread starter IhabX7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Amir is an Israeli.
I don't disagree with any of that. But I still don't see how stockpiling these indiscriminate missiles is in any way justified. They cannot be used in self-defence, that much is clear.
I suspect your argument is that it is justified to stockpile them as a deterrent, "end the blockade or we will aim to kill your civilians". I can sort of see that argument in a strange way, but personally do not think it morally justified. Partly because the physical aggression (i.e. rocket fire) from Gaza is a large part of the present problem, partly because I don't think the deliberate targeting of civilians in this way is justified, but mostly because I think Hamas' main motive for the rocket fire is to deliberately draw the inevitable retaliation from Israel.
The missiles they have stockpiled cannot be used in defensive operations. They are not that kind of technology. They cannot be targeted at an attacking army for example; their sole purpose is indiscriminate fire into Israeli territory. That is why I think it is unjustifiable for them to stockpile those arms. If they were acquiring defensive weapons, I could possibly understand it more, although still with some difficulty given the lack of basic supplies in the territory which should surely be a much higher priority.
Another point on that is the basic one of how do we really know that is what's not been happening? I surely don't.
Maybe they did stock up on supplies, but these are the so called targets of the Israeli attacks. I can only guess that the majority, including currently the majority of the media, see what they're allowed to see. Which could lead on to say they did not stock up on essentials knowing that they could be bombed and passed off as dangerous items. I read somewhere, I think the guardian about Israel propaganda. They publicised a clip (available on youtube)where Israeli planes bomb a truck with people loading tubes or possible rockets and say this is what they have been doing, yet the owner of the truck who survived say they were tubes for some medical related things and showed proof near the destroyed site. Whilst I'm not saying it's true, it shows what we think is true could be the deepest lie.
Oh yeah, let me add that debating these issues get's us nowhere. I said it somewhere else but probably was thought of as a fool, but I was thinking that a solution and a good, as in peaceful answer and what it is, is what should be discussed.
Maybe they did stock up on supplies, but these are the so called targets of the Israeli attacks. I can only guess that the majority, including currently the majority of the media, see what they're allowed to see. Which could lead on to say they did not stock up on essentials knowing that they could be bombed and passed off as dangerous items. I read somewhere, I think the guardian about Israel propaganda. They publicised a clip (available on youtube)where Israeli planes bomb a truck with people loading tubes or possible rockets and say this is what they have been doing, yet the owner of the truck who survived say they were tubes for some medical related things and showed proof near the destroyed site. Whilst I'm not saying it's true, it shows what we think is true could be the deepest lie.
Oh yeah, let me add that debating these issues get's us nowhere. I said it somewhere else but probably was thought of as a fool, but I was thinking that a solution and a good, as in peaceful answer and what it is, is what should be discussed.
Interesting, it's certainly a good strategy to undermine the Palestinian authority, the divide and conquer tactic to avoid a genuine peace process that would produce a viable Palestinian state, the longer you keep the Palestinians divided and fighting amongst themselves, the longer you can hold on to the occupied territories and increase the number of illegal settlements. It was PLO v. Hamas then, now it's Hamas v. Fatah. Kind of like the US backing of Saddam to start the war against Iran and let them kill each other for 8 years while they fuel the fire, and then find a reason to attack Iraq before Saddam uses his WMD's to terrorize the yanks.
I'm from the Ghandi school of thought. .
I personally really don't see what benefits there are in these rockets from firing these rockets. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning from Hamas perspective.
I'd say passive resistence would bring about a better resolution for the Palestinians. Saying that I've not had to endure their lifestyle.
Oh you would believe that whilst what catches the headlines is doing that, fighting in defence. If both sides consider attacking the other as defence, as Israeli officials have stated, then that's where the rocket purchasing comes from. And yeah, the lack of basics is stupid to me, doubt they have much of a choice now though.
Still, thanks for raising something interesting that I haven't seen anything on. Why don't both sides, Israel atleast, spend on defenses as in actuall missile stoppers? Anti missile guards? I'm sure they may have some, but then they can justify the aid a whole lot easier.
Nah, don't think that's an answer. Still believe that we belong to the ethnicity of humanity and all these little things are well developed versions of a person supporting a group because they all wear green pants and so does the person.
And to your other post about not enduring their life style, is a massive factor in considering anything that has happened any future plans anyone can conjure up.
My shame is disgracing what is happening but the guilt of saying that whilst, with that popular phrase, not having walked a mile in their shoes.
