"There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas"

[fskimospy]

Seems to be the truth of it. Just because it's the underdog instead of the bully that won't allow peace doesn't make them just or right. If the Palestinians stopped launching rockets and fighting, there would be peace. "Lay there and take it."

That's sort of the whole thing. Sure there would be peace if the Palestinians just gave in to what Israel wants, but by that token the opposite is true as well. Palestinians find the current circumstances intolerable, hence they fight back.

 

[Atreus21]

So you think the whole world is wrong and we're the only ones who figured it out? What makes you think we are so uniquely insightful?

For what it's worth, atheists emphatically reject the common consent argument for the existence of God all the time. Consensus is no guarantee of rightness.

In this case, it's incredulous that people look at this conflict and come to such a conclusion given these two simple facts: Hamas deliberately targets civilians while hiding behind them, whereas Israel attempts to mitigate civilian losses. Is Israel deliberately targeting civilians? No. Is Hamas? Yes.

 

[Atreus21]

That's sort of the whole thing. Sure there would be peace if the Palestinians just gave in to what Israel wants, but by that token the opposite is true as well. Palestinians find the current circumstances intolerable, hence they fight back.

Hamas finds Israel existing intolerable. Their's is the wrong position. Israel pulled out unilaterally from Gaza on at least one occasion, and got more rocket attacks as a reward.

 

[fskimospy]

For what it's worth, atheists emphatically reject the common consent argument for the existence of God all the time. Consensus is no guarantee of rightness.

Of course consensus is no guarantee of rightness, but if you find yourself of an opinion that is so sharply divergent from nearly everyone else on the planet I think it is a smart move to strongly consider your premise. I have strongly considered my atheism, but I sincerely question how much information the average American has about the history of the conflict or the current conditions in the occupied territories.

In this case, it's incredulous that people look at this conflict and come to such a conclusion given these two simple facts: Hamas deliberately targets civilians while hiding behind them, whereas Israel attempts to mitigate civilian losses. Is Israel deliberately targeting civilians? No. Is Hamas? Yes.

Do you think that a third fact might be helpful, the fact that Israel is illegally occupying, settling, and annexing the territories where the Palestinians live in violation of the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, and international law? That seems awfully relevant to me.

 

[QuantumPion]

That's sort of the whole thing. Sure there would be peace if the Palestinians just gave in to what Israel wants, but by that token the opposite is true as well. Palestinians find the current circumstances intolerable, hence they fight back.

Do you think that a third fact might be helpful, the fact that Israel is illegally occupying, settling, and annexing the territories where the Palestinians live in violation of the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, and international law? That seems awfully relevant to me.

Remember Oslo accords, where Israel offered a full fledged Palestinian state including part of Jerusalem? The only requirement was that they had to stop their national pastime of killing Jews. I guess that was the deal-breaker :\

Hamas doesn't just want the land they lost in their 1967 invasion back. They don't even just want their 1949 borders back. They want the whole thing, with no Jews. They will never be satisfied until they get all of it, hence why every time Israel returns land back they are rewarded with more demands and more violence.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember Oslo accords, where Israel offered a full fledged Palestinian state including part of Jerusalem? The only requirement was that they had to stop their national pastime of killing Jews. I guess that was the deal-breaker :\

Israel conveniently also forgot to stop their national pastime of killing Palestinians, illegally settling in Palestinian territory, etc, etc. I am not surprised by the one-sided description of the process though. That's how America maintains its distorted view.

 

[Nebor]

That's sort of the whole thing. Sure there would be peace if the Palestinians just gave in to what Israel wants, but by that token the opposite is true as well. Palestinians find the current circumstances intolerable, hence they fight back.

The peace that would come from Palestinians getting their way would be the extermination of all the Jews & the destruction of Israel. The Israelis just want to confine the Palestinians to an area where they can't hurt others. Considering the amount of aid they get, the Palestinians could live a pretty nice lifestyle in their "prison" if they'd stop spending their money on weapons and attacking Israel.

 

[Atreus21]

Do you think that a third fact might be helpful, the fact that Israel is illegally occupying, settling, and annexing the territories where the Palestinians live in violation of the UN charter, the Geneva Conventions, and international law? That seems awfully relevant to me.

Yes, that's relevant.

It's amazing what happens when countries attack Israel. They lose territory, then claim that this loss is illegal. It's apparently insufficient that Israel returns the Sinai, then the Golan Heights.

