I don't think that area really needs fancy bridges though. Dry pathways over narrow streams doesn't really take a lot of technology.
I'm not the one who suggested bridges in the first place, though I'm assuming a well planned road system will have a number of bridges irrespective of lakes and rivers. The criticism up thread was that Hamas should have used the money, technology and supplies to build "roads, bridges, and schools." My point is that depending on what these tunnels look like, the supplies and technology might not translate.
Perhaps. But those supplies were meant for infrastructure, and even if they stretched 1000 times further being used on these tunnels instead, that's not a legitimate use of those resources.
Perhaps. But those supplies were meant for infrastructure, and even if they stretched 1000 times further being used on these tunnels instead, that's not a legitimate use of those resources.
So who gets to tell them what is a "legitimate" use of those resources?
Israel: Hey, people of Gaza, we will magnanimously ease our restrictions in order to enable you to get some crude building materials and other supplies. But you can only use them for purposes we feel are legitimate. You're welcome.
You think that's cool?
Those resources were used to build tunnels in order to smuggle weapons and fighters into Gaza; smuggle fighters and weapons into Israel; conceal and protect weapons; provide protection and escape for high ranking Hama leaders. Do you consider that to be a legitimate use of resources? Is that more legitimate than economic development and building infrastructure?
I'll just randomly be an engineer for a second and offer that the tunnels as pictured would require the same type of skill level, manual effort and materials as a basic road. Not a major highway...just a good road that won't break cars with giant ruts and potholes.
So who gets to tell them what is a "legitimate" use of those resources?
Israel: Hey, people of Gaza, we will magnanimously ease our restrictions in order to enable you to get some crude building materials and other supplies. But you can only use them for purposes we feel are legitimate. You're welcome.
You think that's cool?
Those resources were used to build tunnels in order to smuggle weapons and fighters into Gaza; smuggle fighters and weapons into Israel; conceal and protect weapons; provide protection and escape for high ranking Hama leaders. Do you consider that to be a legitimate use of resources? Is that more legitimate than economic development and building infrastructure?
See this is what I'm fucking saying though. Neither side is willing to back down. I see why but seriously.
So who gets to tell them what is a "legitimate" use of those resources?
Israel: Hey, people of Gaza, we will magnanimously ease our restrictions in order to enable you to get some crude building materials and other supplies. But you can only use them for purposes we feel are legitimate. You're welcome.
You think that's cool?
Those resources were used to build tunnels in order to smuggle weapons and fighters into Gaza; smuggle fighters and weapons into Israel; conceal and protect weapons; provide protection and escape for high ranking Hama leaders. Do you consider that to be a legitimate use of resources? Is that more legitimate than economic development and building infrastructure?
But I don't get why Israel really has any right to tell Gaza what they can and cannot use resources for. It's like Israel thinks they are doing Gaza a favor when they (in theory) don't control Gaza-I can see why Palestinians are not okay with this set-up. I think as others have said that the attitude from both sides is a real problem.
See this is what I'm fucking saying though. Neither side is willing to back down. I see why but seriously.
It's more than just "back down." Israel is straight up lying. Both affirmatively and by omission. At least Hamas is being up front when they say they want Israel to be wiped off the map. That's clearly what Israel wants too - for Palestine to cease to exist and for that entire region to belong to them and just them. But they're doing this stupid song and dance like, "Oh we just have to protect ourselves from the terrorists Hamas" KaBOOOM!! 100 Palestinian children are dead while one Israeli get stitches in his leg from a projectile rock. Both sides are wrong. But one side is wronger. And dishonest, literally, intellectually, and consistently.
What evidence do you have that Israel is "straight up lying" and their secret goal is "clearly" for Palestine to cease to exist? No one seriously believes that - the Palestinians don't even believe that!! That's a minority viewpoint in Israel.
I really want to bump up my article about Israel's strategy from the other day, because I ask the question, what is Israel's end game here? They destroy Hamas and then what?
