Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:51 am UTC

Apparently a presidential candidate for Egypt has voiced that he plans to open the Rafah border crossing should Israel defend themselves from Hamas.

ynetnews wrote:In an interview with the Al-Watan newspaper [ElBaradei] said: "In case of any future Israeli attack on Gaza - as the next president of Egypt – I will open the Rafah border crossing and will consider different ways to implement the joint Arab defense agreement."


I was afraid of this.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Sharlos » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:26 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:should Israel defend themselves from Hamas.


A bit of editorialising don't you think?

Either way, it is probably a good thing. As far as I was aware, Hamas doesn't want the border opened because that would remove their stranglehold on all the services they provide to the Gazans, making them less likely to support Hamas.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:30 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:should Israel defend themselves from Hamas.


A bit of editorialising don't you think?

Either way, it is probably a good thing. As far as I was aware, Hamas doesn't want the border opened because that would remove their stranglehold on all the services they provide to the Gazans, making them less likely to support Hamas.


It would also allow them weapons to be used to attack Israel. And I don't think that's editorializing seeing as Israel has only ever reacted in self-defense throughout this conflict.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:36 am UTC

Remember when Israel was changed to "The Falklands." Yeah, I liked those discussions better than the needless absolutist partisanship that's about to take place.

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby JonScholar » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:37 am UTC

Yes, he's editorializing. El Baradei seems to be speaking in terms of defensive actions against Israeli aggression (for example: Operation Cast Lead). So if he holds to that promise it basically means that Israel can't get away with wanton aggression, which is desirable. That being said, it's unlikely the Egyptian military would allow retaliation against Israel.

Sharlos wrote:Hamas doesn't want the border opened because that would remove their stranglehold on all the services they provide to the Gazans, making them less likely to support Hamas.

Minor correction: Hamas has consistently negotiated for the lifting of the economic siege, so it's unlikely that that's the case. Though you're right that the economic seige has made the Gazan population more dependant on Hamas.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:50 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:Yes, he's editorializing. El Baradei seems to be speaking in terms of defensive actions against Israeli aggression (for example: Operation Cast Lead). So if he holds to that promise it basically means that Israel can't get away with wanton aggression, which is desirable. That being said, it's unlikely the Egyptian military would allow retaliation against Israel.

Operation Cast Lead was a defensive action: it was taken after thousands of rockets were launched by Hamas. Also, even if you do think Israel is an aggressor, it still couldn't be considered a "Good" thing that Hamas would have increased access to weapons, as that a) will only necessitate a response on Israel's part, and because b) funding a terrorist organization is not an appropriate response to aggressive action on the part of an enemy.

Sharlos wrote:Hamas doesn't want the border opened because that would remove their stranglehold on all the services they provide to the Gazans, making them less likely to support Hamas.

Minor correction: Hamas has consistently negotiated for the lifting of the economic siege, so it's unlikely that that's the case. Though you're right that the economic seige has made the Gazan population more dependant on Hamas.


Hamas has never honestly requested that the blockade be lifted. They know that if they stopped firing rockets it would be lifted: Israel's stated so. Not to mention the fact that it was only imposed after they fired rockets.

Remember when Israel was changed to "The Falklands." Yeah, I liked those discussions better than the needless absolutist partisanship that's about to take place.


Cynical (and frankly obnoxious) statements about the expected bias of the upcoming discussions are just rude and contribute nothing. Preemptively insulting us all is not a good use of a post.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Belial » Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:58 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:It would also allow them weapons to be used to attack Israel. And I don't think that's editorializing seeing as Israel has only ever reacted in self-defense throughout this conflict.


Okay, you get to *maybe* refer to retaliation as "self-defense" the first time. When you're retaliating against the retaliation for the retaliation against the retaliation, you pretty much have to admit that it's knock-down drag-out and saying "they started it" doesn't cut it anymore. You're both wrong, you're both fucks, and the principal is very disappointed in you both.

And that's, you know, putting aside the initial land-grab that started "this conflict".
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:02 am UTC

Belial wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:It would also allow them weapons to be used to attack Israel. And I don't think that's editorializing seeing as Israel has only ever reacted in self-defense throughout this conflict.


