Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I love how you act like the Palestinians are completely innocent.

It's hard not to take sides when it's a state of the art military backed by the richest super powers against guerrillas.

I love this thread it is like the learning channel.

85 Mage Bleeding Hollow Bored with game so I let sub expire......
85 LOLKnight Bleeding Hollow Bored with game so I let sub expire......
85 Shaman Bleeding Hollow Bored with game so I let sub expire......

ogod.

blockade or not, act of war or not, israel was boardiing a foreign vessel in international waters. they had no claim to sovereignty or defense.

basically, they had no reason not to be shoved off the boat, or killed, or anything. they were not in their waters.

all other things aside, it's a stupid reason to come to israel's defense.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

Sigh...

I think you are all overlooking some very important things here.

Israel put the naval blockade in place only after learning that Hamas, who controls Gaza at this point and is a known terrorist organization with the stated goal of destroying Israel, was receiving weapons and supplies from outside Gaza through various channels, one of those channels being sea-going vessels. They were receiving those weapons and supplies from such wonderful people as Iran.

Let's not overlook the fact that this was so obvious and dangerous that even Egypt closed its borders with Gaza.

The blockade, like so many of the other incitements against Israel, was meant to provoke a response. Like so many of the other incitements, the people/government of Israel did not just march in stomping on people with jackboots. They showed restraint, and did not just summarily sink ships or pop caps in people's asses. They attempted to board the vessels and steer the supplies into the port originally offered so that the offloaded humanitarian supplies could be inspected before being shipped to Gaza.

Like so many of the other incitements against the Israelis, the instigators with the "peaceful intentions" escalated the event until there was no choice on the part of the Israelis except to respond with force. This is nothing new, and I think its terrible that anyone falls for this. The individuals in question (though I doubt this extends to every member of the flotilla) wanted an armed response and as much of a massacre as possible, and were willing to die to get it, so that Israel could be painted as the bad actor.

How many times did Gandhi respond to British crack-downs by having a pipe ready to beat on his assailants? My history is a bit shaky, but I don't recall that ever happening. You cannot claim you are a non-violent "peace" group, intentionally incite an incident, and escalate that incident by purposely injuring the people you're antagonizing, yet still expect any reasonable person to view you as a "peace activist."

Israel is involved in an armed conflict with Hamas, which uses Gaza as a staging area to launch attacks, including rockets and mortars, against Israel. Israel is not "occupying" Gaza, it is only blocking naval traffic and its own borders with Gaza in an effort to minimize Israeli casualties by keeping weapons and supplies out of the hands of homicidal maniacs. Under international law, so long as Israel is involved in an armed conflict, and informs neutral parties, the blockade is accepted under the standards of armed conflict under international law.

Turkey was one of the neutral parties. They had been informed. The government of the island of Cyprus had also been informed, but unlike Turkey, which should have known better, Cyprus would not allow the ships involved to dock because they were aware of the blockade and did not wish to be involved.

Let's also not wash over the fact that the only reason there is an Israel in the first place and that all the back-and-forth that has gone with it since its inception is the fault of Europeans, who just plain wanted Jews off their stupid phallus-looking continent.

We should also not overlook that the UN has more anti-Semites than the Southeastern Regional Klan BBQ, or what kind of nations the UN allows to sit on its various committees (like Sudan having a seat on the Human Rights Commission...WTF kind of joke is that). UN condemnation carries all the moral weight of a feather in a wind storm.

People I know who have been to Israel (one who was there for an extended period) have told me that the Israelis would love nothing more than to get together with everyone and sing Kumbaya. However, they get no reciprocity, because there are crazy people who want to "KILL THE ZIONISTS." I don't know why the onus is place on Israel, which is only responding to violence, and not on crazy-ass weird-beards, who initiate violence, and I'm puzzled as to why everyone else isn't asking the same question.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You are basically treated like a second-class citizen in Israel if you aren't Jewish. Amongst other systematic injustices.

