Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Israel-Palestine kerfuffle


Larry

Recommended Posts

Does anyone here know who started the shooting first and why? Because I haven't seen anyone clearly state that the Israeli attacks were in response to the missile attacks or vice versa.

Note:

The onslaught shattered hopes that a truce mediated on Tuesday by Egypt could pull the two sides back from the brink of war after five days of escalating Palestinian rocket attacks and Israeli strikes at militant targets.

Not really clear is it. My impression... Hamas started shooting first but the press doesn't want to put the blame on them by saying it, and instead is running with the "both sides are at fault" storyline. And I'm honestly asking if anyone knows for sure because I don't want to pin false blame on one side or another. I do however believe that whoever started this mess should take responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until forgiveness is embraced as an attitude lived out by both sides then I have little hope in any lasting peace. Right now everyone is too eager to jump on the "well look at all the bad things they've done" band waggon.

That's something I've been calling for, for years.

I've long believed that the main reason the ME is the way it is, is because you've got people who are still ticked for the Crusades, fer crying out loud.

I've proposed that something that's needed is an "international statute of limitations": Anything that happened more than X years ago, is history. Let it go.

I would propose 50 years for X, although I might be willing to go 100, or maybe 30. (I'd call 30 "a generation".)

I came up with this theory during The Falklands War, when I read stories about how those islands had been traded back and forth between countries, every 30-50 years, for hundreds of years. I decided that what was needed was "I don't care who owned these islands 100 years ago, what matters now is that they're part of England, and the people who are living there have been a part of England for their entire lives, and they should be left alone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone here know who started the shooting first and why? Because I haven't seen anyone clearly state that the Israeli were in response to the missile attacks.

Note:

Not really clear is it. My impression... Hamas started shooting first but the press doesn't want to put the blame on them by saying it, and instead is running with the "both sides are at fault" storyline. And I'm honestly asking if anyone knows for sure because I don't want to pin false blame on one side or another. I do however believe that whoever started this mess should take responsibility.

Oh Hamas or some of the other militants in Gaza definitely started firing first.

There were some retaliations by Israel and then there was a ceasefire by Hamas and Egypt and some other groups...then the offensive started from Israel.

At least that's the timeline of things that I've been able to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmm, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are already part of Israel.

Imagine if we took two million people in America and walled them all into one city and refused them basic human rights, then we started taking the larger reservation and kept taking land from it little by little. How stupid would it sound if we then sat back and said, "Well, it's already part of our country, we can do with it as we please"? Oh we did that already with the Native Americans. now someone will say that they started the violence first so they deserve what they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone here know who started the shooting first and why? Because I haven't seen anyone clearly state that the Israeli attacks were in response to the missile attacks or vice versa.

Note:

Not really clear is it. My impression... Hamas started shooting first but the press doesn't want to put the blame on them by saying it, and instead is running with the "both sides are at fault" storyline. And I'm honestly asking if anyone knows for sure because I don't want to pin false blame on one side or another. I do however believe that whoever started this mess should take responsibility.

No, it is impossible to say who started it. Because no matter which point in time you pick, someone will point out that something else happened, first.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 10:34 AM ----------

Ummmm, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are already part of Israel.

Ummmm, according to Israel (and no one else in the world), the land of Gaza and the West Bank are Israel, but those pesky people who are living there, they're somebody else's people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is impossible to say who started it. Because no matter which point in time you pick, someone will point out that something else happened, first.

I disagree. At some point someone started *shooting* first. That's what I'm interested in. And I'm even more interested in why it would not be clearly stated by the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one of my favorite professors who is doing a sabbatical year teaching at Jerusalem University just posted that he heard sirens and then two loud booms. Apparently from another rocket strike in Gush Etzion, an Israeli settlement, fortunately the rockets hit in an open area. Needless to say it in very troubling reading live reports from someone you care a lot about.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 10:55 AM ----------

That's something I've been calling for, for years.

I've long believed that the main reason the ME is the way it is, is because you've got people who are still ticked for the Crusades, fer crying out loud.

I've proposed that something that's needed is an "international statute of limitations": Anything that happened more than X years ago, is history. Let it go.

I would propose 50 years for X, although I might be willing to go 100, or maybe 30. (I'd call 30 "a generation".)

I came up with this theory during The Falklands War, when I read stories about how those islands had been traded back and forth between countries, every 30-50 years, for hundreds of years. I decided that what was needed was "I don't care who owned these islands 100 years ago, what matters now is that they're part of England, and the people who are living there have been a part of England for their entire lives, and they should be left alone."

Agreed entirely, although in the ME I'd say 40 years...a Biblical generation.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 10:55 AM ----------

I disagree. At some point someone started *shooting* first. That's what I'm interested in. And I'm even more interested in why it would not be clearly stated by the press.