Okay, you get to *maybe* refer to retaliation as "self-defense" the first time. When you're retaliating against the retaliation for the retaliation against the retaliation, you pretty much have to admit that it's knock-down drag-out and saying "they started it" doesn't cut it anymore. You're both wrong, you're both fucks, and the principal is very disappointed in you both.


This specific conflict started after Israel pulled out of Gaza. Hamas responded with rockets. I absolutely fail to see how Hamas' actions can be interpreted as retaliation. Even if you believe that Israel started the Israeli-Arab conflict (which is something I'd obviously refute), Hamas reacted with violence after an attempt at peace.

And if you're saying that after the first round the claim of "self-defense" doesn't stand, I'd have to disagree. If I'm attacked, so I defend myself, and the other person continues to attack me, is my response no longer self-defense?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

JonScholar
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 am UTC

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby JonScholar » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:08 am UTC

I'm not going to get into a pissing fest with you again. For the benefit of others in this thread, I'll repost an older piece of my work, covering the events leading up to operation cast lead. It was nothing even resembling a defensive operation, as any informed, honest person would know.

JonScholar wrote:Alright then, a quick recap for the historically impaired. In 2008 Israel accepted a truce with Hamas, the conditions of which were withdrawal from Gaza, in addition to a lifting of the seige. BBC:

According to a breakdown of the truce released by Hamas, Israel will ease its restrictions for the trade of certain goods between Gaza and Israel on Friday morning, and open up the crossings for all commercial goods next week

After agreeing to the truce, Israel immediately violated it's terms and refused to open the borders at all until the release of Gilad Shalit. So Israel continued it's seige, in violation of an agreement which it had just made. No serious attempts were made to lift or alleviate the seige either. John Ging, leader of UNRWA made a statements that perfectly illustrates Israeli violations of it's previous agreement:

"We were not allowed to reconstitute our stocks during the ceasefire... That belies the Israeli argument about security. They didn't allow stocks in when the ceasefire was on."

"The Israelis were fully informed of the situation. For five months we were not allowed to reconstitute our reserves. So when the ceasefire broke down we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us. Access for food and medicine is problematic "


Despite this, Hamas upheld it's side of the bargain. The Israeli government has formally aknowledged that during the cease fire the rocket attacks were greatly reduced, and that hamas had launched no rockets. In November 2008, when the US populous was occupied with the upcoming elections Israel violated the cease fire in a bombing run that killed 6 hamas activists.

Israels justification was that Hamas was digging a tunnel under the Israeli border. Of course this justification is absurd. Even if such a tunnel reached the Israel border, Israel could have easily barred it right there (As several Israeli commentators noted).

After the blatant violation of the ceasefire by Israel, Hamas returned to firing rockets, but made multiple attempts to re-establish the cease fire. On Dec 14, Carter officials met with Hamas. Hamas expressed it's willingness to re-establish the cease fire. Robert Pastor, a former Carter administration official passed this information to an Israeli official who said they would return with a yea or nay. The Israeli's never returned contact on the cease fire.

Don't be confused though. The Israeli's were fully aware of Hamas' offer. As one Israeli official said to ynet: "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce." Unfortunately, Israel wasn't and repeatedly turned down offers made by Hamas, including one the day before the beginning of the muderous Operation Cast Lead. The offer as reported by Hareetz senior diplomatic correspondent Akiva Eldar:

on Saturday, a few hours before the Israel Defense Forces stormed the Gaza Strip. Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal announced on the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Web site that he was prepared not only for a "cessation of aggression" - he proposed going back to the arrangement at the Rafah crrossing as of 2005, before Hamas won the elections and later took over the region. That arrangement was for the crossing to be managed jointly by Egypt, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority presidency and Hamas.

