[zookeeper]

and even if they did, that'd put the figures at a much more reasonable 194:4

I'm fairly certain you're capable of detecting obvious sarcasm, zookeeper.

Of course that was sarcasm. But everyone knows that it was sarcasm towards the notion that the retaliation was reasonable, and didn't imply that retaliation in itself is unreasonable... but then you chose to pretend that it was the latter anyway even though you know it wasn't the case. Which is what I was subtly trying to hint at.

[Luis Dias]

I'm with zookeeper and Aardwolf on this one, it almost seems that these people are so busy fighting each other for so many decades now that they have absolutely lost any actual reasonable perspective on this. It's as if everyone is secretly pleased with the current status quo.

[Grizzly]

Yes.  How dare Israel retaliate against another government launching explosives across its borders.  Totally unreasonable.

Minor nitpick: The rockets send by Hamas are not equipped with actual warheads. Technically, they are not explosives but slightly more advanced versions of catapult stones, which is why they are horrendously blessfully ineffective.

At this point, I've stopped fussing about how both sides are obviously targeting each other's civilians. It be better if Israel would just swoop in and annex the entire region entirely instead of those halfish attempts they have done so far. **** the whole moral issues and everything, they control everything that goes in and out of the region anyway, and it would ensure that they both have the means to have "boots on the ground" (so to speak) and bear more responsability (as they would be harming their own civilians at that point).

EDIT: because I was confused between the west bank and Gaza.

[Dragon]

It's as if everyone is secretly pleased with the current status quo.

They probably are, TBH. Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).

Oh, and don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist. There's no need for a conspiracy. It's the natural result of human selfishness and refusal to just see other human on the other side of the barricade. The situation could probably be resolved by a compromise, but of course nobody in power had ever though of it. That's neither the first time nor the last something like this happened.

[Aardwolf]

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of dissent amongst the Palestinians, and probably a fair amount amongst the Israelis as well. It's just the governments that like the status quo. And you can be sure that the existing government (or "politicians" if you don't think it's systemic) will do everything they can to keep any aspiring "sane" politician out of office (as is the case in the USA as well).

[JCDNWarrior]

It's as if everyone is secretly pleased with the current status quo.

They probably are, TBH. Hamas needs someone to hate in order to keep it's tyrannical rule over the populace, and Israeli military needs an excuse to justify pouring funds into the military. They could've overran Gaza long ago, slaughtered Hamas and handed the place off to Fatah (the other, somewhat reasonable Palestinian government), if they really wanted peace and really cared about those people. The thing is, they don't. It's too bloody convenient for both parties to really change anything. Hamas' bombardment is pretty much harmless, and Israel never makes a move towards Gaza despite all their technology enabling them to flatten the place if they wanted. Both sides have a target to hate and build up arms against, which is vital for Hamas (it's too despotic to survive otherwise) and convenient for Israel (they can keep their military on high alert and keep building it up, among other things).

Oh, and don't mistake me for a conspiracy theorist. There's no need for a conspiracy. It's the natural result of human selfishness and refusal to just see other human on the other side of the barricade. The situation could probably be resolved by a compromise, but of course nobody in power had ever though of it. That's neither the first time nor the last something like this happened.

I'm not so sure about this. Now Russian attention is on Ukraine, Syria and Iraq on ISIL, Egypt with internal stuff, for the first time Israel might very well be able to get to work. Casualty numbers usually tend to be downplayed for sake of morale and maintaining paradigms, or alternately simply the Fog of War.


What I'm more worried about is if rationality is being replaced by bloodlust on either side. When you are being bombed constantly or even lose family members, it's hard to get much moderation going. To continually have to rush to bunkers and hope for the best..
To stop terrorism you've got to fight them with a charm offensive, not hurt their families and civilian infrastructure. Things are sure to only get worse at this rate.

What of the Palestinians living in Israel that hear that family in Gaza was killed in collateral damage?
The family member of a killed IDF soldier? An Israeli home owner's bombed home?


An eye for an eye, basically.


Sure seems like in order for there to be peace in Israel, the Israelites might have to resort to similar actions as the Nazis of WW2 during occupation or the Roman Empire's times (elimination of everyone above six years old, all male children to be trained for the army).


Who benefits, is the question I believe is always important to consider. Maybe that's a question that can't be answered as this went on for so long.
I really don't know the answer to that yet, looking at it as neutral as I can.


Most importantly,   Sandwich, I hope you won't be called in with that extra 18.000 troops Israel is sending. I wouldn't want to be anyone in that region right now, obviously..


(Edit note: Better formatting)

[headdie]

Like dragon says the domestic and international propaganda that the ongoing, generally low intensity conflict as it is benefits both sides, Hamas gets to play the underdog fighting the oppressors trying to take and hold what isn't theirs, Israel gets to play the nation under attack card.

The whole situation greatly benefits both sides as its a game both sides understand the rules to, but as with politics, it is a self reinforcing game, you have to play the game to progress, but then you have to maintain the game to maintain your position. 

No conspiracy, it is what it is and its how politics has worked for centuries, Normally the only time the game changes is if there is a monumental event which breaks the board and typically when that happens everyone is screwed and usually for a long time.  There are exceptions but they are relatively rare and take at a minimum decades to achieve

[Phantom Hoover]

In regards to some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread, I post this.

