31
   

THE WAR IN GAZA

 
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 03:26 pm
@Steve 41oo,
Quote:
They've done just enough to make the situation for Obama impossible, and war with Iran inevitable. Thats the sort of people they are.
Signature


Barack Oinkbama has much bigger problems than worrying about feral slammites in gaza or iran, like what to do with 3,000,000 frozen demokkkrat bodies this Wednesday morning.

You'd think the dufe would be on television telling people to sit home and watch the fricking thing on television rather than try to descend in a 3M-man mass on a place which was a little southern town 50 years ago in deep-freeze weather.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 04:21 pm
In the article that Ticomaya excerpts, Mona Charen wrote:
may have missed it. It was in Somalia, where an Islamist movement is fighting Ethiopian troops. This is the 18th year of civil strife in that country.

Since the start of 2007, 16,000 civilians have been killed in fighting. Not in Gaza, so you may have missed it. It was in Somalia, where an Islamist movement is fighting Ethiopian troops. This is the 18th year of civil strife in that country.

In Sri Lanka, some 70,000 people have perished in a civil war that has flared on and off since 1983. The regime in Burma has killed thousands and forced an estimated 800,000 into involuntary servitude.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), 45,000 people are dying every month. Nearly 5.5 million have died since 1998 in a conflict that grew out of the violence in Rwanda and spread. Half of those deaths were of children under the age of five, according to the International Rescue Committee. The violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has caused more human devastation than any conflict since World War II.

In Darfur, Sudan, more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million made homeless by violence.

To cite these sad data is not to suggest that suffering is tolerable in any particular case"but merely to observe that the world is strangely blinkered in choosing the tragedies to which it responds.


Well this is a rather disingenuous observation, comparing the strife in underdeveloped countries with the one in Israel, a Western, developed country. It is precisely that reason, Israel's first world status, along with the fact that Israel claims as international sanction the world's consensus in the United Nation's General Assembly Resolution 181, that the world chooses Israel's conflict to which to respond. Israel is a developed country. It is the world's most powerful nation's number one ally. Obviously, it is held to a higher standard than the countries of Somalia, Sri Lanka, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan. Israel is the product of Zionism, that relic of 19th century European ethnocentric nationalism that sought to create an exclusivist state in Palestine for a group of European peoples, "Jews", that identify with and share a common history, religion, culture and mythology. In order for this ethnocentric state to "exist" it necessarily must discriminate against and oppress the peoples of Palestine that do not identify themselves as "Jews". It is in all irony, in all contradiction to the elemental principles of democracy (despite that state's own oxymoranic claims to the contrary), and in all hypocrisy that the bastion of world democracy, the USA, abets and is complicit in the state of Israel's oppression of the Palestinian peoples.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 04:42 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It will be all over come the inauguration.


That's actually what I've been thinking, spendius. The US is the key. But it appears that the ceasefire negotiated between Israel & the US involves Israeli occupation of Gaza for some time, so it might be a "political" solution, but I cannot see that it will lead to a peaceful situation in Gaza.

And definitely "over" before the Israeli election, coming up very soon.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 07:07 pm
@msolga,
While the cat's away the mice will play.

Having this long interval between election and taking over was all very well when coaches were the only means of transport and communication was by smoke signals.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 07:17 pm
@spendius,
I have no idea about what you're talking about here, spendius. However, an explanation is not required, OK? Wink
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
But what is the particular support for Israel all about, with successive US governments? (I am not a US citizen.) Given the Gazan situation, it is hard to understand why the US should be such a "staunch" supporter of Israeli actions, no matter what Israel actually does. I'm trying to understand what this means politically. I don't really expect anyone to answer this - I am just wondering out loud. Because it makes no sense to me.



It is not coming from principle...that's for sure. It probably is the result of fierce lobbying from the Israelis…and from American Jews.

American Jews also influence legislators in our country by being extremely charitable in their donations to politicians.

Nothing wrong with any of this!

I would prefer that we be more even-handed in the matter…but that ain’t gonna happen.




I think it starts from the bottom, meaning the everday citizen. In my opinion, few want American Jews to decide that the U.S. is anti-Semitic, and they (Jews) should make Aliyah to Israel. There would go all their money, and all their contributions to technology, industry, commerce. America, I believe, does not want to lose its Jews. They have been too valuable a resource, in my opinion. By the way, since WWII, how many advances in theoretical physics has Germany made? I wonder why?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:50 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:


I can certainly agree with that. I think it is helpful to use the two dimensional model of the political spectrum as a basis for this discussion:

I think this is helpful, as it helps to place for example Stalin and Hitler on the same side of the libertarian-authoritarian axis, but, at the same time, shows the difference between the Soviet and the Nazi ideology on the left-right axis.

I have a problem with okie's model, as he seems to see the political spectrum as merely one-dimensional, where not just progressive, but also any kind of authoritarian ideology only resides on the left side, whereas no such danger could possible exist on the conservative-libertarian side. I think this is a very treacherous approach to what is not only conservative ideology, but, on the extreme right wing fringe, ultra-nationalism.
Your two dimensional model is interesting, but I think Hitler is left of center on the left - right dimension as well, oe. Again, he rose to power through a socialist party, it was not a figment of our imagination. The left has to use authority, by definition, to do what it does, authority is embedded into the left side of the polticial spectrum, as capitalism, free markets, and freedom, all require a comparative lack or minimization of central planning from the top down to accomplish.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:55 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

But what is the particular support for Israel all about, with successive US governments? (I am not a US citizen.) Given the Gazan situation, it is hard to understand why the US should be such a "staunch" supporter of Israeli actions, no matter what Israel actually does. I'm trying to understand what this means politically. I don't really expect anyone to answer this - I am just wondering out loud. Because it makes no sense to me.