Given this evidence it should be clear that the Israeli government's actions were not only reckless and disproportionate, but completely unneccesarry. The government of Israel repeatedly ignored offers from Hamas to establish a cease fire, and instead decided to launch another murderous campaign in Gaza. This shows not only a complete disregard for palestinian life, but a reckless disregard for Israeli life as well, seeing as this escalation has put Israeli's at an even greater danger of terror and rocket attacks.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:33 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:Alright then, a quick recap for the historically impaired. In 2008 Israel accepted a truce with Hamas, the conditions of which were withdrawal from Gaza, in addition to a lifting of the seige. BBC:

According to a breakdown of the truce released by Hamas, Israel will ease its restrictions for the trade of certain goods between Gaza and Israel on Friday morning, and open up the crossings for all commercial goods next week

After agreeing to the truce, Israel immediately violated it's terms and refused to open the borders at all until the release of Gilad Shalit. So Israel continued it's seige, in violation of an agreement which it had just made. No serious attempts were made to lift or alleviate the seige either. John Ging, leader of UNRWA made a statements that perfectly illustrates Israeli violations of it's previous agreement:


I can't find anything saying that the Gilad Shalit condition was added after the ceasefire, but apparently Olmert regrets making it a condition. He actually offered the release of 450 Palestinian prisoners for that one Israel prisoner. Positive reinforcement, I think, is an interesting take there.

"We were not allowed to reconstitute our stocks during the ceasefire... That belies the Israeli argument about security. They didn't allow stocks in when the ceasefire was on."

"The Israelis were fully informed of the situation. For five months we were not allowed to reconstitute our reserves. So when the ceasefire broke down we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us. Access for food and medicine is problematic "



This wouldn't have been a problem had attacks not continued on the checkpoints themselves.

Despite this, Hamas upheld it's side of the bargain. The Israeli government has formally aknowledged that during the cease fire the rocket attacks were greatly reduced, and that hamas had launched no rockets. In November 2008, when the US populous was occupied with the upcoming elections Israel violated the cease fire in a bombing run that killed 6 hamas activists.

Israels justification was that Hamas was digging a tunnel under the Israeli border. Of course this justification is absurd. Even if such a tunnel existed and it reached the Israel border, Israel could have easily barred it right there (As several Israeli commentators noted).


They had to search for the tunnel, and only went 250 meters inside of Gaza to look. And I don't think that digging an illegal tunnel constitutes upholding their side of the bargain.

After the blatant violation of the ceasefire by IsraelHamas, Hamas returned to firing rockets, but made multiple attempts to re-establish the cease fire. On Dec 14, Carter officials met with Hamas. Hamas expressed it's willingness to re-establish the cease fire. Robert Pastor, a former Carter administration official passed this information to an Israeli official who said they would return with a yea or nay. The Israeli's never returned contact on the cease fire.


Maybe I'm getting the dates wrong, but that's not entirely accurate.

Don't be confused though. The Israeli's were fully aware of Hamas' offer. As one Israeli official said to ynet: "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce." Unfortunately, Israel wasn't and repeatedly turned down offers made by Hamas, including one the day before the beginning of the muderous Operation Cast Lead. The offer as reported by Hareetz senior diplomatic correspondent Akiva Eldar:

on Saturday, a few hours before the Israel Defense Forces stormed the Gaza Strip. Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal announced on the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Web site that he was prepared not only for a "cessation of aggression" - he proposed going back to the arrangement at the Rafah crrossing as of 2005, before Hamas won the elections and later took over the region. That arrangement was for the crossing to be managed jointly by Egypt, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority presidency and Hamas.

Given this evidence it should be clear that the Israeli government's actions were not only reckless and disproportionate, but completely unneccesarry. The government of Israel repeatedly ignored offers from Hamas to establish a cease fire, and instead decided to launch another murderous campaign in Gaza. This shows not only a complete disregard for palestinian life, but a reckless disregard for Israeli life as well, seeing as this escalation has put Israeli's at an even greater danger of terror and rocket attacks.


This isn't entirely accurate either. Hamas refused the opportunity to extend the ceasefire and operation cast lead only started after a warning was given.

wikipedia wrote:On 20 December, Hamas officially announced that they would not be extending the cease-fire, which had expired on 19 December

...

