• 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 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Duwelon

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?

You don't have the information Obama and his team do, and it's not your decision to make. I wouldn't be suprised if Obama and his team are staying relatively quiet with the full approval of and cooperation with the Bush admin.

Of course, I don't know, either, but Obama will be sworn in in a few weeks. THEN will be the appropriate time for him to speak for his administration.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Does that "Hamas declares the destruction of Hamas" issue give Israel carte blanche to obliterate as much of the Gaza strip rules by Hamas as they like, though?

Hardly. I think you meant "Hamas declares the destruction of Israel," but in my next paragraph, I said:

Anyone who engages in war is responsible to themselves and the world to be justified in doing so...

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?

Before Bush actually started his illegal invasion, Saddam was already under internationally approved trade and other sanctions that included the "no fly" zones in the north and south. He may have regarded those sanctions as as justification to attack the U.S. and wished he could, but he'd have a hard time with the second criterion of being able to gain the support of many other nations if he did.
 
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Lemon law
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.

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.

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...

I'm not saying that halting settlement building will create lasting peace by any means, but it'll give Hamas and company less justification, make it look to the world like Israel is actually trying, and bide enough time to actually try to do something productive.

You can't negotiate with the radicals, but the average Palestinian is more ignorant and desperate than radical. Give them something to work with, and you may be surprised at the results.
 
Originally posted by: irishScott

I'm not saying that halting settlement building will create lasting peace by any means, but it'll give Hamas and company less justification, make it look to the world like Israel is actually trying, and bide enough time to actually try to do something productive.

Absolutely! :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
You don't have the information Obama and his team do, and it's not your decision to make. I wouldn't be suprised if Obama and his team are staying relatively quiet with the full approval of and cooperation with the Bush admin.

I have as little blind faith in Obama as you do in Bush. Obama giving his support at least verbally to Israel can do nothing but positive things for Israel at this point. My question is, why isn't he giving it, as it's obvious the world is waiting ot hear what he has to say... the plain truth is, he's not showing any leadership at all. Nobody expects him to start making policies but a 1 or 2 liner about his stance on Israel / Hamas conflict is all that's needed.

Edit: Although his previuos statements about ISrael having a right to defend itself is nice to hear, if a little obvious. I know how Bush feels about Hamas, they're terrorist scum that should be wiped off the earth, but i'm not sure Obama feels that way. Obama is most liekly like most of the resident liberals on here: "Well I don't want to pick sides... but... "
 
Originally posted by: Duwelon

I have as little blind faith in Obama as you do in Bush.

Yeah, but we have years of more concrete proof of Bush's ineptitude than you have about Obama. Beyond that, anything any of us says about what Obama could or should do is just speculation. We're not there, we don't have the info Bush and Obama have, and it will all change on January 20.

Until then, it's a pointless discussion.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Duwelon

I have as little blind faith in Obama as you do in Bush.

Yeah, but we have years of more concrete proof of Bush's ineptitude than you have about Obama. Beyond that, anything any of us says about what Obama could or should do is just speculation. We're not there, we don't have the info Bush and Obama have, and it will all change on January 20.

Until then, it's a pointless discussion.

Talk about Ridiculous. You want me to blindly believe Obama is resting on some information that is keeping him from issuing his stance on the Gaza invasion? We're not talking about divulging the location of a secret nerve agent that is loose somewhere in the USA, we're talking about picking a side, something Obama is apparently too spineless or hamstrung to do...

 
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Duwelon

I have as little blind faith in Obama as you do in Bush.

Yeah, but we have years of more concrete proof of Bush's ineptitude than you have about Obama. Beyond that, anything any of us says about what Obama could or should do is just speculation. We're not there, we don't have the info Bush and Obama have, and it will all change on January 20.

Until then, it's a pointless discussion.

Talk about Ridiculous. You want me to blindly believe Obama is resting on some information that is keeping him from issuing his stance on the Gaza invasion? We're not talking about divulging the location of a secret nerve agent that is loose somewhere in the USA, we're talking about picking a side, something Obama is apparently too spineless or hamstrung to do...

Okay, say Obama says "Go Israel!" what does it matter? Israel will have this latest atrocity wrapped up by Jan 20. Will any statement Obama makes change your opinion of him, really?
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Duwelon

I have as little blind faith in Obama as you do in Bush.

Yeah, but we have years of more concrete proof of Bush's ineptitude than you have about Obama. Beyond that, anything any of us says about what Obama could or should do is just speculation. We're not there, we don't have the info Bush and Obama have, and it will all change on January 20.

Until then, it's a pointless discussion.