I simply can't understand a law that says Israel illegally controls the lands it captured after overt aggression against it, especially considering it's already given back the lion share of it.

And anyway, legal or not, that doesn't come close to an excuse to Hamas using terrorist tactics. I'm sure the Geneva convention has nothing to say about that.

EDIT: And incidentally, how again was the West Bank acquired by Israel? The answer: After Jordan had already begun shelling Israel, Israel asked Jordan not to enter the war. They did anyway.

 

[QuantumPion]

Israel conveniently also forgot to stop their national pastime of killing Palestinians, illegally settling in Palestinian territory, etc, etc. I am not surprised by the one-sided description of the process though. That's how America maintains its distorted view.

Uh, no. It was the Palestinians who turned down the treaty, not Israel. This is not an argument, this is a statement of fact.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, that's relevant.

It's amazing what happens when countries attack Israel. They lose territory, then claim that this loss is illegal. It's apparently insufficient that Israel returns the Sinai, then the Golan Heights.

I simply can't understand a law that says Israel illegally controls the lands it captured after overt aggression against it, especially considering it's already given back the lion share of it.

And anyway, legal or not, that doesn't come close to an excuse to Hamas using terrorist tactics. I'm sure the Geneva convention has nothing to say about that.

The law you're saying you can't understand has been the basis of international law for a half century or so.

What actions do you think Hamas should take instead that would lead to Israel ceasing to violate international law?

 

[Atreus21]

The law you're saying you can't understand has been the basis of international law for a half century or so.

What actions do you think Hamas should take instead that would lead to Israel ceasing to violate international law?

How long did Plessy v. Ferguson last?

Stop using terrorist tactics. Recognize at least Israel's right to exist in any capacity, rather than making it your charter to declare your eternal animosity towards it.

 

[fskimospy]

Uh, no. It was the Palestinians who turned down the treaty, not Israel. This is not an argument, this is a statement of fact.

I assume you mean the Camp David agreements, not the Oslo ones. That stemmed from Arafat being unwilling to give up the right of return. While I personally put much more blame on Arafat than Israel for the failure of those talks, that in no way excuses Israeli behavior before or since.

 

[QuantumPion]

What actions do you think Hamas should take instead that would lead to Israel ceasing to violate international law?

Stop trying to invade, conquer, and genocide all of the Jews would be a good start.

 

[fskimospy]

How long did Plessy v. Ferguson last?

Stop using terrorist tactics. Recognize at least Israel's right to exist in any capacity, rather than making it your charter to declare your eternal animosity towards it.

So basically your argument is for them to accept the status quo and hope for Israel's benevolence in the future. I'm going to register my sincere doubts as to the efficacy of that plan.

Israel has already declared its annexation of significant territories in violation of international law. They are currently, as in today, building additional settlements on territory that does not belong to them. They aren't stopping, and unilateral surrender to their terms will just make the process accelerate.

 

[fskimospy]

Stop trying to invade, conquer, and genocide all of the Jews would be a good start.

Yeah I'm sure Israel annexed Jerusalem because Hamas' charter said mean things about them.

I really wonder what planet you live on sometimes.

 

[Nebor]

The law you're saying you can't understand has been the basis of international law for a half century or so.

What actions do you think Hamas should take instead that would lead to Israel ceasing to violate international law?

Oooooh, half a century? The occupation of seized territory has been the way of the world for thousands of years.

Do you think the Palestinians' current actions are going to lead to cessation of what you view as the Israeli's illegal & immoral actions? Because it seems to me that it's just going to increase and justify them. They'd be better off doing nothing, and being good little prisoners. At least then they wouldn't be backsliding away from their goals.

 

[bshole]

Recognize at least Israel's right to exist in any capacity, rather than making it your charter to declare your eternal animosity towards it.

That is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to happen. Why even mention it?

 

[Atreus21]

So basically your argument is for them to accept the status quo and hope for Israel's benevolence in the future. I'm going to register my sincere doubts as to the efficacy of that plan.

No, my argument is for them to stop using terrorist tactics. There are other ways to achieve your goals without murdering civilians.

Secondly, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to cede land on multiple occasions. If Hamas backed off, Israel would loosen.

Israel has already declared its annexation of significant territories in violation of international law. They are currently, as in today, building additional settlements on territory that does not belong to them. They aren't stopping, and unilateral surrender to their terms will just make the process accelerate.

