Gaza (Two Parts)
The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.
3
1-2 punch. A memorable pairing of associations.
3
Results after a rocket fired by terrorists in south Lebanon on Saturday hit a village near Nahariya in Northern Israel
2
Don't you get it. Both sides are wrong. The problem is that in this story, Israel is Goliath! I am Jewish, and I love my faith. However, I refuse to condone this killing and targeting of civilians. If Hamas are terrorists for targeting civilians, what is Israel?
Well feminist lawyer I get it very well. You don't because you have no idea what you are talking about. Israel is not "targeting civilians". Israel is targeting terrorists. Hamas is firing rockets into Israel with no targeting at all, indiscriminately. Are you okay with that? Israel has been holding fire when possible if civilians are in the way. Hamas hides its weaponry among civilians. Do actually think HAMAS gives a shit about civilians? They are pawns to be used. Hamas wants more dead civilians. Do you expect Israel to stop defending itself for fear of killing civilians? Sorry but dead arab civilians are the cost of the war that Hamas started. Israel is not gonna sacrifice Jewish lives when they can be saved. And as a "lawyer" you know damned well that HAMAS has violated every article of the Geneva Convention. If you don't you are a piss poor "lawyer".
You are parroting the Hamas talking points. Grow up and think for yourself, Jew.
1
Wow. That last bit seems revealing. As far as I can tell, you're trying to bully Feminist_Lawyer into thinking the way you want her to think — shoot first, period, basically — using the word "Jew" like an anti-semetic epithet. Thank you, Whatever, for illustrating what kind of bedfellows Zionists have earned themselves with their behavior. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, Jew."
2
1) War is guly. In a perfect situation innocents would never die. In reality a country can only do its best to limit casualties and investigate when something inevitably goes wrong. A perfect scorecard is an urealistic goal.
2) This is a great question for philoshpy class, its not a realistic question for real life. I can present the same question at what percentage of your population being threatened by death and dismemberment is it appropriate to take action.
A country ultimate responsibility is to protect its own citizens. There are some instances where they can look the other way. But when 20 to almost all of your population is under daily attack, the fact that your citizens are at risk is unacceptable and the threat needs to be removed. Sometime it will work and then greater force will be used.
No. The fact that your citizens — Israel's, that is — are at risk is a direct result of your (Israel's) policy decisions and religious and racial bigotry and the apartheid state that has resulted. It is impossible for anyone who has a clear view of the situation — and at this point, the world has been paying close attention for a long time — to accept Israeli pleas for security when we have watched it undermine its own security for decades now with brutal, devastating, and illegal tactics that have been completely tone-deaf to anything but its own distorted sense of self-interest.
And with a horrible cost in lives, taken largely by remote control.
Meanwhile, members of the Israeli government openly preach entitlement to all of the land and complete dismissal of the rights and humanity of Palestinians — like we're not going to notice that there is an agenda in play that goes far beyond a desire for security.
Israel has been a destabilizing force in the world, by its government's own decisions, with far reaching consequences for its allies, who have been extremely poor friends. American hawks support and egg on Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel's well-being and the policies they encourage are fucking horrible colonial disasters.
Enough is enough. This has to fucking stop.