Talk about Ridiculous. You want me to blindly believe Obama is resting on some information that is keeping him from issuing his stance on the Gaza invasion? We're not talking about divulging the location of a secret nerve agent that is loose somewhere in the USA, we're talking about picking a side, something Obama is apparently too spineless or hamstrung to do...

Okay, say Obama says "Go Israel!" what does it matter? Israel will have this latest atrocity wrapped up by Jan 20. Will any statement Obama makes change your opinion of him, really?

It matters to millions of people. Secretly and blatantly, many on the left want to see us drop our support of Israel. Part of Obama's voting block doesn't want to see Obama support Israel in any way. Judging by you calling Israel's response to Hamas's rocket attacks an Atrocity, my guess is you fall into this camp of Obama voters.

Yes, it would change my opinion because it will at least show he's willing to air his support in public, if it exists.
 
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
The target appears to be hamas.

Well duh! What/who else would it be?:roll:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well duh, anyone who thinks that if Hamas develops gills and swims away, that would make a bit of difference is only fooling themselves.

As for Israel, the day that the USA ceases to back Israel 100% in the security council with a veto against almost worldwide condemnation of Israeli aggression in the UN, is now what amounts to the day when a fair and just mid-east peace can be reached.

We already know where GWB&co stands, and we already know they have done nothing to solve anything, IMHO, Obama is right in saying we have only one US President at a time. In 17 days we will find out if Obama will advance the cause of Mideast peace, or continue the same failed polices that have flopped for 60 years.

I do not know what Obama will do, but if Obama continues the same failed policies of GWB&co, its not hard to predict, we will be exactly where we are now some four and eight years later, in terms of that given policy, but in a far worse position than we are now in terms of our efforts to curb terrorism.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
We should not judge pro -Israel support by the USA reaction, almost every nation on earth is less friendly to Israel.

Here is the yahoo news link on the mainly European reaction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_...gi4tfkQS0mGlcFV8Ws0NUE

This Gaza offensive coming on the heels of the previous disproportionate rape of Lebanon 30 months ago may build into a world wide resolve to muzzle the pit bull. Europe has a far larger and angry Muslim population and they can see why they are angry, while the USA has only one 911, Europe is a central target, and see no reason to let Israel build tensions.

Israel could be facing long term facing an economic embargo, the USA can make such an embargo leak, but only at a price.

From the photos that I see, the protestors in Europe are essentially immigrants from Arab/muslim countries. There used to be much more secular support for the Palestinian cause in the '90s. After 9/11, London and Madrid bombings, Europeans have abandoned it, as they see the more sinister motives behind the whole issue.

You are kidding about the economic embargo against Israel, right?
 
Maybe tvarad should ask South Africa if the world was kidding about Apartheid when he asks, " You are kidding about the economic embargo against Israel, right? "

Just because you are clueless, its does not say anything about the rest of the world.
 
Originally posted by: tvarad
Originally posted by: Lemon law
We should not judge pro -Israel support by the USA reaction, almost every nation on earth is less friendly to Israel.

Here is the yahoo news link on the mainly European reaction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_...gi4tfkQS0mGlcFV8Ws0NUE

This Gaza offensive coming on the heels of the previous disproportionate rape of Lebanon 30 months ago may build into a world wide resolve to muzzle the pit bull. Europe has a far larger and angry Muslim population and they can see why they are angry, while the USA has only one 911, Europe is a central target, and see no reason to let Israel build tensions.

Israel could be facing long term facing an economic embargo, the USA can make such an embargo leak, but only at a price.

From the photos that I see, the protestors in Europe are essentially immigrants from Arab/muslim countries. There used to be much more secular support for the Palestinian cause in the '90s. After 9/11, London and Madrid bombings, Europeans have abandoned it, as they see the more sinister motives behind the whole issue.

You are kidding about the economic embargo against Israel, right?

Yes Lemon law is kidding!! Lemon Law has a way with his own words that he actually believes all of what he say!!

 
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Talk about Ridiculous. You want me to blindly believe Obama is resting on some information that is keeping him from issuing his stance on the Gaza invasion?

It really doesn't freaking matter what you believe. He's got his reasons for not issuing a statement, and you can be sure he has more information than you or or me anyone posting in this thread. All your speculation and bloviating is a manifest jackoff.

As for your blindness in accepting that, too bad you didn't listen when your mother told you what would happen if you didn't stop it. :laugh: :music:
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Duwelon

Talk about Ridiculous. You want me to blindly believe Obama is resting on some information that is keeping him from issuing his stance on the Gaza invasion?

It really doesn't freaking matter what you believe. He's got his reasons for not issuing a statement, and you can be sure he has more information than you or or me anyone posting in this thread. All your speculation and bloviating is a manifest jackoff.