At this point it has been going on so long that who shot first is irrelevant. The only thing that ended the gang wars between the Crypts and Bloods was that they both agreed that enough people had died. Seeking revenge does not bring peace, it only starts the next loop of the revenge cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. At some point someone started *shooting* first. That's what I'm interested in. And I'm even more interested in why it would not be clearly stated by the press.

Visionary already posted a timeline:

Oh Hamas or some of the other militants in Gaza definitely started firing first.

There were some retaliations by Israel and then there was a ceasefire by Hamas and Egypt and some other groups...then the offensive started from Israel.

At least that's the timeline of things that I've been able to figure out.

Let's assume that his timeline is factual.

Who started it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had been at an uneasy truce for years until Israel fired rockets to kill that Hamas leader which triggered it

So Israel started it, but it was justified. And this is just like being on a playground talking to kids.

"He started it. No he started it."

Both these guys need to head to time-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to confess, there are times where I wonder:

If the US were to make an offer:

The US will occupy the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli settlements in these territories will revert to Palestine.

Palestine will create their own civil government, but the US will maintain an arms embargo and similar security measures.

The US will gradually transition Palestine to self rule. First their police powers, and eventually their own military (but that's a long way down the road.)

Maybe something along the lines of what we did in Germany after WW2. (Which, I will confess, I don't know much about.)

1) Would the US be willing to do that?

2) Would that be acceptable? To either side?

3) Could we successfully do it? I mean, our occupation of Iraq wasn't exactly smooth.

----------

Me, if something like that would work, if 30 years from now, we have a peaceful, self-governing, Palestine, I'd be willing to spend a lot. (of money and lives. I have no delusions that it would take both).

But would it work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about that, Larry. I don't think Israel's going to give an inch peacefully and there seems to be so much animosity toward the west (especially the United States) among Palestinians that they wouldn't want to see an American soldier anywhere near their land, even if it is to help establish a Palestinian state.

Plus, there's that pesky, but all important question: "Can we afford it?" We've spent over one trillion dollars fighting the War on Terror. Can we afford to keep the peace in Gaza and would that really be good for anyone in the long term?

If something like this were to happen, I think a multi-nation coalition (i.e. NATO) would be more suitable for the job. Someone might be able to sell me on something like that, but even that doesn't seem all that appealing. This conflict is so personal and emotional that I'm not sure the west or the east or anyone else besides the Palestinians and Israelis have any say in what happens. This is their fight. It's been their fight for God only knows how long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......this round you mean? See that's why this whole "who started it" is silly, this is just round 43. What does it matter who threw the first punch THIS time?

I *strongly* disagree. That kind of thinking is what perpetuates this war.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 06:09 PM ----------

I have to confess, there are times where I wonder:

If the US were to make an offer:

The US will occupy the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli settlements in these territories will revert to Palestine.

Palestine will create their own civil government, but the US will maintain an arms embargo and similar security measures.

The US will gradually transition Palestine to self rule. First their police powers, and eventually their own military (but that's a long way down the road.)

Maybe something along the lines of what we did in Germany after WW2. (Which, I will confess, I don't know much about.)

1) Would the US be willing to do that?

2) Would that be acceptable? To either side?

3) Could we successfully do it? I mean, our occupation of Iraq wasn't exactly smooth.

----------

Me, if something like that would work, if 30 years from now, we have a peaceful, self-governing, Palestine, I'd be willing to spend a lot. (of money and lives. I have no delusions that it would take both).

But would it work?

Bah. I'm not putting our troops in between these fools.

If elected president, my position would be to start with whatever peace plan can get the most international support and tell israel to stop new settlements and get serious about making concessions or we will withdraw our support for them, and tell the palestinians that they must stop attacking civilians and make their own concessions (Jerusalem is too important to too many people for one to claim it as *their* capitol) or we will give even more support to Israel and stop trying to hold them back. IMO neither side will back down until their very existence is seriously threatened.

It's a position few would agree with and would probably piss off most of the world but I'm tired of holding hands with these idiots and trying to get them to sing kumbaya.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 06:07 PM ----------

I have to confess, there are times where I wonder:

If the US were to make an offer:

The US will occupy the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli settlements in these territories will revert to Palestine.

Palestine will create their own civil government, but the US will maintain an arms embargo and similar security measures.

The US will gradually transition Palestine to self rule. First their police powers, and eventually their own military (but that's a long way down the road.)

Maybe something along the lines of what we did in Germany after WW2. (Which, I will confess, I don't know much about.)

1) Would the US be willing to do that?

2) Would that be acceptable? To either side?

3) Could we successfully do it? I mean, our occupation of Iraq wasn't exactly smooth.

