Tulsa Gaza Violence Protest

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Ignoring the longer history (since both sides took the land through violence in history)... isn't the short history of the current weeks fighting something like this:

1. Israel calls off ground offensive into Gaza in exchange for guarantee of no more rocket fire.

2. Hamas sporadically fires rockets targeting civilians in Israel (bears repeating that the rockets are not accurate to designate a target, just an area).

3. Israel delivers an ultimatum to stop

4. Hamas fires a barrage of rockets

5. Israel sends air strikes against the mobile launchers

6. Hamas fires large barrages of rockets targeting civilians in Israel

7. Israel bombs Hamas headquarters, check points, weapons depots, and mobile launches causing significant collateral damage.

8. Hamas fires larger barrages of rockets targeting civilians in Israel.

9. Israel invades Hamas held territory on the ground.
- - - -

I try desperately to understand the picture in the larger context, but in this instance what would you have done as Israel?  What benefit did Hamas hope to gain from launching rockets into Israel other-than killing civilians, gaining praise from terrorist groups, and provoking a response?  Frankly, if Hamas targeted Israeli soldiers, check points, and military installations instead of schools, pizza parlors, and buses they would be worthy of more consideration.

Israel is reactionary.  The generation that currently lives there of BOTH groups has as much a right as the other to be there.  

Then Israel over reactions...

Crappy deal for all the 'normal' people involved.  I spoke to a "reserve" (I guess all former officers are reserve for a very long time) Israeli major yesterday who is going to school at TU and is worried that he will get called back.  I'm sure there are plenty of Israeli's in fear of rocket attacks, Palestinians scared of occupation and areal bombardment, and other poor bastards stuck in the middle.

If both stupid sides would realize MOST the other side wants the exact same thing the "penis waiving"  (mine's bigger/tougher than yous is!) could stop and people could go back to school/work and getting on with their lives.

I think you could go back one or two steps further. During the last cease fire, Israel kept building on, and announcing more settlements on, land that is supposedly part of what would be the Palestenian State. Not to mention the hassle and humiliation the average Palestenian often gets just trying to go anywhere outside the territories, etc.

 When Hamas said they wanted to destroy Israel... From that point on they have "no ground" to stand on. That was wrong and stupid.

Back to the settlements. We focus on rockets, but let me tell ya from personal experience. Verbal abuse, mental abuse is just as bad, if not worse, than any physical abuse. When someone is stronger than you, and constantly abuses you psychologically. It can be a hell few of you can ever really imagine. I could probably kill most of you with nothing more than words. I have learned from the best. And when it starts when your a child, its all the more destructive for you never had the ability to gather any strength of your own, it was sapped from you from your earliest memories.

Now I am NOT saying that either is right or wrong in this situation. I am not going to get into that, who started it first or whatever. What I am trying to point out is that I am not seeing in this converstation or any other any real weight given to the fact that harm can be done to people, not just physically but mentally. So far most keep yacking about rockets as if thats the start and thats the measure of the situation. Its not the only measure. When your the more powerful, you can destroy the other without resorting to physical violence that "makes the news". You can destroy them in ways where no one else will really care. But to you, the pain is terrible.

quote... (I inserted bracket)

" Whenever one of the groups attacks another of the groups they should expect a response.  From my perspective, and correct my ignorance if I am wrong, the last decade has been Israel making a concession or calling off an attack in exchange for peace...(while continually building more settlements and taking more and more land the Palestenians, and the Oslo accords, see as theirs, taking and bulldozing Palestenian homes and property in other places, etc.) followed about a year later by car bombings, rocket attacks, or suicide bombs on buses, markets, or temples. "  

Its like Israel is hurting them little by little, death by a thousand cuts. But none of that makes the big news, the rockets do.

There are extremists on both sides. Some in Israel believe that ALL of Isriel should be theirs and the Palestenians gone. And we know what Hamas thinks. But there are also moderates on both sides. And from the Palestenian perspective, every time a cease fire goes into effect and there is a lull in fighting, they try negotiating and peace... Israel "cuts" them again. More settlements go in, and no doubt they do lots of other "little" things to hurt them. Nothing that makes the news and gets the rest of the world riled up, but thats what Israel can do. They are the more powerful party and can just keeeep cutting away and smiling. And thats exactly what they have done every time. It seems Israels bargain is that they can keep playing this and squeeze the Palestenians out. Israel can, over all, keep winning slowly and surely. While the Palestenians, no matter what they do, will keep losing. We dont stand up to Israel during the cease fires and say no to more settlements on what is supposedly Palestenian land, and taking of Palestenian property and all the other constant hassles. The "verbal" abuses are ok, its the "physical" we get upset about. And my contention is that they should be equally abhorred. They can both destroy. Give me one day with any of you and let me verbally abuse you. I guarantee you, that by the end you would pray to whatever god you have that I had beat the living sh@t out of you instead.  

