The clearest sign of a person with blinders on is when they dismiss someones point of view as racist or bigoted. I responded to FB's point of both sides being bad to point out one side is using human shields.
The sad thing is, they're the only experts at doing this, even though they rig the game. Congress is filled with fools.
I'm against the settlements. I think most Israelis are actually against them too. I definitely think that the illegal settlements should be dismantled. I'd like to see a restoration of the 67 borders.
Hamas deploys donkey strapped with explosives against Israeli soldiers as IDF uncovers cross-border tunnels in Gaza http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world...d-offensive-continues-article-1.1872895#bmb=1
Both sides have their share of bad. Hamas has human shields because they have no military installations. All of their arms are amongst the population. I mentioned that in my post. I wasn't excusing it as a good thing. That doesn't make only Hamas the bad guys. Israel has a history of denying rights, having different sets of laws based on ethnicity including for things that aren't related to their security at all. They are stealing land and have an apartheid like system for the occupied territories. They are the only side doing that, and that isn't a good thing. So both sides do things that aren't right. But I believe that Israel offers a semi-democratic example. They provide a home for people that have been and are still discriminated against. Hamas has at least been willing to try something new with their proposal of the 10 year cease fire. Both sides do actually have good and bad qualities. I'm sorry that bothers you and you dislike it.
What do you think bothers me exactly? The fact that no one is perfect or good? To me, the "neither side is perfect" is a politically correct cop out.
It's not a cop out when that's the way it is. It would be silly to ignore the bad of one side and just focus on the other. That doesn't seem like a good place to start in reaching a sustainable peace. Saying both sides are good and bad could be a cop out if the person saying it wasn't willing to explore the faults of both sides, and entertain different ideas for pursuing peace that would be agreeable and sustainable for both sides. Ignoring the faults of either side is a dishonest cop out, to me. And it certainly isn't politically correct. The political correct thing to do would be to ignore the bad in both sides.
What conflict in history ever had a 100% good side? That is why it is a cop out. It is a statement that means nothing because it is, and always will be true.
But if you want a solution you have to look at the faults of both sides. While it may always be true, some people don't seem to recognize it as a truth. I think WWII the Allies were basically 100% good in their rationale of getting into the war. Maybe they didn't act soon enough. And once they did act, they did plenty of bad in their quest for victory. But the good was far more on the side of just the allies than it was on the axis. In the Israel/Palestinian conflict it isn't near as lopsided and it seems for every bad one side does the other side could find one to match it. So the negative is more balanced in the conflict. I'm also not saying both sides are bad in an effort to excuse the flaws of either side. Maybe once both sides acknowledge the faults of both sides the conversation can move forward rather than getting bogged down in a tedious list of the wrongs done by whichever side people happen to lean toward. Because those faults keep getting repeated, and brought up again and again and the conversation never moves forward. I think it's much more interesting to talk about something new with regards to the conflict such as the ten year cease fire proposal, and if it or some version of it is a feasible place to start.
Don't be silly. Do all the mass shootings in our country mean the killers speak for the NRA and every law-abiding gun owner? Of course not. Guns don't kill as they are only tools whose impact depends on the input. It's the mentally sick minds that pull the trigger; they lack empathy for others and are selfish and nihilist. These mass shooters give a bad image to firearms enthusiasts by association. Like I tell the liberals who fail to see the nuances when wanting to ban all guns, it's complicated. Islam doesn't advocate wanton violence against civilians. The twisted interpretation which extremist groups use for their own agenda do call for that kind of destruction. Furthermore, Islam has no NRA to set the group's message. It exists independently of its so-called followers even if there weren't any Muslims left. Hamas, one militant Islamist group among many cares not a whit for Palestinian civilians' well-being. It certainly doesn't speak for anything but its own sick group-think. ChrisBosh said it best. A 3rd party with immense resources and clout needs to come in and separate these two like a world policeman. The original plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state with Jerusalem internationally controlled would be best. Whenever a situation becomes chicken and egg, it's time for a powerful intermediary.