As for your blindness in accepting that, too bad you didn't listen when your mother told you what would happen if you didn't stop it. :laugh: :music:

Well now you're in an angry / flippant humor meltdown mode, but i'll respond anyway:

Let's take your logic of using blind faith and apply it to your hero, Bush. After Katrina, Bush didn't rush to the scene because he had his reasons.



 
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Harvey
You don't have the information Obama and his team do, and it's not your decision to make. I wouldn't be suprised if Obama and his team are staying relatively quiet with the full approval of and cooperation with the Bush admin.

I have as little blind faith in Obama as you do in Bush. Obama giving his support at least verbally to Israel can do nothing but positive things for Israel at this point. My question is, why isn't he giving it, as it's obvious the world is waiting ot hear what he has to say... the plain truth is, he's not showing any leadership at all. Nobody expects him to start making policies but a 1 or 2 liner about his stance on Israel / Hamas conflict is all that's needed.

Edit: Although his previuos statements about ISrael having a right to defend itself is nice to hear, if a little obvious. I know how Bush feels about Hamas, they're terrorist scum that should be wiped off the earth, but i'm not sure Obama feels that way. Obama is most liekly like most of the resident liberals on here: "Well I don't want to pick sides... but... "

Given how deftly the guy has tip-toed around the hoary politics of Chicago (as evidenced by the latest Blago scandal), Obama is too smart to allow himself to be led by his nose by it's international equivalent. Expect a democratic version of Reagan who used imagery and sound-bites rather than a hands-on approach.

That said, the go-to person would actually be Hillary (and she's not even been confirmed as Secretary of State). She's going to use her international reputation as well as that of her husband for a consensual approach to the problem, something that will be welcomed in world capitals. But I'm sure she's going to be influenced by the events that led to the failure of the peace deal that her husband so painstakingly worked on for so many years. One of which is the inability of a guy of the stature of Yasser Arafat to sell it to his people (the guy probably was scared of being lynched if he agreed to the lumps the Palestinians would have to swallow). If he couldn't I don't think any other Palestinian can.

So it's going to be same old, same old.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe tvarad should ask South Africa if the world was kidding about Apartheid when he asks, " You are kidding about the economic embargo against Israel, right? "

Just because you are clueless, its does not say anything about the rest of the world.

Don't get your undies bunched up. I found the idea of embargoing Israel very funny, that's all. Have you heard of even one country except probably the Iranian mullah-whackos even talk about it?

And to compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa does not an analogy make. For one, Israeli Arabs are one of the few Arabs with the right to vote and protest. Can you imagine what would happen to anyone who would protest against Hamas in an Arab country?
 
Hamas is not the Palestinian Organization that runs th west bank. Hamas is a true terrorist organization (god forbid I use that dirty word). Plus, talk about two groups of people who I dont really think will ever get along or I think even want to get along. This is so complicated on so many levels. Lets just be glad its just Gaza and not the west bank.

Keep in mind... if mortars or rockets landed in your background where your children played...or buses and cafes blew up in your neighborhood.... you would be asking your govt to do something about it too....
 
Originally posted by: SandEagle
picture #2 and #4 speak for themselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7809755.stm

#2: incendiary phosphorous weapons against civilian populations is a violation of the Geneva Conventions
#4: compare that to the tiny Qassams. a disproportionate show of force indeed, paid for with our tax dollars

Never again, unless you're Palestinian

#1

Your an Idiot... That is not incendiary phosphorous...... (and also it is called white phosphorous or "willey P" to those who have handled "military" weapons)

#2

You have no idea what they are shooting at or hitting based on the picture

#3

Geneva only applies to nation vs. nation warfare..... I never saw Hamas sign the Geneva Conventions either (and they are not a recognized nation)

Do us a favor ... Don't post like you are military analyst or expert when you get your Intel from news website pics....
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: irishScott

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.

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.

If you could conclusively prove that the invasion was entirely (or even considerably) due to the election, I and I imagine most people would be shouting down the Israeli PM right now. Just look at Iraq when we didn't find WMDs.

Sure you're right; there are fanatics and morons who just basically say "credo Israel" and let it go at that, but that element has been present in every social group since the dawn of hunter-gatherer societies. Thankfully it is generally a minority in the modern West (or more of a minority than it used to be).


In all likelihood, the upcoming election did play a role in the decision to attack now, but it was the Hamas rockets that were the catalyst. Hamas is also an organization openly dedicated to the complete and utter destruction of Israel. It is thus a threat to Israel's national security, and this conflict/invasion/reoccupation was IMO inevitable. The election just pushed the issue a little.
 
Back
Top