Why would you build something the other side can easily destroy? If someone was bombing the crap outta me and then gave me a butt load of concrete I think the most ingenious thing I could do is make some kick-ass underground structures with it.
I really want to bump up my article about Israel's strategy from the other day, because I ask the question, what is Israel's end game here? They destroy Hamas and then what?
I don't think they know what. I hate to use a pun but Israel has tunnel vision. They've been fighting this for so long, justified or not that I'm not sure why can see beyond it, kwim?
I really want to bump up my article about Israel's strategy from the other day, because I ask the question, what is Israel's end game here? They destroy Hamas and then what?
I don't think they know what. I hate to use a pun but Israel has tunnel vision. They've been fighting this for so long, justified or not that I'm not sure why can see beyond it, kwim?
I really want to bump up my article about Israel's strategy from the other day, because I ask the question, what is Israel's end game here? They destroy Hamas and then what?
The end game is peace, and a two state solution. But there are a great deal that needs to happen before that can be achieved. You're right - Israel is in a no-win situation. That doesn't mean that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas continue to fire rockets into their cities, allow fighters to pop up through their tunnels to ambush them, and kidnap and murder Israeli teens. I asked the other day and you never answered - what do YOU propose Israel do?
Why would you build something the other side can easily destroy? If someone was bombing the crap outta me and then gave me a butt load of concrete I think the most ingenious thing I could do is make some kick-ass underground structures with it.
Israel's actions are defensive, not offensive. I'm sure you know the difference. If Hamas would agree to a cease fire, Israel wouldn't be bombing them. You seem to have the impression that the tunnels and bunkers are for the protection of the Palestinian people, and there is no evidence to support that.
Why would you build something the other side can easily destroy? If someone was bombing the crap outta me and then gave me a butt load of concrete I think the most ingenious thing I could do is make some kick-ass underground structures with it.
Israel's actions are defensive, not offensive. I'm sure you know the difference. If Hamas would agree to a cease fire, Israel wouldn't be bombing them. You seem to have the impression that the tunnels and bunkers are for the protection of the Palestinian people, and there is no evidence to support that.
No its a tactic that works whether you are offensive or defensive. Much harder to find and bomb a tunnel vs. a building or road.
What evidence do you have that Israel is "straight up lying" and their secret goal is "clearly" for Palestine to cease to exist? No one seriously believes that - the Palestinians don't even believe that!! That's a minority viewpoint in Israel.
Haven't we just had at least three threads on that this week? Or maybe I'm confusing the regurgitated "talking points" of the pro-Israel folks in these threads as being the same as Israel's actual talking points. But what I've read in these threads from the pro-Israel folks are half truths and exaggerations and very strange attempts to modernize the "right of conquest." And when people like myself or TTT continue to have questions about the accuracy of those accounts or summaries or when we question at least the appropriateness of Palestine being entitled to substantial sympathy, the response is back to square one "Well, maybe they shouldn't use civilians as human shields." To the extent your (and others') opinions are representative of Israel's, then yes, it seems apparent to me that you/Israel do not believe that Palestine has any right to exist. The land was never actually "theirs" to begin with... So, are you just the voice of a minority?
Oh, please! This is revisionist hyperbole. By "regurgitated talking-points" I assume you mean credible news sources, independent reports, and legitimate government officials? And yes, we end up back at square one because the fact remains - overwhelming supported by evidence - that Hamas is the direct cause of the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. You are pro-Palestinian? Then you should be anti-Hamas. Yet you've consistently aligned yourself with the viewpoint of Hamas, Iran and Syria on this issue, and seem to give vastly more credibility to their version of events than anyone else's. I'm afraid that you and ttt are the voice of the minority on this issue. A mere 34% of Americans believe that Israel is unjustified in its recent attacks.