'Both sides spend'? Well Hamas can't exactly buy anti-missile defence systems can it? You do know what Gaza is like yes? It's a run-down dump, jam packed with poor people, living under a blockade, without much law.
And my understanding is that the short range missiles fired from Gaza fly well below radar level and thus cannot be intercepted easily by Israel with present technology. The warning of incoming missiles the citizens get is only a few seconds for goodness sake.
I don't think they can stockpile much of other weapons and they use whatever they can build, in this case home made missiles. Not many years ago it was stones being thrown at Israeli tanks, now they've got home made rockets. You expect them to have anti-missile technology and pile up these sophisticated 'defensive' weapons instead of these crude missiles? I'm sure they'd love it if US donated similar 'defensive' weapons that Israel utilize such as F-16s, it would beat the hell out of those home made rockets and they'd be then justified in stockpiling these 'defensive' weapons I guess.
That is very true. And of course true of both sides of this conflict.
I would hope that were I there I would still favour the approaches I advocate now as a distant and impartial observer...but in reality I'm obviously no more intrinsically moral or less passionate than the people living there, and so there is little reason to think I'd react any differently to how they have.
And that is why I think there has to be third party mediation, someone unbiased from outside to help negotiate in a cold way. Now find me someone unbiased to mediate on this whole mess...
you have to laugh or you'd cry.That is why I wanted to refer to Israel spending, without giving that impression that it had to be Israel. I don't expect Gaza to do so, but if Israel did they would have no reason for any war.
I can't say anything on the second part as I have little knowledge on those specifics, nor do I want too, but how about considering an alternative then, like if a missile is sent to Israel they automatically send two back. Then they would not be blamed by many like they are currently with the way they decided to deal with it. Don't understand how, even with downsides to other options, could've come to the the decision of continuous attacks on a deprived area as being the answer.
Yeah, violence involved in this thought of mine, but it would stop some things happening as Hamas or whomever would be guaranteed that any attacks to Israeli citizens would automatically mean that on their own. And Israel would have no reason for what's happening now.
You've missed my point. No doubt Hamas use whatever they can get their hands on, probably as they think it's better to have this than nothing at all. However, I think the 'nothing at all' would be the better option. Or better still, some food and medication instead.
Also, in the definition of 'defensive' I was using, any weapons that can be specifically targeted at military rather than civilian targets can be used defensively. This would include F-16s and the like as they can be used to strike accurately at genuine targets. Non-defensive weapons are ones which can only fire indiscriminately. I realise I used a strange definition of 'defensive' and should have been clearer.
Shame it will not happen. I was hoping that the US will want an end to the violence, all I've heard is more support for Israel and blame on Hamas.
You're a maniac! An eye for an eye is basically what you're suggesting...if Hamas send a couple of rockets at Israeli towns, then Israel should just lob back a couple itself...what a marvellous way to ensure continuous civilian casualties on both sides. You've kind of missed the point that Israel claims it doesn't want revenge, it just wants the rockets to stop coming.Also, there is no reason why Israel has to limit itself to the inferior weaponry of Hamas. What kind of military imposes a self-handicap?
On your other post, how old is Mandela these days, just wondering...
But your point goes back to the circle, which I'm sure is annoying now, that they would not accept that buying food and medication has any purpose if they're just killed. Nothing at all would seem better to you, but for them, do nothing or inflict some damage on those that have done so much on them? Only the truly brave could so which is really right, and many will not
Also, there is no reason why Israel has to limit itself to the inferior weaponry of Hamas. What kind of military imposes a self-handicap?
I do wonder sometimes that I may have lost it, but anyway.
I am giving alternatives since no one seems to want to explore any potential ways of peace. They want rockets to stop, why not call them the maniacs? Killing the Palestinians, civilians or whatever, will stop the rockets?
I am merely suggesting limiting the number of casualties, as with the current methods the casualties will be large as surely as Liverpool's failure to win the league this year.