Not trying to say one or the other side started this or that. Just want to put in something that should have some weight, but that rarely seems to be discussed on here or in the news.

[Hometown]

Cannon said, "Believe it or not, if we cut off support of Israel, pulled all our troops Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the Middle East... they would still shout DEATH TO AMERICA and hate us just as much. They need to have some great enemy to bolster their illusion of power. Gotta hate someone, and as the strongest nation the USA is the target."

That's an interesting statement.  Like hating is a basic human condition.  That brings up the question of "who do we hate?"

It's hard to get enough distance to see ourselves.  I remember leaving Guadalajara and getting on a plane full of Canadians.  The contrast couldn't have been more dramatic.  From warmth to cold.  That plane was full of tension and everyone had a chip on their shoulders.  You could feel the difference.  Everyone was angry.  The Canadians that is.

Anyway, who do we hate?

[cannon_fodder]

I agree Artist, you bring up some good points.  

Read Hebron Jorunal by Art Gish sometime, it illustrates the daily pain in the donkey that is life for a Palestinian.  Israel does not have clean hands in this ordeal and certainly harasses Hamas as much as possible AND their policies make life difficult for many unrelated parties.  I am not saying I'm right, just that I am better able to relate to Israel.

[nathanm]

I think it's very clear that both factions have poo-poo heads of the highest caliber running the show messing it up for the rest of the folks who just want to go about their business.

As far as hate being the natural state of things, hate is what people who want to exert power over a group of other people use to achieve their ends.

That said, most of the world doesn't have a huge problem with us except when we go all stupid and start doing and saying dumb things. Even most of the Muslim world. There are the fanatics who will hate us no matter what we do.

We need to be concerned with what we can do to improve our image amongst the larger number of people who would rather see their lives better. Our chest-thumping and warmongering is not conducive to that end. It makes the normally reasonable people say 'pancakes America??!'

We need them to be saying 'pancakes terrorist??!'.

(I dislike the label terrorist..it obscures the reasoning a person has for blowing themselves up or shooting rockets at Israel or whatever and makes it harder to have rational discourse, since terrorists are 'evil' people who are only there to be killed)

[Hometown]

Well I've always thought of this conflict as a family feud.  You know:  Semitic v. Semitic.

But perhaps it is more accurate to look at it as a religious family feud, with Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths being three variations on the same religion.

The second suggests that our role is much deeper than I would wish.

I was raised in a culture that is detached from tradition and personally I don't like religious government or traditional culture, though I am drawn to Catholics.

[TheArtist]

One thing thats been getting me griping at the radio and TV pundits lol, is the "Disproportionate force" thing. To me proportionate force would mean using just the right amount of force to get the job done. No more, no less. If the amount of force you were using wasnt getting the job done "aka the missiles are still flying" it would either mean you arent using enough force and thus need to use more, hence it couldnt possibly be disproportionate,,, or its the wrong approach. But the pundits arent discussing the type of approach in this instance, they are talking about "amount". It cant be disproportionate if its not enough to get the result your after. Whether its the right type of thing to be doing, thats a different matter. Type and amount are different things.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

One thing thats been getting me griping at the radio and TV pundits lol, is the "Disproportionate force" thing. To me proportionate force would mean using just the right amount of force to get the job done. No more, no less. If the amount of force you were using wasnt getting the job done "aka the missiles are still flying" it would either mean you arent using enough force and thus need to use more, hence it couldnt possibly be disproportionate,,, or its the wrong approach. But the pundits arent discussing the type of approach in this instance, they are talking about "amount". It cant be disproportionate if its not enough to get the result your after. Whether its the right type of thing to be doing, thats a different matter. Type and amount are different things.

Only by disproportionate force can you win a war.

[jne]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

One thing thats been getting me griping at the radio and TV pundits lol, is the "Disproportionate force" thing. To me proportionate force would mean using just the right amount of force to get the job done. No more, no less. If the amount of force you were using wasnt getting the job done "aka the missiles are still flying" it would either mean you arent using enough force and thus need to use more, hence it couldnt possibly be disproportionate,,, or its the wrong approach. But the pundits arent discussing the type of approach in this instance, they are talking about "amount". It cant be disproportionate if its not enough to get the result your after. Whether its the right type of thing to be doing, thats a different matter. Type and amount are different things.

Only by disproportionate force can you win a war.

You mean like we did in Iraq?

[guido911]

Idiots on parade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX-LRlSmevo&eurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x256484