Israel is ranked 32 out of 180 in political corruption

[Kalam]

BULL SHIT! In urban war fare, where the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, hides amongst the civilian population and fire rockets from apartment buildings there is going to be many civilian causalities.

"Urban warfare"? Aerial slaughter. Israel is perfectly capable of bombing military installations; they opted instead to shell hospitals, schools, and the like. After all, if you think you see a rocket being fired from a building, you have to completely destroy the entire area and every living thing in it, right? That's my understanding of Israeli tactics, at least.

Israel does more than any country in history to avoid civilian causalities!

I'll give you some time to think about how ridiculous this claim is before I respond to it.

But when they react to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, many civilians get killed because of HEZBOLLAH and HAMAS tactics. Israel does all it can to minimize civilian causalities.

Don't tell me; I'm already aware that every civilian casualty caused by Israel can be attributed to "Hamas' use of human shields."

So Israel says. Numbers, however, don't lie.

​

 

[Kalam]

Same thing with all your Muslim countries! Its amazing how hypocritical Muslims like yourself stand from your glass house and toss stones!

None of those countries are mine. My stones are thrown from the US, which would have been morally comparable to today's Israel in the late nineteenth century.

Your as American as Benedict Arnold!

If you say so.

 

[jillian]

Where was Qatar ranked?

How about UAE?

Just wondering...

perhaps two countries with among the highest per capita incomes in the world shouldn't be corrupt at all.

but since you didn't ask:

Iraq -- 176 (no surprises in a war zone)

Iran -- 168 (just under Haiti)

Russia -- 146

Pakistan -- 139

Libya/Lebanon -- tied at 130

Egypt -- 111

Saudi Arabia 63 (worse than Cuba which ranks 61)

Jordan --49

CPI 2009 Table/2009/cpi/surveys_indices/policy_research

so was there a point you wanted to make?

The point that I was trying to make is that GHook's thread is friggin' stupid.

awwwwwwwww... you took the bunny out of your sig...

 

[Charles Stucker]

I didn't give a great deal of thought to the Israel-Palestinian issue before the Gaza Massacre."

My main comment about the Gaza War is that it started with Hamas deciding to attack and Israel then responding.
Yes the Israeli's seem to have gone overboard with their counterattack, but that counterattack would never have occurred if Hamas had not started bombarding Israel.

The situation is further complicated by the population density of Gaza and the wording of the intent in the original fact finding mission Goldstone headed. It is easy to claim atrocity, but what should have been done is to take the Israeli internal military documents and look at what was ordered. Yes I realize Israel refused to give those documents, but that was from their perception of bias in the investigation. Goldstone himself noted the conclusions would not hold up in court, so why should anyone expect to press charges?

There is an extreme double standard inherent in prosecuting Hamas and Israel for war crimes; the Israelis have a known chain of command, but Hamas does not. Because of that, establishing who gave what order or who launched which rocket among Hamas may prove impossible.

Go ahead, condemn them both, they both killed people. But claiming some moral superiority for Hamas from the situation is not reasonable.

 

[Caroljo]

Few if any Muslim dominated countries can hold a candle to Israel on morality!

Palestanian issue put aside.

Israel is one of the most immoral of all nations

We need a "thumbs down" symbol to give people...you're a moron

 

[Kalam]

Yes the Israeli's seem to have gone overboard with their counterattack, but that counterattack would never have occurred if Hamas had not started bombarding Israel.

...Which, in turn, would not have occurred if Israel upheld its end of the ceasefire agreement as Hamas did. Hamas halted rocket and mortar attacks; Israel did absolutely nothing in the way of lifting its crippling blockade on Gaza, so the attacks resumed.

The situation is further complicated by the population density of Gaza

Something that can probably be attributed to Israel's herding of Palestinians into the area. Seventy percent, if I recall correctly, are refugees or descendants thereof.

and the wording of the intent in the original fact finding mission Goldstone headed. It is easy to claim atrocity, but what should have been done is to take the Israeli internal military documents and look at what was ordered. Yes I realize Israel refused to give those documents, but that was from their perception of bias in the investigation. Goldstone himself noted the conclusions would not hold up in court, so why should anyone expect to press charges?

Frankly, I didn't need Goldstone to tell me that Israel's actions in Gaza were atrocious; I realized that much as the events were unfolding. I don't expect that anything meaningful will be done vis-à-vis Israel as far as the ICJ is concerned. Insha'Allah, Israel's military will receive its due punishment on the battlefield.

