-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Israel / Gaza Thread
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
irishScott
Lifer
Israel goes through great pains to avoid collateral damage. In many cases (Lebanon and previous strikes in Palestine) they warned the enemy populace beforehand that their neighborhood was a target and gave up the element of surprise. Fact is Gaza is ridiculously dense. It's about 2/5 the size of the county I live in, (Farfax County VA), with 1.5 million people. Fairfax County currently has a little over a million. I can't imagine how crowded it would be if 3/5 of the county were taken away. Hamas putting their emplacements next to schools and such doesn't help either.
I'm not surprised at this attack either. When the Prime Minister said "enough is enough" I called it. Whether Israel and Palestine will get anything tangible out of this has yet to be seen.
I'm not surprised at this attack either. When the Prime Minister said "enough is enough" I called it. Whether Israel and Palestine will get anything tangible out of this has yet to be seen.
Throckmorton
Lifer
If Israel cared about civilians, why did they refuse the agreement to get care to injured people?
What you're missing is the political element of the approaching Israeli elections, where the relatively weak Prime Minister is running against a hard right-winger and it benefits him politically to have this attack happen at this time to look better in comparison. But don't let the truth get in the way of your dragging our the cliches to justify all such attacks, again.
For the sake of argument, *what if* the primary motivation for this attack was the election - how many strong supported using those cliches would condemn that?
I susepct a few would, and many others would just fit it in, that all the justifications are still legitimate, and so on and so on, because of their bias.
It would be *very* uncomortable for people to admit they had backed something terribly immoral, and many simply wouldn't admit it. They do like the comfortable little story they've built up so carefully for so long on why bascially every Israeli action is right, and are not going to begin to give it up without a lot more than that.
Lemon law
Lifer
My only reaction is that irishscott is only partly right when he says, " Israel goes through great pains to avoid collateral damage. " It still does not stop Israel from creating a huge amount of collateral damage and there is zero evidence that Israel is in any way adheres to any proportionate response.
It may be a tenet in the the same bible Jews and Muslims share, of a eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, no where does it say that 4 Israelis killed justifies 429 Palestinians killed.
Israel cannot build its success on the robbery and pillage of the less numerous Palestinians it militarily dominates, but long term its playing a fools game, six million Israelis cannot hope to long term stand up to
that many really pissed off people surrounding it. World support of Israel is starting to go downhill, and until Israel starts to share rather than being a total pig, building world anger against Israeli actions can only totally stupid on the part of Israel.
It may be a tenet in the the same bible Jews and Muslims share, of a eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, no where does it say that 4 Israelis killed justifies 429 Palestinians killed.
Israel cannot build its success on the robbery and pillage of the less numerous Palestinians it militarily dominates, but long term its playing a fools game, six million Israelis cannot hope to long term stand up to
that many really pissed off people surrounding it. World support of Israel is starting to go downhill, and until Israel starts to share rather than being a total pig, building world anger against Israeli actions can only totally stupid on the part of Israel.
I'm glad the man who is taking over this country in a couple weeks is taking such a strong stance on this, showing his leadership and decision making skills. :laugh:
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3r7czam&show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3r7czam&show_article=1
BarneyFife
Diamond Member
This is brilliance by Israel.
Drop leaflets for people to evacuate.
The people can't go anywhere.
Come on.
Drop leaflets for people to evacuate.
The people can't go anywhere.
Come on.
Slew Foot
Lifer
Ehh, If Canda or Mexico were lobbing rockets into the US, you guys would go apeshit if the government just stood by idly. If Palestine doesnt want to get pancaked, dont toss bombs at the big bully.
And Europe is 1. a bunch of wusses and 2. full of Muslims, of course they're going to try and not piss of the Muslims in their own countries.
edit: looks like Obama agrees with me, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," he said. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
And Europe is 1. a bunch of wusses and 2. full of Muslims, of course they're going to try and not piss of the Muslims in their own countries.
edit: looks like Obama agrees with me, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," he said. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
Death is an absolute, whether it's from Palestinian rockets or Israeli artillary. Hamas still declares their objective is the destruction of Israel, and they continue to shell Israel, now.