-They are kept afloat only by massive American aid
-Their economy will decline because of the enormous fiscal and opportunity costs of military spending
-Their economy will be at a competitive disadvantage because no one in their right mind would do business in a country under siege when they could just go to Europe, China, or India
-They will lose diplomatic ground and see other countries get what they want, whether it's trade access or military intervention or access to new technologies

They will continue to have to pay these costs forward into eternity and it is not sustainable.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Israel is a state and the Palestinians are a people. How can you put a people on trial? Is it their fault they were born there? Do they bear collective responsibility? How is that just?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I was more talking about the comments made by Zaryi. A lot of young people put themselves in harms way over issues that are not their own. Let's all list the people who were killed at Kent State. No? Me, either. I see a LOT of you who are rebellious against facets of your upbringing, particularly religious ones. My son went to Rice University in Houston, and this phenomenon was so prevalent that it wasn't a phenomenon. It is almost like only intellectual failures adhere to anything their parents hold. This is off-topic... sorry.




What about the Arabs who have a legitimate point that 1967 is an arbitrary date, and why not go back to say 1940 to redraw the lines? If you're going to go back, you'll never get anyone to agree on how far back.




Who sets up this government? If they divide the territory, shouldn't the Palestinians set up their own government? Then, if the two states go to war, and the Israelis "fight a democratic state hostile to them" and win, is everything okay now?




Is a city that must be policed by an outside party free? Who gets to control areas that both consider sacred, and polluted should one of "those" people be allowed there?




What if those terrorists are living in Palestine? Would it be okay to pick the fleas off of their dog?



Why not let the Palestinians handle their own workers?


My comments are not intended to be belligerent, but assume you would give the Palestinians an autonomous state. If you actually mean that the Israelis and Palestinians should assimilate, I could see this option as viable if the rest of the Middle East wasn't Arab and inherently Jew haters. The first question any country must ask when making a decision is: How does this affect the security of the majority of our citizens? The Israeli populace would never accept integration, imo. I can't see either side accepting integration, actually.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

i'm not saying either side is right, or wrong. neither side is, and it's kind of irrelevant anyways.

however, hamas is a political party inside gaza. they are a "terrorist organization" in the same way that our founding fathers were terrorists... they are a political movement against an occupying force.

yes they are a particularly nasty and radical political movement, so i don't want to push the above analogy far, but they are only in power through political will of the people in gaza.

and why are the people in gaza looking toward a particularly nasty and radical political movement for leadership? because they are starving, and being killed just as brutally (if not more so) than they could ever hope to respond in kind with.

they fire mortars into israel, and that is obviously an act of aggression on their part. but israel also kills them, displaces them, and is starving them.

and in the balance of power, israel is no more threatened by gaza than you would be threatened by a chihuahua.

i don't care to defend gaza, but to act as if they are some terrible force that is victimizing one of the most advanced militaries in the world by randomly firing mortars or pestering their blockade is silly. it means you have decided which side is correct, and then decided why.

it's rare in war either side is completely in the right, and israel is far from it.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

A terrorist organization is whatever is so called. Do we hold it against the Israelis they get arms from Americans? It's two sides of the same coin.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 453349.stm

Not really. And you're assuming they did this because of the danger to Israel, which isn't logical given by your own account they don't like these people.



That's your own inference. There's no reason to believe that's not exactly what they did. They themselves have stated that cement and sugar are contraband and therefore they would NOT deliver these things.



What escalation? It's a ship full of consumer goods that the Israelis boarded knowing exactly what was on it because they could see it being loaded.



Gandhi spent a lot of his time restraining his more militant countrymen, just like Martin Luther King, but without that more militant side, the peaceful opposition doesn't seem so worth engaging. It's like good cop, bad cop.




Hamas is "staged" in Gaza because it is their home and it is occupied. They are not homicidal maniacs, they want their home back.



You obviously don't know anything about Cyprus. Do you?



No argument here.




The UN Chairman is a South Korean. It was the UN that founded Israel in the first place. Upon what basis do you say the UN is anti-Semitic?