Haven't we just had at least three threads on that this week? Or maybe I'm confusing the regurgitated "talking points" of the pro-Israel folks in these threads as being the same as Israel's actual talking points. But what I've read in these threads from the pro-Israel folks are half truths and exaggerations and very strange attempts to modernize the "right of conquest." And when people like myself or TTT continue to have questions about the accuracy of those accounts or summaries or when we question at least the appropriateness of Palestine being entitled to substantial sympathy, the response is back to square one "Well, maybe they shouldn't use civilians as human shields." To the extent your (and others') opinions are representative of Israel's, then yes, it seems apparent to me that you/Israel do not believe that Palestine has any right to exist. The land was never actually "theirs" to begin with... So, are you just the voice of a minority?
Oh, please! This is revisionist hyperbole. By "regurgitated talking-points" I assume you mean credible news sources, independent reports, and legitimate government officials?.
This brings us back to the question I asked at the start of this thread: how are we determining what counts as a credible source when it comes to this topic? I don't think either side has the high ground on that one.
Oh, please! This is revisionist hyperbole. By "regurgitated talking-points" I assume you mean credible news sources, independent reports, and legitimate government officials?.
This brings us back to the question I asked at the start of this thread: how are we determining what counts as a credible source when it comes to this topic? I don't think either side has the high ground on that one.
I've been reading news reports from all over the world - America, Britian, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Lebonon, Qatar. They all have their varying spins, of course, but those sources not controlled by countries actively calling for Israel's destruction seem to agree on the basic facts.
Haven't we just had at least three threads on that this week? Or maybe I'm confusing the regurgitated "talking points" of the pro-Israel folks in these threads as being the same as Israel's actual talking points. But what I've read in these threads from the pro-Israel folks are half truths and exaggerations and very strange attempts to modernize the "right of conquest." And when people like myself or TTT continue to have questions about the accuracy of those accounts or summaries or when we question at least the appropriateness of Palestine being entitled to substantial sympathy, the response is back to square one "Well, maybe they shouldn't use civilians as human shields." To the extent your (and others') opinions are representative of Israel's, then yes, it seems apparent to me that you/Israel do not believe that Palestine has any right to exist. The land was never actually "theirs" to begin with... So, are you just the voice of a minority?
Oh, please! This is revisionist hyperbole. By "regurgitated talking-points" I assume you mean credible news sources, independent reports, and legitimate government officials? And yes, we end up back at square one because the fact remains - overwhelming supported by evidence - that Hamas is the direct cause of the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. You are pro-Palestinian? Then you should be anti-Hamas. Yet you've consistently aligned yourself with the viewpoint of Hamas, Iran and Syria on this issue, and seem to give vastly more credibility to their version of events than anyone else's. I'm afraid that you and ttt are the voice of the minority on this issue. A mere 34% of Americans believe that Israel is unjustified in its recent attacks.
Well I'm betting fewer than 34% of Americans could locate Israel or Gaza on a map let alone tell you why the 1948 UN Partition Plan failed, so I'm OK with being in the minority on that.
The world is just not as black and white as pro-this therefore anti-that. And God knows there is nothing in this conflict, especially, that is that simple.
The end game is peace, and a two state solution. But there are a great deal that needs to happen before that can be achieved. You're right - Israel is in a no-win situation. That doesn't mean that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas continue to fire rockets into their cities, allow fighters to pop up through their tunnels to ambush them, and kidnap and murder Israeli teens. I asked the other day and you never answered - what do YOU propose Israel do?
Here, let's start with an easy question. Do you support a return to 1967 boarders?
I thought we were discussing Hamas and Gaza, so I don't see how the 1967 borders are relevant. Every inch of the 1967 borders in Gaza have been returned. That's not what Hamas is fighting over. They will not accept anything less than all of Israel. Even if Israel were to agree to those borders, the fighting would continue.
Israel's actions are defensive, not offensive. I'm sure you know the difference. If Hamas would agree to a cease fire, Israel wouldn't be bombing them. You seem to have the impression that the tunnels and bunkers are for the protection of the Palestinian people, and there is no evidence to support that.