Anyone who engages in war is responsible to themselves and the world to be justified in doing so, but once the decision is made, the objective is to win. The last thing you want is a "fair" fight. When the Israeli objective is to stop the shelling by Hamas with minimum loss of their own troops, disproportionate force is appropriate.
If the Bushwhackos had remembered this, the war we were right to fight in Afghanistan would already have been won, and regardless of how wrong they were to start the war in Iraq, we wouldn't still be there, either.
It's interesting how societal trends go. The Christians are highly supportive of Israel today, as are most right wing Republicans, who recognize the rights of Israel to exist. The left on the other hand, has a serious showing of reservations by many of the left wing posters on here either say something to the effect of "well i'm not going to pick sides but..." or just harping on all the evils Israel is doing, to encourging the US to cut off all support of Israel and let them fend completely for themselves.
The funny thing is, the Bible predicts that one day the whole world is going to turn their back on Israel, and you can see this becoming a real possilibity in the next 25 years with the way left wing liberalism is spreading and prevading the minds of more and more leaders.
The funny thing is, the Bible predicts that one day the whole world is going to turn their back on Israel, and you can see this becoming a real possilibity in the next 25 years with the way left wing liberalism is spreading and prevading the minds of more and more leaders.
Takt the analogy a step further - if the US said that the illegal immigration by Mexico had given us to decalre the nation of Mexico a non-nation, and we can bomb and invade at will, and occupy it or tightly control it on an indefinite basis, you would see those of us 'liberals' complaining, and those of you on the right reacting like you to any issue, saying 'the US is not doing anything wrong'. If that were happening, and *then* Mexicans lobbed some rockets into the desert, you might see a debate closer to the one you see now over Israel.
It's remarkable the bias in the language of ideologues. I've never heard the nation of Germany under Hitler, for all its flaws, called 'wusses'; be careful what you ask for.
You say that like it's a bad thing that they've figured out to like peace, and that salys a lot more about your psychological addiciotn to war and bullying than about them.
Back when the white 'liberals' were complaining about racial discrimination, the defenders of racism had a word for them, 'Ni**** lovers', that was in the same spirit as your 'wusses'.
Of course, both are to be worn as a badge of honor, but the more importans point is how the wrngheaded people who lob the attacks create such negative lables for good policies.
The only people surprised by Obama leading with the party line are those who beleived the McCain/Palin attacks that he was something he's not.
No. I wouldn't be suprised if Obama's team is working closely with the Bush admin, behind the scenes, to make sure they're up to speed and to try to steer the admin's actions in the direction they hope to continue, but as the incoming President, Obama is absolutely right NOT to announce a public position that could undermine the actions of the currently sitting President.
irishScott
Lifer
Hamas might as well have killed most of those 429. If you use an unwitting human shield, and the shield accidentally gets shot, it's your fault. Your enemy intended to shoot you. You intended for your enemy to shoot someone else instead.
"Robbery and pillaging": WTF? Since when has Israel "pillaged" Gaza? There's not much of value there to pillage in the first place. It's not a bargain in terms of resources for Israel to occupy Gaza.
"Proportionate response": Proportionate response only exists before the threat becomes physical. If someone pulls a knife on me and I have a gun handy, I will point it at him and tell him to put the knife down once, and tell him he has 5 seconds. If he doesn't obey, I will shoot to kill. Life isn't Hollywood.
As for the "fools game" bit, Israel has lasted for the better part of a century surrounded by many who want it wiped off the face of the Earth. They also have nukes. I don't think they're going anywhere. Not to mention most of the Middle East is probably supporting Israel at present, albeit covertly. Iran wants to turn Gaza into something of a puppet state and is otherwise trying to gain power in the Middle East. It's in the interest of the other ME nations to prevent this.