On 25 December 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered 'Last Minute' Warning to Gaza in direct appeal to Gaza's people via the Arabic language satellite channel al-Arabiya, to pressure their leaders to stop the barrages. "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger," he said


Basically, you don't get to break a ceasefire then negotiate to continue it. You don't get to attack somebody and then say "okay now we're done" so that you can say that the opposing side's response isn't morally justified.
Last edited by sourmìlk on Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Zamfir » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:40 am UTC

I think jonscholar has hit on the perfect approach to Israel debates. Just repost a previous post, then the other side can repost their previous responses.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:48 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:I think jonscholar has hit on the perfect approach to Israel debates. Just repost a previous post, then the other side can repost their previous responses.


I suppose this happens because the arguments never quite get resolved, and it's hard to pick up at the point they were left off in the last thread. Eventually you get to it though. And to be fair, I hadn't seen that specific post before. For example, in the Goldstone thread, we've Jon and I have caught up approximately to where we were when we left off.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:52 am UTC

What I really wonder is, can Sourmilk ever actually admit to Israel having done anything wrong? If he has, I've yet to see that. Such ardency to his position damages his credibility as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, are we really going to pretend that one side nearly deserves sainthood here?

elfcharm
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 6:03 am UTC
Location: North Branford, CT. I think.
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby elfcharm » Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:57 am UTC

If either side wanted to play ball, then peace could be a possibility... But hey, one side can't hit the side of a barn with MISSILES, and the other holds 11 year olds at gunpoint to search for IEDs.

There is no right or wrong in this situation, both sides are fucked by their own actions. I'm sorry if OP thinks some actionable balance to the USs blind faith in israel is a terrible thing, but maybe it's about time the little kid stops getting kicked in the balls because his big brother told him to stop sticking his tongue out at the mean kid with glasses.



for drunken clarity
little kid = palestine
big brother = egypt

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:00 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:What I really wonder is, can Sourmilk ever actually admit to Israel having done anything wrong? If he has, I've yet to see that. Such ardency to his position damages his credibility as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, are we really going to pretend that one side nearly deserves sainthood here?


I think that Israel has almost consistently acted appropriate. That said, I have acknowledged Israel wrongdoing. I think they don't do well enforcing the laws against Israeli settlements in the West Bank, they shouldn't have included Gilad Shalit as part of the ceasefire agreement, there was a particular house raid in the West Bank that I can't find at the moment that was a total screwup, and there are certainly situations where soldiers have acted completely inappropriately, killing innocent civilians. My point is mostly that Israeli policy is sound.

Conversely, I'd like to see Jon ever commend one of Israel's actions.

If either side wanted to play ball, then peace could be a possibility... But hey, one side can't hit the side of a barn with MISSILES, and the other holds 11 year olds at gunpoint to search for IEDs.

There is no right or wrong in this situation, both sides are fucked by their own actions. I'm sorry if OP thinks some actionable balance to the USs blind faith in israel is a terrible thing, but maybe it's about time the little kid stops getting kicked in the balls because his big brother told him to stop sticking his tongue out at the mean kid with glasses.



for drunken clarity
little kid = palestine
big brother = egypt


Your understanding of the situation is flawed, and your criticisms of both sides in the initial sentence is... interesting. I have no problem with soldiers holding civilians out of an area that might potentially have an explosive in it, but I certainly have a problem with the systematic targeting of civilians (which is why the IED is there.)

And the little kid is getting kicked in the balls because he keeps trying to stab the big kid with scissors. Furthermore, how could Egypt's potential funding of Hamas possibly be construed as appropriate? Hamas is a terrorist group, they target civilians. It is exactly the equivalent of Iran fighting proxy wars with the US (or Israel) by funding terrorist groups. Egypt would only further the conflict. If Hamas put down their weapons, things would be fine. Israel's tried that approach, and they've received rockets in response.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Garm » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:13 am UTC

More like the little kid is trying to secure rights to water that the big kid wants.

IMO Likud is just as extremist as Hamas, they just have the veneer of governmental authority under which to do their crappy crap.