There is an extreme double standard inherent in prosecuting Hamas and Israel for war crimes; the Israelis have a known chain of command, but Hamas does not. Because of that, establishing who gave what order or who launched which rocket among Hamas may prove impossible.

Hamas can't even be held responsible for a large number of the rockets and mortars that come out of Gaza. Oppression begets insurgency, and insurgency rarely takes the form of a single organized group.

Go ahead, condemn them both, they both killed people. But claiming some moral superiority for Hamas from the situation is not reasonable.

Since they began constructing them about 8 years ago, Hamas' rockets have probably killed fewer Israeli civilians (approximately 30) than the number killed by car wrecks on a single holiday weekend. Israel, in response, killed hundreds of Gazan civilians. What other conclusion can I draw?

 

[Polk]

Yes the Israeli's seem to have gone overboard with their counterattack, but that counterattack would never have occurred if Hamas had not started bombarding Israel.

...Which, in turn, would not have occurred if Israel upheld its end of the ceasefire agreement as Hamas did. Hamas halted rocket and mortar attacks; Israel did absolutely nothing in the way of lifting its crippling blockade on Gaza, so the attacks resumed.

Except that Hamas never halted rocket and mortar attacks.

The situation is further complicated by the population density of Gaza

Something that can probably be attributed to Israel's herding of Palestinians into the area. Seventy percent, if I recall correctly, are refugees or descendants thereof.

"Refugees", that is.

Go ahead, condemn them both, they both killed people. But claiming some moral superiority for Hamas from the situation is not reasonable.

Since they began constructing them about 8 years ago, Hamas' rockets have probably killed fewer Israeli civilians (approximately 30) than the number killed by car wrecks on a single holiday weekend. Israel, in response, killed hundreds of Gazan civilians. What other conclusion can I draw?

That's not a difference of aims though. That's a difference of effectiveness. You can't honestly believe Hamas intends for all those mortars to miss.

 

[Kalam]

Except that Hamas never halted rocket and mortar attacks.

Oh no?

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf

Page 6 should clear that up. Unless, of course, reducing the attacks to one rocket and one mortar launched in a month (presumably by a third party) doesn't quite do it for you.

"Refugees", that is.

That's not a difference of aims though. That's a difference of effectiveness. You can't honestly believe Hamas intends for all those mortars to miss.

Yet they do, and Israel's do not. Allah (SWT) will judge them according to their true intentions. I have no way of knowing those intentions, so I'll judge them according to their actions.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Since they began constructing them about 8 years ago, Hamas' rockets have probably killed fewer Israeli civilians (approximately 30) than the number killed by car wrecks on a single holiday weekend. Israel, in response, killed hundreds of Gazan civilians. What other conclusion can I draw?

Couple of points
1) Two wrongs don't make a right.
2) Suicide bombers have killed a lot more than 30 people in the last eight years.

By the reasoning "It's less than killed in Auto Accidents" then the Oklahoma city bombing was nothing, and even the World trade center was just a blip, hardly worth writing about. In fact by that reasoning the Palestinian casualties in the Gaza War were insignificant.
Hamas supports suicide bombers; they don't grow on fig trees. Stopping the bombings and rocket attacks sounds like a pretty good suggestion. How many times in the 60's and 70's did Israel stop short of a massacre when they might have managed one during all the Arab Israeli wars? How many times did they make peace, only to be attacked again? The Israeli's in power now remember those days, they lived through them.

The Jewish population cannot indefinitely sustain a war of attrition with Islam unless they manage at least a 50 to 1 kill ratio. The Jews can count, they know the odds. So they are unlikely to give anyone more chance than they must. Given the overwhelming numbers of the Islamic world, they are the only ones who NOW can reasonably make the start of a peace initiative. Israel no longer has that luxury.

 

[Kalam]

Couple of points
1) Two wrongs don't make a right.
2) Suicide bombers have killed a lot more than 30 people in the last eight years.

Israel's war in Gaza was in response to the rocket attacks, though, was it not?

By the reasoning "It's less than killed in Auto Accidents" then the Oklahoma city bombing was nothing, and even the World trade center was just a blip, hardly worth writing about. In fact by that reasoning the Palestinian casualties in the Gaza War were insignificant.

The number of people killed by Hamas' rockets is objectively insignificant. I was simply using the car crash statistic to put things into perspective.

Hamas supports suicide bombers; they don't grow on fig trees. Stopping the bombings and rocket attacks sounds like a pretty good suggestion.

I doubt Hamas will agree to do anything unless Israel does something as well. Who could blame them for not wanting to act first after Israel's failure to lift the blockade in 2008?