Seriously though, if you had any ideas that would be good in stopping hatred and violence, even temporarily, now would be a good time to say so.
aye, I doubt the the firing of the rockets would lift the blockade on Gaza and make Israel let in more humanitarian aid either but I don't know if doing 'nothing at all' would be the better option when you're starving to death because the trucks carrying food and medication aren't allowed entry into Gaza, I'm not saying they're justified in firing the rockets but when there's a humanitarian crisis going on you do get desperate.
yeah, the F-16s would certainly be more accurate than the home made missiles as well as much more effective and deadlier as the list of casualties on both sides show, 400+ killed by Israeli F-16s and a dozen by the Hamas rockets. I see your point on 'indiscriminate firing' and 'defensive weapons' but I'm sure Hamas would love to exchange their home made rockets with Israel's F-16s and take out the check points in the occupied territories and various Israeli military bases to make their weapons 'defensive'.
May I just remind everyone.
The greatest misconception seems to be that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire, this of course is absolute nonsense:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
The greatest misconception seems to be that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire, this of course is absolute nonsense:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
That is a separate incident, happened some time before the current conflict. Even if you want to go down that road, Israel was attacked 5 days after the ceasefire began.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/africa/25mideast.php
Israel wanted to extend the ceasefire
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3637877,00.html
Hamas declared an end to it and began shelling Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048055.html
That's strange. Even President Abbas does't subscribe to that theory. He blames Hamas. Hmmmm...
Which automatically makes him a traitor of the Palestinan cause according to some of our resident analysts.
I honestly cannot answer that, simply because I've never been to Gaza. But I can't believe the Gaza strip is completely populated from corner to corner, and that if the Hamas really had the best interest of its people at heart, it couldn't make a seperation between military and civilians.
There are enough open areas for weapons depots outside the residential parts of the Gaza Strip. Obviouslt those will not be as safe as they currently are in hospitals and mosques.
I'm not sure about what happened in the past, but that is definately not part of the present. Israel doesn't want Hamas, Israel doesn't want the palestenians to be devided (obviously we don't want them united behind Hamas rather than Abbas either!). And obviously, if more settlements were our target, we wouldn't have destroyed some three years ago around Gaza, basically making thousands of Israelies homeless (they were taken care, of course, but their homes were destroyed).
I would have figured so.
Obviously as a public relations exercise Israel will claim civilians killed was due to Hamas hiding it's weapons within the civilian community.
The whole eye for an eye, or missile for missile, idea has been mentioned in Israel in the past, but seriously, it's nonsense. It could go on like this for a hundred years, so it's obviously not a solution. We are not willing to accept Israeli cities being bombarded, period.
The target of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. To quote Mosab Hassan Yousef, a son of Hamas leader who turned his back on Islam and gave an interview to FOX this year, "Hamas can play politics for 10 years, 15 years; but ask any one of Hamas' leaders, 'Okay, what's going to happen after that? Are you just going to live and co-exist with Israel forever?' The answer is going to be no ... unless they want to do something against the Koran. But it's their ideology and they can't just say 'We're not going to do it.'"
Now, he also had very clear criticism of Israel, which is fine (you can read the whole thing here, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html), but you cannot ignore the fact that this is an organization that wants Israel off the face of the earth. It may not be able to do so, but we've already seen how it's gone from stones to suicide bombers, to short range rockets to longer range rockets. It is, after all, backed by Iran. So YES, from Israel's perspective it IS kill or be killed. The REAL suicide would be to sit around doing nothing and hope it all goes away.
Longer term, I've no idea where it will lead. No one knows exactly. But when a million Israelis are under a direct rocket threat, when sirens are regularly heard around several large cities and people have to find shelter within 15-45 seconds to protect their lives, when people sitting at home know they could die any second, their safety becomes our first target. We don't know where we'll all be in five years, ten years. But we know where we MUST be in five weeks, and that's not under rocket threat. I think it's all quite basic. No grand plans, just basic safety that every country should be able to offer its people.
Obviously I use 'we' because I'm Israeli, living just outside currently known rocket threat. That's the only reason, obviously. I don't normally 'pick a side' during war. It's not a football match.
And yes, as I stated quite clearly a couple of paragraphs ago, I do believe the current situation is that of kill or be killed. The rocket firing HAS to be stopped, period. Nothing else will do anymore. I can't for the life of me think of a country that would accept it.
It's fair to say that Israel did make with Hamas the same mistake the US had done with the nutters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation there.
Having said that, it appears that this shortsightedness is mentioned here well out of context. The support Hamas got from Israel was prior to the Oslo agreements, and once Arafat and his gangsters were allowed in there was no attempt to undermine his regime by supporting Hamas. In fact, the naive perception among Israeli politicians was that Fatah will take care of Hamas ruthlessly without the legal contraints that prevented Israel from doing so.
