A case in point.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/21/clinton-headed-to-jerusalem-ramallah-and-cairo-to-seek-end-to-israelgaza/
Update: Another case in point-11-21-12 (Hat tip Atlas Shrugs) Here is a clip of Hamas TV celebrating the bus bombing.
This is the difference:
8 comments:
Well, I hear our brave Secretary of State and the President of Egypt have announced a cease fire. Hopefully they did so after securing the agreement of the belligerents. So this shouldn't be happening again for a while.
One of the results of dropping bombs, almost anywhere, is that those whose relatives are killed develop an overwhelming desire to throw some bombs back the other way.
Its not a solution, but its human nature. It remains true that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Death toll in Gaza: 130.
Death toll in Israel: 5.
Numbers don't settle responsibility, but the complaint that Israelis are suffering, standing alone, rings a bit hollow.
Just another tit for tat... both you countries are fighting and getting back at each other. There is a great attempt to make this a moral equivalence. Who started this escalation seems to be irrelevant. Who is in the right or wrong is also irrelevant. People want to just dismiss it without learning the history or making a moral judgment of right or wrong. They just want to get back to their Dancing with the Stars episode and not be bothered with such boring questions as Good and Evil.
War, in fact, does settle disputes. Just ask the Nazis or the Japanese Empire. It just has to be decisive. If you just wound your mortal enemy, he is bound to come back at you again and if not him, he will infuse the hatred in his children.
Many in Israel want to destroy HAMAS decisively, and I don't blame them.
.
Siarlys,
You are missing so many points. Who started it? Hamas.
Hamas deliberately targets civilians. Israel does not. The reason the palestinians suffer more civilian casualties is because the terrorists set up their missiles and military points in the middle of civilian centers-deliberately. They want civilian casulaties to show off to the eager international media.
Just because one side loses more people is no measure of who is right. I am sure that in WW 2, the Germans and Japanese lost more people than we did. (I am excluding the USSR which lost 20 million people.)
So did our suffering at Pearl Harbor end when we fought back and defeated Japan?
You really shouldn't exclude the USSR, because they were on our side, and if they hadn't taken those losses, a big chunk of the Wehrmacht would have been free to inflict those losses on us.
Who started it? How far back do you want to go? Hamas has a popular following because people have been left in a condition where the Hamas line is appealing to them.
If Israel had accepted a reasonable two-state solution years earlier, Hamas would be a band of kooks standing on soap boxes by now.
You've been highlighting the suffering of Israelis... fair enough, but then the suffering of other parties is also relevant. It seems Hamas hasn't hit many civilians, and Israel, trying hard to avoid it, has hit quite a few.
Siarlys,
"If Israel had accepted a reasonable two-state solution years earlier, Hamas would be a band of kooks standing on soap boxes by now."
What happened back in 1948? Israel accepted the UN plan. The Arabs rejected it and went to war. Later, Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him 97% of what he was demanding.
"Hamas deliberately targets civilians. Israel does not. The reason the palestinians suffer more civilian casualties is because the terrorists set up their missiles and military points in the middle of civilian centers-deliberately. They want civilian casulaties to show off to the eager international media".
Similar tactics by insurgents/jihadists/whatever in both Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with our own rules of engagement which I hate to think about, are at least partially responsible for our casualty rates there, as well as the slow pace of victory (if it is even available) and sometimes apparent lack of progress.
I am sometimes inclined to just let the dogs loose, kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out.
If the neighboring Arab countries had refrained from invading the Former British Mandate of Palestine in 1948, Israel would be about one half to two thirds the size it is today. That's water under the bridge. Peres and Abbas would have settled the whole thing, except Netanyahu won the election first, and didn't want to settle anything.
Note: Israeli security shudder to think what would happen if the PA security force payroll is not met. They NEED a stable Palestinian entity. Hamas won't go away until it is a permanent nation.
Post a Comment