My beef here is that I don't think Israel should be able to say a tunnel is not a legitimate use of resources. Of course it shouldn't be used to smuggle bombs and fighters, but I can't imagine some people weren't smuggled out of Gaza to get certain items they couldn't get in Gaza. I just don't believe Israel that 100% of the use was for nefarious, war lingering purposes.
I'm also feeling a bit fuck you about the implication that if you empathize a bit with Hamas, you are totes on Iran and Syria's side. THIS is the histrionic bullshit that causes Israel to lose credibility. You're hurting your cause with that.
You are conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people. I have lots of empathy for the Palestinian people, but I have none for Hamas. You hurt your own cause by not understanding the difference.
The end game is peace, and a two state solution. But there are a great deal that needs to happen before that can be achieved. You're right - Israel is in a no-win situation. That doesn't mean that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas continue to fire rockets into their cities, allow fighters to pop up through their tunnels to ambush them, and kidnap and murder Israeli teens. I asked the other day and you never answered - what do YOU propose Israel do?
Here, let's start with an easy question. Do you support a return to 1967 boarders?
To answer your question, yes, with some minor strategic compromises that both sides agree to. And I do not support the settlements.
Oh, please! This is revisionist hyperbole. By "regurgitated talking-points" I assume you mean credible news sources, independent reports, and legitimate government officials? And yes, we end up back at square one because the fact remains - overwhelming supported by evidence - that Hamas is the direct cause of the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. You are pro-Palestinian? Then you should be anti-Hamas. Yet you've consistently aligned yourself with the viewpoint of Hamas, Iran and Syria on this issue, and seem to give vastly more credibility to their version of events than anyone else's. I'm afraid that you and ttt are the voice of the minority on this issue. A mere 34% of Americans believe that Israel is unjustified in its recent attacks.
I'm guessing that the number of people who think Israel is unjustified is roughly equivalent, and probably higher than the number of people who can find Gaza on a world map. So I am not terribly concerned with being in the minority on my propensity to sympathize with the Palestinians. And I do not align with Hamas. I recognize that there is a disconnect between what YOU want me to believe is the case in Gaza and what the information coming out of Gaza indicates. The arguments of Israel as you have represented them do not make sense. Hamas has been in power less than ten years. Was Gaza a fucking utopia before that? Is the West Bank? How and why did Hamas get.control of Gaza? What indications are there from Israel that it can coexist with Palestinians or A Palestine and not oppress and encroach on the rights and land of those people? How can Israel or people like yourself fail to see and sympathize with the fact that the people of Palestine have been geographically and economically dislocated by a eurocentric post WW II (and even WWI) vision of the middle east.
If what you are arguing and using as "evidence" is what you have put forth in this thread, then NO I do not find Israel's position particularly.compelling. Hell, you can't even answer the question of why Palestinians shouldn't feel displaced and THAT is where this alllll starts. Palestinians feel like a conquered people. And just looking at the situation, I can see why. Can you? Know thine enemy and all that.
The Palestinians in Gaza should not feel displaced because they are NOT displaced. Look at the pre 1967 boarders - they are the same. The people of the West Bank should feel displaced because some of them are. But they are not lobbing rockets and the two sides are negotiating land for peace. Is it a utopia? Clearly not; no one asserted that it is.
Prior to Hamas, Israel occupied Gaza and administered it. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed resolution 242 calling for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war, in exchange for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and "acknowledgement of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area". The Palestinians rejected it. In 2005, Israel decided to honor it's obligations under that resolution with regard to Gaza without assurances that the Palestinians would do the same. Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. Hamas was elected and immediately began attacking Israel in furtherance of its stated goal of destroying Israel and returning ALL the land to Palestinian control.