This does not mean that Israel is not paying a price for it's own mistakes of supporting Hamas during it's early days. Like the Jumayil debacle in 1982, and much like the US fiasco in Iraq, the lesson should be that you can't accelerate political change by forcing your choice of leaders on a neighbouring state/people. This is why Israel shouldn't try and topple Hamas and hand the GS to Fatah, as this will portray any Palestinian taking over Gaza as a collaborator with Israel. Unfortunately for the Palestinians they have to stand up and make the change themselves, in a political reality where they have very limited abilities to do so. There is no question here that it's the Palestinians who pay the heaviest price for this mess. Unfortunately for them we can't do the dirty work for them... at least not all of it.
Having said that, it appears that this shortsightedness is mentioned here well out of context. The support Hamas got from Israel was prior to the Oslo agreements, and once Arafat and his gangsters were allowed in there was no attempt to undermine his regime by supporting Hamas. In fact, the naive perception among Israeli politicians was that Fatah will take care of Hamas ruthlessly without the legal contraints that prevented Israel from doing so.
This does not mean that Israel is not paying a price for it's own mistakes of supporting Hamas during it's early days. Like the Jumayil debacle in 1982, and much like the US fiasco in Iraq, the lesson should be that you can't accelerate political change by forcing your choice of leaders on a neighbouring state/people. This is why Israel shouldn't try and topple Hamas and hand the GS to Fatah, as this will portray any Palestinian taking over Gaza as a collaborator with Israel. Unfortunately for the Palestinians they have to stand up and make the change themselves, in a political reality where they have very limited abilities to do so. There is no question here that it's the Palestinians who pay the heaviest price for this mess. Unfortunately for them we can't do the dirty work for them... at least not all of it.
I agree it's nonsense.
You guys are not prepared to be bombarded, and the Palestinians are not prepared to live under present conditions.
I can't see this lasting a hundred years seeing the technological advances in weapons. Unless compromises are made, one side will not exist sooner rather than later.
While radical muslims and left-wing Europeans will argue that Israel intentionally kills innocent civilians. It's up to the rest to decide which version they believe to be true.
I'm hoping the palestenians wisen up and find themselves leadership which has their own best interests at heart.
so when is this conflict going to be an add-on campaign for command & conquer?
But everything you said comes back to me asking you, in what way will the current methods end the rockets? I see none, you cannot attack them so much that they're forced to do so, in future, because of this it'll happen even more. That in short, considering all scenarios that are likely to outcome, is the truth.
And you believe, that if you stopped right now and did nothing but still got attacked, then the countries that altogether donated billions, even the UN to some extent would do nothing? They're helpless since it is a war, when it becomes one sided attacks, when one side looks at peace as an answer than the easy kill answer, things do change.
Hamas is not just a terrorist group, but also a Palestinian political party. When it understands that firing rockets on Israel backfires, and undermines their political interests they will agree to stop the fire. The goal of this Israeli operation is helping Hamas with the maths. It's obvious that stopping the fire can't be achieved by hitting every launcher or capturing every single rocket.
You are somewhat delusional by thinking Hamas will understand better if hundreds of their people are killed.
So you believe that is the purpose of this attack? Only a fool would believe that by killing a persons family and friends would you be able to get some respect from them.
They would not one day stop and say they can't fight any more, when you've lost so much that you loved and seen so much suffering, you would only feel hatred and naturally want some 'justice' put into it, which leads to more and more fighting. In a normal sense, when a person is killed on the streets in Britain, their parents would want some justice brought by capturing the killer.
So I say again, how can the increased violence and killing of 500 or something now help Israel stop the rockets they suffer?
So you believe that is the purpose of this attack? Only a fool would believe that by killing a persons family and friends would you be able to get some respect from them.
They would not one day stop and say they can't fight any more, when you've lost so much that you loved and seen so much suffering, you would only feel hatred and naturally want some 'justice' put into it, which leads to more and more fighting. In a normal sense, when a person is killed on the streets in Britain, their parents would want some justice brought by capturing the killer.
So I say again, how can the increased violence and killing of 500 or something now help Israel stop the rockets they suffer?
I suspect this sort of thing is more common around the world than we might suspect - giving support to an enemy in order to weaken a more threatening enemy. One doesn't have to be locked in such a clear-cut struggle for survival the way Israel is in order to adopt such a tactic as a means of self-preservation.
Still it would be quite ironic.
Any better ideas?