When I took a class on conflict resolution back in Uni, we talked about the unending conflict in Israel. I thought the model simplified down pretty nicely. Extremists on both sides attack those in the middle (generally through range, like Hamas, or through building walls like Likud) which then pushes those in the middle toward the extremes. This pattern has the nice effect of giving the extremists a larger base to draw from, and it prolongs the conflict which helps keep the extremists in power (and enriches them personally and so on and so forth).

What the Middle East needs now is their own Surak. :) Tho' he'd probably just get shot by some moron.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:14 am UTC

JonScholar wrote:Yes, he's editorializing. El Baradei seems to be speaking in terms of defensive actions against Israeli aggression (for example: Operation Cast Lead)...


Has Hamas ever stepped down from or qualified its publicly stated goal of eliminating the state of Israel?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:14 am UTC

The difference is that Jon doesn't pretend that Hamas is made of f'ing saints. Notice how your criticisms also hint at systematic issues of Israeli enforcement of policy? I mean, they could enforce their laws on those settlements, they choose not to. They seem to have quite the issue with their soldiers acting out of line, which speaks to a disregard of the Other. Notice a continuing pattern?

And, quite frankly, US and Israeli policy towards the middle-east is not helping the situation at all, especially considering that outside of particular emotional sensationalism the destabilizing affect is not economically viable outside of arms suppliers... Oh wait.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:21 am UTC

And, quite frankly, US and Israeli policy towards the middle-east is not helping the situation at all, especially considering that outside of particular emotional sensationalism the destabilizing affect is not economically viable outside of arms suppliers... Oh wait.


Israel, unlike Hamas, is not a terrorist group. If you have a specific problem with my posts, please share, but just saying that I'm biased helps nothing. Also, I'm unconvinced that Israel has more misbehaving soldiers than, say, America.

Garm wrote:More like the little kid is trying to secure rights to water that the big kid wants.

IMO Likud is just as extremist as Hamas, they just have the veneer of governmental authority under which to do their crappy crap.

When I took a class on conflict resolution back in Uni, we talked about the unending conflict in Israel. I thought the model simplified down pretty nicely. Extremists on both sides attack those in the middle (generally through range, like Hamas, or through building walls like Likud) which then pushes those in the middle toward the extremes. This pattern has the nice effect of giving the extremists a larger base to draw from, and it prolongs the conflict which helps keep the extremists in power (and enriches them personally and so on and so forth).

What the Middle East needs now is their own Surak. :) Tho' he'd probably just get shot by some moron.


What's wrong with the wall? Does Israel not have the right to border protection? And are you really saying that a border wall is as criminal as the targeting and killing of civilians?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby yoni45 » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:21 am UTC

Belial wrote:Okay, you get to *maybe* refer to retaliation as "self-defense" the first time...


And every time until the objectives within that 'self-defense' have been completed. Hamas is still around and kicking, and still has the agenda of destroying Israel. The threat still hasn't been neutralized, so the acts of self-defense continue until it is (whether or not they're separated by occasional lulls).
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:45 am UTC

After some digging about this Gilad Shalit release being part of the cease-fire agreement or not, it seems that there was no mutually agreed text!!

When you think those guys couldn't be more senseless, they still find ways to surprise you...
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:12 am UTC

jules.lt wrote:After some digging about this Gilad Shalit release being part of the cease-fire agreement or not, it seems that there was no mutually agreed text!!

When you think those guys couldn't be more senseless, they still find ways to surprise you...


Urgh. Not sure why they didn't get around to that. Had the negotiations not finished? Either way, Hamas' claims that Israel didn't hold up its end of the bargain are silly, seeing as Israel couldn't allow more goods in, as the checkpoints were being attacked. Israel attempted to abide by the ceasefire despite the fact that Hamas didn't try.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:28 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Israel attempted to abide by the ceasefire despite the fact that Hamas didn't try.

Hamas stopped attacking and mostly quelled the attacks from other organisations. There's all kinds of complexities and nested intents all around, but how does that count as "not trying"?