Baloney. Israel, again, has ceded land, land totaling a greater area than the entire current state of Israel, already. They've also stopped settlements before in 2005. And what did they get in return? Palestinians elected Hamas.

 

[Atreus21]

That is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to happen. Why even mention it?

Because that's the way the conflict is peaceably resolved. There is no other peaceful resolution.

 

[fskimospy]

Oooooh, half a century? The occupation of seized territory has been the way of the world for thousands of years.

Who gives a shit?

Do you think the Palestinians' current actions are going to lead to cessation of what you view as the Israeli's illegal & immoral actions? Because it seems to me that it's just going to increase and justify them. They'd be better off doing nothing, and being good little prisoners. At least then they wouldn't be backsliding away from their goals.

Yes, unilaterally acquiescing to your opponent's demands has a long and storied history of success in international relations.

 

[fskimospy]

No, my argument is for them to stop using terrorist tactics. There are other ways to achieve your goals without murdering civilians.

Secondly, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to cede land on multiple occasions. If Hamas backed off, Israel would loosen.

What should they do exactly, and why would it succeed?

Baloney. Israel, again, has ceded land, land totaling a greater area than the entire current state of Israel, already. They've also stopped settlements before in 2005. And what did they get in return? Palestinians elected Hamas.

Ceded land that they didn't own. How generous in them.

Israel never stopped settlement activity in 2005. In fact, the numbers of settlers in Palestinian territory increased substantially in 2005.

 

[Atreus21]

What should they do exactly, and why would it succeed?

Stop sending rockets. Stop terrorist attacks. Stop attacking Israel. If Israel attacks despite these concessions, then we'll know indeed who the villain is.

Ceded land that they didn't own. How generous in them.

...yes, exactly. They took it in response to aggression. Would most normal people return gambling winnings to the casino?

Egypt rolled the dice. They lost. Yet they got their money back.

Israel never stopped settlement activity in 2005. In fact, the numbers of settlers in Palestinian territory increased substantially in 2005.

Please source that, because Wikipedia is pretty sure they did withdraw. And afterwards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#Execution_of_the_plan

Following Israel's withdrawal, Palestinian mobs entered the settlements waving PLO and Hamas flags, firing gunshots into the air and setting off firecrackers, and chanting slogans. Four synagogues were vandalized, looted, and torched. Palestinians also looted objects from destroyed homes.[33] Hamas leaders held celebratory prayers in Kfar Darom synagogue as mobs continued to ransack and loot synagogues.[34] Palestinian Authority security forces did not intervene, and announced that the synagogues would be destroyed. Less than 24 hours after the withdrawal, Palestinian Authority bulldozers began to demolish the remaining synagogues.[35][36][37] The settlements' greenhouses, which were supposed to be left intact by Israel, but half of which were demolished by their owners before leaving,[29] were also looted by Palestinian mobs. Palestinian Authority security forces attempted to stop them, but did not have enough manpower to be effective. In some places, there was no security, while some police officers joined the looters.[38]

 

[QuantumPion]

Yeah I'm sure Israel annexed Jerusalem because Hamas' charter said mean things about them.

I really wonder what planet you live on sometimes.

Israel annexed Jerusalem because they were invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Sryia, Lebanon, and Iraq the day the British Mandate ended. In order to be not annihilated, they had to push back the invaders.

So what planet do you live on where invading armies get to demand the land they lost back?

 

[Nebor]

Who gives a shit?



Yes, unilaterally acquiescing to your opponent's demands has a long and storied history of success in international relations.

Russia has occupied eastern Ukraine and no one is wailing and gnashing their teeth. It's the way of the world, and it won't be changing anytime soon.

The Palestinians are currently pulling against a choke chain. If they stop pulling, they'll still be on the chain, but they'll stop choking. Or they can keep pulling, causing a mild annoyance to Israel holding the chain, while they choke to death. This is truly a no-win situation for the Palestinians. They need to choose the least bad options. Or they can keep throwing a temper tantrum and remain one of the poorest, most backwards places on earth.

I really don't care much either way. Iron Dome will just get better with US involvement. Israeli tech will continue to make the Palestinian prison better and better. I have absolutely no love for the Palestinians, but if they want to survive, they need to cut a deal and stop fighting.

 

[QuantumPion]

Yes, unilaterally acquiescing to your opponent's demands has a long and storied history of success in international relations.

Well it certainly hasn't worked very well for Israel, whom have unilaterally ceased fire during many fights and have unilaterally give land back without receiving peace or concessions in return.