Now I'm not saying that the Israelis are saints. If they'd actually halt some of their settlement projects it'd go a long way toward peace, but rockets are not the appropriate response to settlement building. Hamas wants Israel off the map, and are willing to do anything to achieve that goal. Notice Israel isn't invading the West Bank. This isn't about pillaging or robbery or even the rocket attacks. This is about Hamas.
If Obama's stance on Israel is in line with Bush's, I'd welcome him to go on the record with it. He would give comfort to Israeli's, letting them know the next US President is behind their defense. Is there any reason for Obama not to state his support of Israel right now?
On the other hand, if Obama has reservations about what Israel is doing, or flat out opposes it, or is trying to keep everyone happy by not picking sides (which never works in the long run), then I can understand why he's not saying anything. If he's in support of Israel's operation, can you think of any reason he wouldn't go on the record with a 2 line PR phrase the press can pick up on?
Well said till the bold part. There is no concession that Israel can possibly make, other than "we'll all take a long walk off a short pier", that will stop the extremist palestinians (namely Hamas, Hizbullah and also Iran as far as active muslim extremists go).
Iran, Hamas, Hizbullah, all want Israel gone. You can "rent" peace at the price of land, but land runs out, and time doesn't, so it's only temporary. Attempting to trade land for peace for monsters like muslim extremists is such obvious folly it's amazing so many people fall for it...
Does that "Hamas declares the destruction of Israel (edit: corrected)" issue give Israel carte blanche to obliterate as much of the Gaza strip rules by Hamas as they like, though?
For that matter, did the Clinton/Bush policy of wanting 'regime change' in Iraq constitute an 'act of war' against Saddam that actually gave him justification for attacking the US?
I don't think anyone is saying they expect Israel not to take advantage of its massive military advantage.
I think rather the disproportionate forceis being notes in contrast to a lot of the arguments placing Israel in the role of victim, and noting how such vastly superior forces are not unknown to be a bit bullying, a bit able to contrive justifications at will for the use of that force, etc.
It's a little like any time the romantic language of 'war' presented as noble warriors battling to defend against evil runs into the spectre of 'massacre' of disproportionate power.
In short, if the situation were reversed, and while the Jews were not being 'wiped out', they had no nation and were as dominated and oppressed and impoverished by the Palestenians who were well-armed by, say, China who wanted a proxy for their oil interests in the region, would the same people defending Israel now defend any resistance by the Jews against the powerful Palestenians? Or would they have a more balanced view that might condemn the resistance and also want more justice for the Jews rather than respond to every incident with 'too bad for the Jews, if they don't like it they shouldn't have had some prople resist the occupation'?
The pro-Israel people confuse any disagreement as simply being anti-Israel as if there's no sympath yfor Israel's position, instead of being more about the impalance that leaves so many of the pro-Israeli people seemingly blind to the side of the Palastenians, with no concern at all for their needs.
For that matter, was the very creation of Israel the sort of 'act of war' you are referring to, by the Europeans, Americans and Jews, that people have to take responsibility for?
Is this one long, ongoing war, where Israel is an invading, occupying aggressor, or are they a just nation under unjustified, aggressive attack?
Why isn't it clearer that the simple models on either side for the conflict are unsuited for peace, other than if one side obliterates the other, and some larger effort is needed not based on the latest Hatfield-McCoy type incident of violence, whether rockets from Hamas or attacks by IDF? The policy now seems to be, 'take one side and fight, with restrain against simply slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Palestenians, for the pacification of the Palastenians.'
I wonder why we virtually never see any real television of what life in the Palestenian areas is like on mainstream tv. In fact, there's very little coverage of life on Native American reservations, Tibet, or American urban poor settings either, the latter being popular for fictionalized coverage in police shows.
If we had any sense of knowing theparties in Israel and Gaza better, seeing their environment and lifestyle, not just the political prpaganda, maybe people would 'care more' about actually finding solutions and not merely taking the side of their choosing in the status quo, largely ignorant of the situation, easy to dehumanize the people (*leading to the disgusting posts here about the photos of violence dismissing them as 'liberal media' and such).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