How many times in the 60's and 70's did Israel stop short of a massacre when they might have managed one during all the Arab Israeli wars?

Are we congratulating people for not committing genocide? I'm sorry... I don't understand the significance of this.

How many times did they make peace, only to be attacked again? The Israeli's in power now remember those days, they lived through them.

The same things can be said of Palestinians. Israel has attacked and been attacked throughout its entire short history.

The Jewish population cannot indefinitely sustain a war of attrition with Islam unless they manage at least a 50 to 1 kill ratio. The Jews can count, they know the odds. So they are unlikely to give anyone more chance than they must. Given the overwhelming numbers of the Islamic world, they are the only ones who NOW can reasonably make the start of a peace initiative. Israel no longer has that luxury.

Israel is perfectly capable of making steps toward peace and is currently refusing to do so. It would take an incredibly dishonest or misinformed person to claim that halting illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank or lifting the blockade on Gaza would not spur the peace process into action and cause relations with other Middle Eastern countries to warm.

 

[Polk]

Except that Hamas never halted rocket and mortar attacks.

Oh no?

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf

Page 6 should clear that up. Unless, of course, reducing the attacks to one rocket and one mortar launched in a month (presumably by a third party) doesn't quite do it for you.

Looks to me like a transition from mortars to rockets for a spell.

"Refugees", that is.

There's a reason for separate UN missions for Palestine and everywhere else: using the definition used for all other refugees, most Palestinians wouldn't qualify.

That's not a difference of aims though. That's a difference of effectiveness. You can't honestly believe Hamas intends for all those mortars to miss.

Yet they do, and Israel's do not. Allah (SWT) will judge them according to their true intentions. I have no way of knowing those intentions, so I'll judge them according to their actions.

It's called applying common sense. You don't shoot at people out of love.

 

[Polk]

Also worth noting that suicide bombings have dropped to almost nothing because of Israeli actions (namely, building a huge ass wall). Without the security perimeter, you'd still see pizzerias and buses being blown up.

 

[Modbert]

Ghook seems to have gotten me wrong though. I don't find what goes inside Israel to be wrong or the fact that Israel is around. My problem with Israel lies in their actions. Specifically their expansion policies for example and the fact they have taken over 25,000 homes. If anyone has bothered to take a look at the Geneva Convention, one would see that is illegal.

That's not my only problems with them by far but it doesn't make me an Anti-Semite. I have had some problems with what prior Administrations have done here in America, but that doesn't make me Anti-American either.

 

[Kalam]

Looks to me like a transition from mortars to rockets for a spell.

Not quite.

There's a reason for separate UN missions for Palestine and everywhere else: using the definition used for all other refugees, most Palestinians wouldn't qualify.

...Who gives a shit? If I refer to them as "internally displaced persons," that doesn't really do anything apart from lengthening my sentences.

It's called applying common sense. You don't shoot at people out of love.

My point was that it seems highly likely that Israeli soldiers purposefully target civilians as well, or simply do not care if they're killed.

 

[GHook93]

Ghook seems to have gotten me wrong though. I don't find what goes inside Israel to be wrong or the fact that Israel is around.

If only that was true!

My problem with Israel lies in their actions. Specifically their expansion policies for example and the fact they have taken over 25,000 homes.one would see that is illegal.

That is more than a legit grip, but you rarely stop there. Not to mention you remain a one-sided criticizer, which in and of itself makes you an antisemite!

If anyone has bothered to take a look at the Geneva Convention,

Please don't preach law teenie-boper! You know little about it!

 

[Modbert]

If only that was true!

That is more than a legit grip, but you rarely stop there. Not to mention you remain a one-sided criticizer, which in and of itself makes you an antisemite!

Please don't preach law teenie-boper! You know little about it!

When Israel does I disagree with, I post about it Ghook. I'm not an anti-semite.

As for preaching the law, their expansion policies do in fact violate the Geneva Convention.

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

I'm sure you have a idea of which one no?

 

[Polk]

If only that was true!

That is more than a legit grip, but you rarely stop there. Not to mention you remain a one-sided criticizer, which in and of itself makes you an antisemite!

Please don't preach law teenie-boper! You know little about it!

When Israel does I disagree with, I post about it Ghook. I'm not an anti-semite.

As for preaching the law, their expansion policies do in fact violate the Geneva Convention.

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

I'm sure you have a idea of which one no?

What GHook is saying is that you don't equally condemn the Palestinians for wrongdoing when they commit it.