The Palestinian Authority is negotiating over the West Bank based on that UN resolution. Eventually, Israel will withdraw from most of the West Bank (after they exchange some territory with the Palestinians, which is the subject of current negotiations) and the Palestinian authority will recognize Israel. Sadly, this has not and will not happen in Gaza with Hamas in control. Israel already withdrew and Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Can I just ditto MrsAxilla all the time and not have to type anything further?
Ok I have more to say and it's 12:30 I should be sleeping...
There IS a moral difference between Israeli government and Hamas. Israel wants peace and does not call for the eradication of the Palestinian people. They send out leaflets and try to minimize civilian casualties. You don't think they could eradicate the Palestinians if they wanted to? They probably could but never would. (But of course they do fear what counties like Iran would do in response...)
Hamas, on the other hand (and other terrorists, but since Hamas is currently in control of Gaza, I'll use them) DO call for the eradication of Israel and the Israeli people. One government is the only democracy in the Middle East and wants to end the other's leadership of terrorists (who knowingly harms it's own civilians) because it wants peace. The other government wants to eradicate the other's country and its people entirely. How is this point consistently ignored by people? I don't get it.
Any smart person knows that the Hamas viewpoint is not shared with many Palestinians, and Israel has repeatedly said they are not fighting the Palestinian people- they are fighting the terrorists. Most Israelis/Jews around the world have much empathy for the Palestinian people. Many of us strongly assert that being pro-Israel is NOT Anti-Palestine. Also, being that Israel is a democratic country that encourages free speech, I believe there is less propaganda than is implied here. People can speak their opinions freely without fear of government retribution. Plenty of Israelis criticize the government. It's what Jews do best. Lol
I've said this before, but Hamas and the terror groups before them are using the Palestinian people as pawns to garner public sympathy, and are not doing anything to ease their suffering. They are purposely conflating the death tolls. These tunnels are just more proof that they are using money and materials to further their mission for terror, instead of doing things that are needed by their people in terms of infrastructure.
I agree, Israel does not always take the best course of action- I don't agree with everything they do. But to call them oppressors, and say it's an apartheid situation- I seriously cannot see it. They have been out of Gaza since 2005. Yes, Israel has them blocked off to prevent terror from Hamas and others (being surrounded by hostile nations), and I'm torn on this-- but why is the fact they can't leave through Egypt either is never discussed? Isn't Egypt oppressing them too? That's an argument I have never heard.
I know I'm biased, but I'm reasonably intelligent and I'm trying to do my research. I'm reading as much as I can. I want to poke holes in the Israeli arguments. But I still don't see what asdfjkl and ttt see that makes Israel so wretched. They are stuck in a bad situation and no one clearly knows how to resolve this.
Also, being that Israel is a democratic country that encourages free speech, I believe there is less propaganda than is implied here. People can speak their opinions freely without fear of government retribution. Plenty of Israelis criticize the government. It's what Jews do best. Lol.
Ha! Which is why the idea of regurgitated Israeli talking points is kind of hilarious.
Israel's actions are defensive, not offensive. I'm sure you know the difference. If Hamas would agree to a cease fire, Israel wouldn't be bombing them. You seem to have the impression that the tunnels and bunkers are for the protection of the Palestinian people, and there is no evidence to support that.
My beef here is that I don't think Israel should be able to say a tunnel is not a legitimate use of resources. Of course it shouldn't be used to smuggle bombs and fighters, but I can't imagine some people weren't smuggled out of Gaza to get certain items they couldn't get in Gaza. I just don't believe Israel that 100% of the use was for nefarious, war lingering purposes.
It's similar to the US/UN watching Iran's nuclear power program. What gives us the "right" to tell them they can't develop nuclear weapons? Nothing really besides the interests of peace.
And for for those wondering who was in power before Hamas, you had the PLO which was initially more of a left wing organization that gradually stabilized as it gained world credibility. Which is why Hamas was created (to fill that left wing vacuum).
Can I just ditto MrsAxilla all the time and not have to type anything further?