I will try to explain it to you. It is not that complicated in regard to why the Israelis do what they do. Its called survival. Defense of their country's survival. What country would not retaliate against those that attack it and seek its demise? What is Israel supposed to do, just sit there and accept the missiles day after day, month after month, year after year?

And we have been an ally of Israel for obvious reasons, they have similar values to ours, a democratic government in the Middle East, which is an anomaly there, which is in our best interests to protect, to try to prevent another holocaust.

Now, was that so difficult to figure out?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:14 pm
@okie,
okie

It is possible to be an ally of another country (like the US is with Israel) & still maintain the right to be critical of some actions your ally might take. I'd see such as realtionship as a healthy alliance.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:46 pm
@okie,
Israeli ceasefire begins in Gaza
Posted 3 hours 15 minutes ago

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r330885_1491828.jpg
Aftermath: Israel is now holding its shell fire (AFP: Mehdi Fedouach)

The Israeli military has begun observing a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip after a 22-day offensive against the Hamas rulers of the Palestinian territory.

"Starting at 2:00am (11:00am AEDT) we are holding our fire," an Israeli army spokesman said.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert earlier said Israel would call a halt to an offensive that has killed more than 1,200 Palestinians, although he ordered troops to remain in the enclave and return fire if they came under attack.

As the hour passed, residents in the city of Gaza could hear the long-familiar drone of Israeli unmanned reconnaissance aircraft overhead, but no sound of gunfire.

However, Hamas has said it will not recognise Israel's unilateral move and Mr Olmert has warned that fighting could resume if the guerrillas fire more rockets or attack Israeli soldiers.

Hamas has vowed to fight on until Israel removes its troops from Gaza and eases a trade blockade.


An Israeli military spokesman said shortly before the cessation was to begin that Israel "will respond to any attack against Israeli civilians or soldiers".


Aid boost

Israel has also said it is prepared to sharply increase the flow of food and medicine to Gaza if the ceasefire holds, but it has ruled out fully lifting a blockade until a captured Israeli soldier is freed.

Lifting the blockade was one of Hamas's chief demands for entering into a ceasefire.

"If the quiet holds, there will not be any problem [in] dramatically increasing aid like food and medicine," said Mr Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev.

"If this quiet holds, we will work with the international community for reconstruction.

"But you can't have anything close to full normalisation of the crossings as long as Gilad Shalit remains a hostage," Mr Regev said.

The soldier was captured in a cross-border raid in 2006.

- AFP/Reuters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/18/2468498.htm

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:53 pm
Quote:
However, Hamas has said it will not recognise Israel's unilateral move and Mr Olmert has warned that fighting could resume if the guerrillas fire more rockets or attack Israeli soldiers.


So now we have Israel initiating a cease fire and Hamas is refusing to reciprocate.
I guess this will be blamed on Israel also.

It shows me that Hamas is not interested in a cease fire.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:57 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
It shows me that Hamas is not interested in a cease fire.


It could perhaps also indicate that Hamas considers the terms of the ceasefire to be unfair ...?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 10:01 pm
@msolga,
Terms???

"We wont shoot at you unless you shoot at us" seems like fair terms to me.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 10:08 pm
@mysteryman,
Well, it could well be the prospect Israeli occupation of Gaza (for how long?), mysteryman. After the carnage of the past 20+ days, you might understand that this might not be a welcome prospect?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 10:09 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
...Even more instructive is this: When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Gaza’s residents had a golden opportunity to begin to build the sort of state they had claimed to desire. The Israelis even left behind the infrastructure to give the Palestinians a start: roads, houses, swimming pools, fish farms, nurseries, orchards, and factories. The Palestinians chose to kill one another (see Jonathan Schanzer’s new book, Hamas vs. Fatah) and to fire missiles across the border at Israel instead....


That was after they'd trashed all the stuff which Israelis left them of course...

The reason I refer to "palestinians" as savages and not as barbarians, and this could be a cultural prejudice on my part or it could be a nicety of the English language which has gotten lost in some sort of a shuffle over the last few decades, I'm not sure, is that I'd always viewed savagery as a considerably lower state than barbarism.

Barbarism as I understand it implies a certain level of technology and sophistication which savages typically lack. If nothing else, barbarians wear clothes and usually cook their food. In fact it would not bother me over much to note that my ancestors a thousand years back were barbarians, but I would be ashamed to count savages in my ancestry a thousand years back.

And yet, the online dictionaries do not make any such distinction and use the two terms as synonyms. Any thoughts on the subject??

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:04 pm
@msolga,
How long?

For as long as it takes to totally and completely destroy Hamas and anyone else that wants to destroy Israel.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 11:28 pm
@mysteryman,
Well, that's a great recipe for ongoing peace, isn't it? Rolling Eyes
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:26 am
@msolga,
Patrick Henry said
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 02:11 am
Again, this is so predictable:

"Gaza Rockets Fired Into Israel After Israel Approves Cease-Fire"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480445,00.html
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:56 am
@okie,
Ikie wrote:

Again, this is so predictable:

Quote:
"Gaza Rockets Fired Into Israel After Israel Approves Cease-Fire"



Yes, Okie...it is predictable. YES OF COURSE IT IS PREDICTABLE!

I'll tell you something else that is predictable:

When all is said and done, Hamas will not be weaker or less attractive to Arab youth because of the war in Gaza"it will be stronger and more attractive to them.

Amazing that you find this worth mentioning.

This, in fact, is what so many of us have been arguing for the last two weeks!!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE WAR IN GAZA
  3. » Page 32
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/18/2022 at 02:46:16