As for the written agreement, I'd be interested in knowing if any written agreement between Hamas and Israel ever existed.
The author of the Times article says that there wasn't one here because the organisations don't recognize each other, so there shouldn't be any. Or maybe sometimes they managed to make some and sometimes not, depending on the mood?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:35 am UTC

jules.lt wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Israel attempted to abide by the ceasefire despite the fact that Hamas didn't try.

Hamas stopped attacking and mostly quelled the attacks from other organisations. There's all kinds of complexities and nested intents all around, but how does that count as "not trying"?


Hamas built illegal tunnels. They did try to stop rocket attacks, but once they started taking active action against Israel, I can't say that they honestly abided by the ceasefire.

As for the written agreement, I'd be interested in knowing if any written agreement between Hamas and Israel ever existed.
The author of the Times article says that there wasn't one here because the organisations don't recognize each other, so there shouldn't be any. Or maybe sometimes they managed to make some and sometimes not, depending on the mood?


I also am curious about this.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:27 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Hamas built illegal tunnels. They did try to stop rocket attacks, but once they started taking active action against Israel, I can't say that they honestly abided by the ceasefire.

Neither side respected the agreement, as per the same article from the unabashedly pro-Palestinian (or pro-Israel, depending on who you ask) New York Times.
But anyway, since there were no actual terms to this cease-fire it's rather hard to say who breached the terms.
Last edited by jules.LT on Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:30 am UTC

jules.lt wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Hamas built illegal tunnels. They did try to stop rocket attacks, but once they started taking active action against Israel, I can't say that they honestly abided by the ceasefire.

Neither side respected the agreement, as per the same article from the unabashedly pro-Palestinian New York Times.
But anyway, since there were no actual terms to this cease-fire it's rather hard to say who breached the terms.

Israel attempted to abide by it. But if you're deciding that it's hard to assign blame in this case as there wasn't a formal agreement, I guess I'm fine with that.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

elfcharm
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 6:03 am UTC
Location: North Branford, CT. I think.
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby elfcharm » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:08 pm UTC

What's wrong with the wall? Does Israel not have the right to border protection? And are you really saying that a border wall is as criminal as the targeting and killing of civilians?


I support a wall (preferably one that follows some agreed upon borders, instead of bulging out around the settlements which are in dispute, but that's just me), but doesn't israel believe palestine to be Isreal? How are they protecting their border by building a wall down the middle of their country?

And no, a center-of-the-country wall is not as criminal as the targeting and killing of civilians, but the righteousness of the measure is tarnished when both sides have done the targeting and killing.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:25 pm UTC

elfcharm wrote:
What's wrong with the wall? Does Israel not have the right to border protection? And are you really saying that a border wall is as criminal as the targeting and killing of civilians?


I support a wall (preferably one that follows some agreed upon borders, instead of bulging out around the settlements which are in dispute, but that's just me), but doesn't israel believe palestine to be Isreal? How are they protecting their border by building a wall down the middle of their country?


Uh, no, they don't. That's why they've been negotiating with the Palestinians to establish their own country. And I'd also prefer agreed-upon borders, but seeing as those don't exist and a wall was immediately necessary, you had to do something.

And no, a center-of-the-country wall is not as criminal as the targeting and killing of civilians, but the righteousness of the measure is tarnished when both sides have done the targeting and killing.


I think you should check out Goldstone's retraction of his previous statements: Israel does not target civilians. The civilians that died in Gaza almost invariably did so because Hamas hid in populated areas and used human shields.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:38 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:I think you should check out Goldstone's retraction of his previous statements: Israel does not target civilians. The civilians that died in Gaza almost invariably did so because Hamas hid in populated areas and used human shields.

They still make the choice to bomb a place with civilians rather than not bomb. That can explain why Palestinian deaths tend to outnumber Israeli deaths 10 if not 50 to 1.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:40 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I think you should check out Goldstone's retraction of his previous statements: Israel does not target civilians. The civilians that died in Gaza almost invariably did so because Hamas hid in populated areas and used human shields.

They still make the choice to bomb a place with civilians rather than not bomb. That can explain why Palestinian deaths tend to outnumber Israeli deaths 10 if not 50 to 1.