[Bobboau]

some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread

...erh...uh...what?
You mean the thing about Israeli Arabs living peacefully with their neighbors proving that it's completely possible for the Palestinians and Israel to live together, if only hamas (etc) wasn't running a propaganda job that makes fox news look like a paragon of unbiased reporting?

[headdie]

some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread

...erh...uh...what?
You mean the thing about Israeli Arabs living peacefully with their neighbors proving that it's completely possible for the Palestinians and Israel to live together, if only hamas (etc) wasn't running a propaganda job that makes fox news look like a paragon of unbiased reporting?

 

[Phantom Hoover]

some particularly offensive comments Sandwich made about Israeli Arabs earlier in this thread

...erh...uh...what?
You mean the thing about Israeli Arabs living peacefully with their neighbors proving that it's completely possible for the Palestinians and Israel to live together, if only hamas (etc) wasn't running a propaganda job that makes fox news look like a paragon of unbiased reporting?

Yes, I mean the thing about Arabs being just fine so long as they're passive and uncritical Israelis and that the only reason they would take issue with Israel is because they're brainwashed terrorists.

[headdie]

PH, seriously if your going to pick a fight with a site admin.... dont start by firing blanks.

At times like this, I often think of the Israeli Arabs, who generally live at peace with their Jewish neighbors. The main difference between them and the Palestinians is that the Israeli Arabs - in particular their children - are not exposed to the kind of hatred and incitement that the Palestinians are brainwashed with on a daily basis.

Instead of glassing the area, I'd rather see the incitement end.

in summary, the ones that arn't brainwashed into marter idealising nutcases are generally ok.

[Aardwolf]

Sounds more like "the Arabs who live in Israel aren't getting brainwashed" to me.

And (optimistically) it shouldn't matter that Sandwich is an admin, because he should have the self-restraint to not use his admin powers for such trivialities as this.

[Bobboau]

Yes, I mean the thing about Arabs being just fine so long as they're passive and uncritical Israelis and that the only reason they would take issue with Israel is because they're brainwashed terrorists.

and by passive you mean, not lobbing rockets at children? and by uncritical you mean... I mean... I don't even... I don't even know where you get this. where does "I wish everyone could live peacefully with one's neighbor" translate into "I wish they all knew their place, under my boot licking it clean and liking it". I don't think he could have said a more innocent and innocuous statement of hope, and you turn it into an insult? Seriously all he said about them is they were fine and he felt that the people in Gaza aren't any different other than the ****ty environment. As in there is hope that the situation can resolve it's self into a situation that's good for everyone. I mean what can he possibly say that you won't twist into some sort of insane zionist screed? "hey guys just checking in to let you know I'm alive" => "I have killed so many and yet I thurst for more blood muhahahaha!!!"

you are a bad person and you should feel bad. ಠ_ಠ

[headdie]

And (optimistically) it shouldn't matter that Sandwich is an admin, because he should have the self-restraint to not use his admin powers for such trivialities as this.

you contribute meaningfully to discussion, and do not disrupt it for others.  This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment

...

- HLP has a 'Report Post' Function.  In FreeSpace terms, think of this as "Call Support."  When you have a problem with a post or thread, use this function to bring it to the attention of the HLP staff.

aiming what looks to me to be a personal attack at a site admin is a pretty guaranteed way to having it examined further.  While I dont doubt PH's post was made in good faith, the wording leaves this open.

Now, interesting point.  It looks like I have also fallen foul of the same rule/interpritation here in my first post about this.  And while that dosnt lessen my point, I do need to apologise for that and so I am sorry.

[Aardwolf]

How is that a personal attack  s/should have/has?

Read: "No, that was not a personal attack."

[Bobboau]

I suppose it could be taken as an attack on his character, implying that he might stoop to that even though it has rarely been an issue on HLP. and to my knowledge never Sandy.
but that would be stretching things and I don't know why he brought it up like that either. lots of weird behavior in this thread lately.

[Colonol Dekker]

At the moment we don't know sandwiches current status. We wish him well. Don't let this escalate.

[Phantom Hoover]

PH, seriously if your going to pick a fight with a site admin.... dont start by firing blanks.

At times like this, I often think of the Israeli Arabs, who generally live at peace with their Jewish neighbors. The main difference between them and the Palestinians is that the Israeli Arabs - in particular their children - are not exposed to the kind of hatred and incitement that the Palestinians are brainwashed with on a daily basis.

Instead of glassing the area, I'd rather see the incitement end.

in summary, the ones that arn't brainwashed into marter idealising nutcases are generally ok.

You're leaving out a ton of additional meaning in that summary, is all I can say. Sandwich is portraying this conflict as a unilateral affair brought about entirely because of the aggression of the 'brainwashed' Palestinian populace, one in which Israel bears no agency or responsibility except in 'self-defence'. In support of this he appropriates the Israeli Arabs as his poster children, claiming that they live peacefully and happily with their Jewish neighbours; and meanwhile an actual Israeli Arab feels that he and his family have to leave their homeland, because he no longer feels safe amidst the rising aggression of the Jewish majority.

I hope you can see why I find this narrative very annoying, at least.

[Scotty]

Annoying narrative != offensive remarks about an ethnic/religious group.

Besides which, you will fail at providing evidence that the Palestinian populace is not subjected to massive amounts of propaganda.