I've said this before, but Hamas and the terror groups before them are using the Palestinian people as pawns to garner public sympathy, and are not doing anything to ease their suffering. They are purposely conflating the death tolls. These tunnels are just more proof that they are using money and materials to further their mission for terror, instead of doing things that are needed by their people in terms of infrastructure.
I agree, Israel does not always take the best course of action- I don't agree with everything they do. But to call them oppressors, and say it's an apartheid situation- I seriously cannot see it. They have been out of Gaza since 2005. Yes, Israel has them blocked off to prevent terror from Hamas and others (being surrounded by hostile nations), and I'm torn on this-- but why is the fact they can't leave through Egypt either is never discussed? Isn't Egypt oppressing them too? That's an argument I have never heard.
I know I'm biased, but I'm reasonably intelligent and I'm trying to do my research. I'm reading as much as I can. I want to poke holes in the Israeli arguments. But I still don't see what asdfjkl and ttt see that makes Israel so wretched. They are stuck in a bad situation and no one clearly knows how to resolve this.
I feel like I come into these threads and "like" everything you and MrsAxilla say and you guys are probably wondering "who is this chick?" lol. But it boggles my mind that people have this huge sympathy for HAMAS (not the Palestinian people but Hamas).
I don't agree with everything Israel does either but I feel immense sympathy for the position we've put them in. Really, I feel this conflict is mainly the fault of the world community. If you read any history on this subject, you will see world leaders *admitting* to the fact that they knew at the time that it would create trouble and that it was creating problems over the subsequent decades. However, as long as they could keep a lid on the situation and not let it spiral out of control (i.e. affect American citizens on US soil or Western Europeans in Europe), they were fine with the status quo. It sucks. But you know how American politicians are. If it's not going to win them an election...
And for that reason, I feel some degree of sympathy for the PLO/Hamas and whoever it is that comes after them. They know that the only way to keep their cause in the media is to attack Israel and keep this war going. I would have more sympathy for them if it seemed as if they were doing more for their people but you can only do so much for limited resources. I don't think things will change in the area until there are enough Palestinian moderates who are willing to vote in people who will work with Israel. A national charter that explicitly states that Israel should not exist is not pardonable under any circumstances.
I am not on the side of Hamas. I am sympathetic with the Palestinian people, their desperation and their sense of dislocation and oppression that led to their looking to Hamas for leadership. I also feel like I've been repeatedly and explicitly clear on that point. So if we've reached the point in this discussion where you have to pretend I've said something other than what I've said in order to rebut my arguments, we're pretty much done here, I'd say.
I just spent an embarrassing amount of time re-reading your posts and trying to do the nifty multi-post quote feature and I can't get it to work. You have repeatedly stated or strongly implied that Hamas should NOT be required to ceasefire. You ridiculed that suggestion - you said I "can't be serious with that". You pointed out that because Gaza is so densely populated they have no choice but to fire rockets from civilian areas, and that hiding weapons in tunnels was a brilliant idea. I'm not pretending you said those things; you actually did. Not once did you suggest that Hamas should stop firing rockets. In fact, you appear to be defending their right to do so. And yet, perplexingly, you agreed with me that a two-state solution is ideal! Step 1 is a ceasefire. Last week, there was a UN backed five hour ceasefire so humanitarian aid could get through. Hamas broke it after two hours. Hamas refuses to negotiate. Hamas refuses to compromise. Hamas refuses the possibility of a two state solution. Hamas refuses to stop fucking firing rockets!
I empathize a great deal with the Palestinian people, and I have repeatedly agreed with you that they DO have a claim to the land. Israel agrees they have a claim to the land. No one is disputing that they have a claim to the land. It is Hamas that rejects Israel's claim to the land, and they will.not.stop until they have destroyed Israel and reclaimed ALL of the land for the Palestinians "from the river to the sea". That is not Israeli propaganda. Those are the facts.