----------

Me, if something like that would work, if 30 years from now, we have a peaceful, self-governing, Palestine, I'd be willing to spend a lot. (of money and lives. I have no delusions that it would take both).

But would it work?

Bah. I'm not putting our troops in between these fools.

If elected president, my position would be to start with whatever peace plan can get the most international support and tell israel to stop new settlements and get serious about making concessions or we will withdraw our support for them, and tell the palestinians that they must stop attacking civilians and make their own concessions (Jerusalem is too important to too many people for one to claim it as *their* capitol) or we will give even more support to Israel and stop trying to hold them back. IMO neither side will back down until their very existence is seriously threatened.

It's a position few would agree with and would probably piss off most of the world but I'm tired of holding hands with these idiots and trying to get them to sing kumbaya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of at the point where we should just let them take the leashes off, let them have a full scale war and winner takes all. Everyone stay out of it and let them have a knock down, dragged out fight. Get it over with already. It's been 100 years. Settle it already.

If it ever escalates to that point, it won't be a 1 vs 1 war. It's going to be Israel vs. every other neighboring Muslim country. And as a consequence, the US and other Israeli allies will be drawn in. We're probably looking at WWIII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am extremely concerned about Palestinian bias as many seem to think they are this victim of the big bad "Zionist" machine.

Both sides are at fault, Palestine isn't the victim, as well as the "Zionist" machine

To say overwhelmingly that Palestine is victim, while ignoring all that Terrorist organization Hamas does to Israel, is simply short-sighted.

This is true, but when you are talking about American attitudes, the opposite problem of ignoring Israel's wrongful acts and provocations is at least as strong, perhaps much stronger. A rocket lobbed by a militant at an Israeli town is easy to understand and easy to denounce.

The REASON why that rocket keeps getting shot is a lot more complicated. It has something to do with this:

CMOfx.jpg

And, of course, the Israeli settlements have just grown even more in the last dozen years since that 2000 map, and the Palestinians who are there are powerless to stop it.

And then we are all surprised when some of them become terrorists. :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a very spirited debate last night with a bunch of people who supported the Palestinian side. In addition to being called names such as "Zionist" and "AIPAC" drone, there was also a discussion about Hamas. This is an organization that has been focused on violence for years. Obviously it has not worked, so what incentive do they have to keep fighting, and incur Israeli wrath? Lay down your arms and talk.

Of course, for a terrorist organization whose own charter defines their primary purpose as "Destroy Israel", this cannot be possible. And that's sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a very spirited debate last night with a bunch of people who supported the Palestinian side. In addition to being called names such as "Zionist" and "AIPAC" drone, there was also a discussion about Hamas. This is an organization that has been focused on violence for years. Obviously it has not worked, so what incentive do they have to keep fighting, and incur Israeli wrath? Lay down your arms and talk.

Of course, for a terrorist organization whose own charter defines their primary purpose as "Destroy Israel", this cannot be possible. And that's sad.

And, of course, at the same time the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has been trying to "talk" for years and years, and all they get is more Israeli settlements on more West Bank land and the cold shoulder from Netanyahu, who is busy courting the settlers and their supporters in the Knesset.

And then you wonder why Hamas' approach starts to seem more desirable to the people who actually live there and are watching their homes get bulldozed. :whoknows:

(please understand, I understand your side of the argument, and agree with much of it. But there are two sides. Israel and its supporters have to realize that the Palestinians aren't just going to disappear, as much as they may want them to, and they have genuine grievances.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously it has not worked, so what incentive do they have to keep fighting, and incur Israeli wrath? Lay down your arms and talk.

You really don't know much about this issue. As Predicto said, it is kind of hard to 'talk' when the otherside won't stop building more and more settlements on your land.

When you say Bibi is great..you mean the man who blatantly disrespects the POTUS?

I'm not on either side here, I readily admit that both sides are wrong. But your opinions seem like something a person would piece together by reading twitter posts/Pro-Israeli blogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't know much about this issue. As Predicto said, it is kind of hard to 'talk' when the otherside won't stop building more and more settlements on your land.

When you say Bibi is great..you mean the man who blatantly disrespects the POTUS?

I'm not on either side here, I readily admit that both sides are wrong. But your opinions seem like something a person would piece together by reading twitter posts/Pro-Israeli blogs.

How about the terrorist organization stop firing missiles indiscriminately into Israel. That's a starting point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the terrorist organization stop firing missiles indiscriminately into Israel. That's a starting point

They did.

There was a cease fire in effect.

And then Israel decided to kill the head of Hamas, while he was driving down the street.

But please, feel free to keep announcing why one side of this is clearly, 100%, incapable of any peace. And accusing everybody else of partisanly blaming only one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...