A third party coming in and restoring order. That worked great in Iraq, didn't it? If America was in the same situation, we would have rolled over the border a week after the rockets started flying. Israel has shown remarkable restraint, but Hamas clearly believes that they are at war with Israel, has stated such, and now is acting on it. Well, Israel is doing what any other country would do in the same situation. Question for anybody who thinks that both sides are bad: What should they do? Ignore the rockets flying in and wait until they stop? Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties on both the Israeli side and Palestinian side. Hamas believes that casualties on both sides serve their cause. Who do you think is in the right?
Are you seriously suggesting that when America invaded Iraq in 2003, it ultimately restored order to Iraq? If anything, it unraveled a powder keg. At the very least, de-Ba'athification alone destroyed stability and law and order. You can't compare this situation to what America would have done. It's much too different. The closest would be Ireland's Troubles and a bit of Kashmir. Yes, Israel is justified in defending herself against missiles. However, missiles and the anger behind them don't happen in a vacuum. Those behind the rocketing would say it's natural to do it if someone steals your home, ethnically cleanses your people, and wants to rule the world through a cabal (not my beliefs obviously), etc. That's not to say that anger or ideology justifies rocketing someone; however, nothing substantial has been done to end this tit-for-tat cycle. A powerful 3rd party could step in between these two and make two states with a shared Jerusalem as originally intended before WW1. The 3rd party like a policeman would ensure neither side would attack each other. After 15-20 years of getting along begrudgingly, you'll see them coexist peacefully. There hasn't been a 3rd party playing intermediary since 1947 which explains the status quo. The British used to play this role, but they failed miserably because they underestimated the communal tensions, couldn't stop illegal Jewish immigration, and most importantly were distracted by WW2 and decolonization. Finally, they evacuated so fast and washed their hands of the area like they did in India/Pakistan's Partition.
If my reading comprehension has not completely left me, he is saying that it didn't work. Also, great post, Gutter Snipe. Sadly, the ideologues here won't want to hear the truth. Even otherwise relatively moderate and reasonable Muslims are totally anti-Israel. The next Muslim I'll talk to who understands Israel's side will be the first.
The only thing I would add is that the "cycle" provides a short-term reward to those in power, because at the end of every armed exchange is a part where demands get to be made and it earns points within your own constiuency. As houstonhoya brought up Moshe Feiglin as an example, this is the sort of guy that benefits as Nettanyahu's biggest rival within the Likud when the government is perceived as weak. When Israel goes on a mini-war and "wins" it at least keeps the Feiglins at bay. The same goes for Hamas, who stand to lose ground to smaller, more radical groups like Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Comittees (who are also responsible for most of the treaty-breaking rocket fire from Gaza and do it to undermine Hamas' authority) if they don't secure a declared "win" and get some kind of concession from Israel. These little exchanges do benefit the status quo, and are probably a better outcome than the promotion of even more militant and radical elements than if they go otherwise. Certainly, the quartet, EU, US, UN and Egypt (and more recently, Gulf States and Turkey) have either tried or offered to do it. But the reality is, treaties have always come from political will from within and forced on the hardliners. The US or another power can help with mediation, but no one can really force a resolution unless both sides are actually interested in getting it done. Camp David, for all that it accomplished, had much more to do with Saddat and Begin than it did Jimmy Carter or the US State Dept. As I've said before, Olmert, a disgraced, corrupt right-wing Prime Minister, probably came closer than anyone in secret negotiations, and he managed that with no mediator at all. His plan was based on '67 borders and a shared Jerusalem, conditions that offficially are totally taboo, so it's hard to be totally cynical when it's clear that there is a willingness from at least Abbas and the old guard center-right to make a deal. Abbas had his reservations, of course, but the main reason the thing fell apart was because Olmert's tenure was threatened by corruption charges (which ultimately got him a six year prison sentence). Had the man not taken bribes, who knows what would have happened?
Israel started bombing gaza before any rockets were fired into Israel. They decided to bomb gaza because Hamas allegedly killed those teens. No proof no evidence. Let's bomb the most densely populated region on earth. Seems reasonable. The Israeli military is a terrorist organization and the world is starting to see this finally. Only ones being left behind is America. I hate how we get dragged into the gutter because of our blind support for Israel.