You are ignorant. Palestinians do not wear beards. The settlers who are taking their land, however, do, because they practice a very extremist form of Judaism despised by most Jewish people.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't have "DEATH TO THE ENGLISH" as his stated goal. He seemed pretty content with forcing them off the continent, and didn't follow them back across the ocean to kill some more of them.
I don't see Hamas, a group with the stated goal of killing Jews and destroying Israel as anywhere near the same thing. That assertion is just moronic moral relativism writ large.


I'm not the expert on middle-eastern politics, but after being elected to various government posts (not control of the whole government), Hamas usurped power and pretty much took over. Then they started launching bombs at the neighbors. I'm not sure they put the whole, "would you mind terribly if we just took over and started pissing off the guys next door who have tanks?" thing to a vote.


Israeli military responses, including the blockade, only go into effect after they are assaulted. A lot of those starving people in Gaza used to work in Israel, but because Hamas is just "projecting the political will of the people of Gaza" or w/e, Israel had to close their border. Closed border=No Work=Starving and Poverty. Who was the real bad actor? The guys that shut the door to keep the bullets out, or the ones doing the shooting? I don't see a lot of gray area there.

Israeli forces also don't just perform wholesale slaughters of the entire Gaza/West Bank population, and try to specifically target the actual aggressors, not innocent bystanders. The same cannot be said of Hamas and similar organizations who have no problem with killing non-military personnel like women and children in shopping centers. I believe one person here referred to it as "picking fleas off a dog." That's an apt analogy.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

This world needs all kinds. Young people want to change the world. Sometimes they succeed.



No - of course it ends with an arbitrary distinction - but that's one as good as any and that was the original UN resolution that formed the country, so it's as good as any. That line was reasonably satisfactory to most parties until the conflict escalated into not merely a military but civil struggle.




Sure, everything would be okay, they'd continue to exist. Certainly, to lose would be impossible.

It is logical to have the Israelis set it up because they have a stable government to begin with, and besides, it's a pretty cheap investment in terms of effort and money for what they would stand to gain, which is long-term peace, compared to how much they spend on keeping this struggle going. Self-interest is sufficient reason for them to foot the bill.




They should be controlled by outsiders.

It's free in the sense that anything that happens is nothing personal. Jerusalem was never more safe or just than when it was ruled by the Romans who hated pretty much everyone. When a Greek and a Jew got into a religious argument, they did nothing at all, and simply put the smack down on whoever shot first.



Yes.



Because they do not have capital, and most Palestinians who have jobs work in Israel and are exploited because they are more desperate and can be victimized as potential terrorists, and usually being there illegally anyway. And again, it's cheaper for Israel to fix the economy for them than it is to fight them for all eternity. Self-interest.


Assimilate? Ehh...who knows. Jewish people themselves are the product of assimilation, and Sephardic Jews continue to maintain a culture more like that of the peoples they live with than other Jews. Culture is a flexible and mutable thing.

In the short term, the goal is to simply get these two peoples to co-exist. Because, realistically, they have to. Neither side is going anywhere.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You can't say anything that stupid and expect to be taken seriously. Reality is not subjective. The truth is the truth. What is, is. There's a big difference between


and



If you cannot discern that difference, and wish to play a game moral relativism, that's fine. Just don't expect me to take your "LOL IF YOU WERE A MUSLIM YOU'D THINK THE OTHER GUY WAS THE TERRORIST" idiocy seriously. I'm not participating in that.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

They offered to engage the Israelis and rule the place lawfully and it was the Israelis who said no. Whatever their goals may be, the best way to marginalize extremists is to satisfy the middle, which means making Gaza liveable so the bulk of the populace doesn't care about that bullshit.



They were democratically elected and won control of the government through a majority in parliament.



They went up onto the ships. The assault was committed by Israel. These ships were unarmed. They were carrying civil supplies.



Yes they do. Go read about the Jenin massacre, or how many thousands of Palestinians killed for one reason or another who weren't involved in terrorism in any capacity.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.