Gaza

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

rockets hitting a country's territory is generally considered reason enough for military action.

even if the response was totally overblown, israel couldn't just sit there wanking.

First of all, I was referring to the sort of general conflict over the past who knows how many decades, rather than the past month.

Secondly, Israel was attacked by Hamas, not Palestine.

Israel went in and kicked up a titanic fuss. The death toll exceeds 200 by now, yes? Hamas has been riled up by all this, and unless they posses an extraordinary sense of forgiveness, I image that they probably wouldn't just say "k we'll stop doing shit" even if Israel offered a ceasefire.

Or an extraordinary sense of getting its ass kicked. By the way, the death toll exceeds one thousand at this stage.

 

[goldenquagsire]

First of all, I was referring to the sort of general conflict over the past who knows how many decades, rather than the past month.

mmkay, that clears up things.

Secondly, Israel was attacked by Hamas, not Palestine.

Nevertheless, Hamas operates from Palestine and has local support.

Since you're from Ireland, I'll assume that you'll understand the following analogy. If the Conservative party were to fire rockets into Calais and assuming that no-one in Britain did anything about it, the French would invade in retaliation in order to stop terrorist threats to its lands.

 

[goldenquagsire]

But if it had observed the ceasefire and not killed the six Hamas people, the Israeli government would have avoided the rocket attacks in the first place. Although I admit I'm not certain what you're getting at here.

Even if they technically started the fighting, a government can't just not do anything if there are attacks on its soil. Fine, Israel shouldn't have killed those six people, and that's the reason for all this nonsense now. But how is that going to sound from a government to its people: "Sorry guys, we fucked up the ceasefire, so now there are going to be terrorist attacks in our country. But because it's our fault, we're not going to do anything. ^_^"

My point is that people are acting all surprised and shocked that Israel is invading a country that is the source of terrorist attacks on their soil. No matter how out-of-proportion the retaliation was, or the fact that Israel started it in the first place, did you truly expect the Israeli government to do absolutely nothing about it?

To reverse my earlier analogy, if whatever the French equivalent of the opposition party is launched terrorist attacks on British soil, I would demand that the British government take military action in France to stop the attacks, and I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only one.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

My point is that people are acting all surprised and shocked that Israel is invading a country that is the source of terrorist attacks on their soil. No matter how out-of-proportion the retaliation was, or the fact that Israel started it in the first place, did you truly expect the Israeli government to do absolutely nothing about it?

Israel has been invading that country for more than half a century. It didn't start with those bombings; Israel invaded for more land.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Israel has been invading that country for more than half a century. It didn't start with those bombings; Israel invaded for more land.

You're talking over the long-term, I'm merely referring to the short-term. Israel has had highly immoral expansionist policies ever since it was set up. Regardless, it's ludicrous to expect the country not to invade Palestine in light of the terrorist attacks.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

You're talking over the long-term, I'm merely referring to the short-term. Israel has had highly immoral expansionist policies ever since it was set up. Regardless, it's ludicrous to expect the country not to invade Palestine in light of the terrorist attacks.

It's ludicrous to expect Palestine not to defend (or try to defend) themselves when their country is invaded and they're pushed to the slums.

 

[goldenquagsire]

It's ludicrous to expect Palestine not to defend (or try to defend) themselves when their country is invaded and they're pushed to the slums.

Nevertheless, Israel can't just stand by and suffer terrorist attacks. And so we just get into an endless loop. Neither side can just not do anything.

Which is why I refer to my previous suggestion of a coalition of foreign powers partitioning the territory of Palestine and Israel equally and then enforcing the division by threat of military force.

 

[Saith]

Nevertheless, Israel can't just stand by and suffer terrorist attacks. And so we just get into an endless loop. Neither side can just not do anything.

Which is why I refer to my previous suggestion of a coalition of foreign powers partitioning the territory of Palestine and Israel equally and then enforcing the division by threat of military force.

The reason that no one interferes with this situation, is because Islam actually does have WMDs.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Suppose the British Navy had surrounded France and was letting little more than nothing in, and then rockets from France began to hit Britain. Would you want us to invade France?

Yes, I would want them to invade. The morality of the blockade would be irrelevant; I wouldn't want terrorist attacks happening to my country.

Of course, the best solution of all is to not get into that shit in the first place. But obviously that's too simple. D:

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

mmkay, that clears up things.


Nevertheless, Hamas operates from Palestine and has local support.

Since you're from Ireland, I'll assume that you'll understand the following analogy. If the Conservative party were to fire rockets into Calais and assuming that no-one in Britain did anything about it, the French would invade in retaliation in order to stop terrorist threats to its lands.

You can't compare Hamas to the Conservative Party. There's quite a difference between a powerful political party that holds a load of seats in government and has been a trusted and noted organisation for about 350 years and a small group of terrorists that's been throwing oversized snapcracks at another country for 50.

How about we say it's the IRA? They were intent on reclaiming lost Irish land, just as Hamas want lost Palestinian land. So let's use the IRA.

The IRA have bombed Britain numerous times. They operated out of Ireland and had local support. By your logic, Britain should have violently invaded Ireland using white phosphorus and bombing schoolchildren years ago. But Britain hasn't invaded Ireland since before it became independent.

 

[goldenquagsire]

The IRA have bombed Britain numerous times. They operated out of Ireland and had local support. By your logic, Britain should have violently invaded Ireland using white phosphorus and bombing schoolchildren years ago. But Britain hasn't invaded Ireland since before it became independent.

I never supported white phosphorous or bombing civilians. I merely make the claim that military action was obviously going to be taken in retaliation to terrorist attacks, and that the same would have been expected of any decent government in response to such a situation.

You can cry all night about how the rockets are "oversized snapcracks", but at the end of the day, it's an explosive device being used against a country with intent to kill.

Incidently, if memory serves, we did send troops into Ireland during the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Not that I remember. Besides which, shipping over a few hundred soldiers and invading a country are rather different.

 

[Harlequin]

Actually it only takes three people to count as an invasion.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Really? But doesn't it have to be done with intent to take over?

 

[Ruby]

Yes, I would want them to invade. The morality of the blockade would be irrelevant; I wouldn't want terrorist attacks happening to my country.

But the attacks could be stopped at any time by lifting the blockade! Why, if you had the choice between invading a country and not blockading it, would you choose to invade? Even disregarding morals, even acting purely in your self-interest, it would still be more sensible to lift the blockade.

 

[goldenquagsire]

But the attacks could be stopped at any time by lifting the blockade! Why, if you had the choice between invading a country and not blockading it, would you choose to invade? Even disregarding morals, even acting purely in your self-interest, it would still be more sensible to lift the blockade.

In retrospect, lifting the blockade.

Disregard my previous posts, they are mostly full of shit.

 

[Ruby]

Disregard my previous posts, they are mostly full of shit.

No, no. I think I just didn't get my point across to begin with.

 

[Felidire]

block food, water, gas and medicine from entering said shitty piece of land; be 'attacked' with ancient, crappy missiles that never kill anyone;

lol, made my night. xD

My opinion is that they're idiots, I don't see any reason for either side to blow the other up.. And yeah, someone should do something, but no one is. I actually liked Israel a year or so ago, but i've lost a lot of respect for them lately. Both as a country, and a people.

I mean, how crappy would it be if they were attacking your country and everyone was just turning a blind eye.