About 5 to 1, actually. Anyways, yes. What's the alternative to that, exactly? Are you saying that Israel should sit idly by while it's under attack because of the potential to kill civilians that, by the way, wouldn't be die if Hamas didn't adhere to deplorable practices? Israel can't let Hamas' misbehavior give them an advantage: then they're just encouraging the use of human shields.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:00 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:About 5 to 1, actually. Anyways, yes. What's the alternative to that, exactly? Are you saying that Israel should sit idly by while it's under attack because of the potential to kill civilians that, by the way, wouldn't be die if Hamas didn't adhere to deplorable practices? Israel can't let Hamas' misbehavior give them an advantage: then they're just encouraging the use of human shields.

Sorry, 10 and 50 to 1 are only the figures for the last 2 years, which were rather calm in comparison with before. In the long run it seems to be a bit more than 5 to 1 indeed.
But killing the human shields encourages them too, since it works so well for their benefit. Wouldn't it be better if Israel encouraged them by not killing people instead?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:04 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I think you should check out Goldstone's retraction of his previous statements: Israel does not target civilians. The civilians that died in Gaza almost invariably did so because Hamas hid in populated areas and used human shields.

They still make the choice to bomb a place with civilians rather than not bomb. That can explain why Palestinian deaths tend to outnumber Israeli deaths 10 if not 50 to 1.

One could argue that Hamas still decides to launch rockets from appropriated civilian homes.

Also, continually pointing out that the death toll isn't equal is a pretty tired and ineffective way of tackling this discussion.

Someone brought up Operation Cast Lead (I think Jon Scholar); I think you should read Goldstone's recent redaction of his investigation.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:07 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:About 5 to 1, actually. Anyways, yes. What's the alternative to that, exactly? Are you saying that Israel should sit idly by while it's under attack because of the potential to kill civilians that, by the way, wouldn't be die if Hamas didn't adhere to deplorable practices? Israel can't let Hamas' misbehavior give them an advantage: then they're just encouraging the use of human shields.

Sorry, 10 and 50 to 1 are only the figures for the last 2 years, which were rather calm in comparison with before. In the long run it seems to be a bit more than 5 to 1 indeed.
But killing the human shields encourages them too, since it works so well for their benefit. Wouldn't it be better if Israel encouraged them by not killing people instead?


Not killing people doesn't work either. Hamas attacked Israel after they pulled out of Gaza. They started firing rockets as a response to an attempt at peace. And how do human shield deaths work to benefit Hamas? Either way, it's really not an option to stave off an attack because of how Hamas misbehaves: Israel has the moral obligation to defend its citizens, and that overrides their moral obligation to prevent Hamas from killing its own.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:17 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:continually pointing out that the death toll isn't equal is a pretty tired and ineffective way of tackling this discussion.

I actually hadn't seen it for some time and it's worth remembering.
sourmìlk wrote:how do human shield deaths work to benefit Hamas?

By making Palestinians in general and the international community more angry at Israel?
sourmìlk wrote:prevent Hamas from killing its own.

You meant "hiding behind civilians so Israel would kill them too and get the blame"?
It's still Israel doing the killing. And the blame is shared.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:20 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:continually pointing out that the death toll isn't equal is a pretty tired and ineffective way of tackling this discussion.

I actually hadn't seen it for some time and it's worth remembering.
sourmìlk wrote:how do human shield deaths work to benefit Hamas?

By making Palestinians in general and the international community more angry at Israel?
sourmìlk wrote:prevent Hamas from killing its own.

You meant "hiding behind civilians so Israel would kill them too and get the blame"?
It's still Israel doing the killing. And the blame is shared.


If you use human shields, you are responsible for their deaths. I mean really, Hamas militants will attack Israelis then grab random children and run. I seriously don't see how the blame is shared: what should Israel do?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:24 pm UTC

Those are the clear-cut cases. They aren't all like that, far from it, and you know it.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:29 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:Those are the clear-cut cases. They aren't all like that, far from it, and you know it.

Most situations are as follows: Hamas fires rockets from residential areas / schools / mosques / hospitals and then hides in them. The only way Israel can defend themselves is to attack those areas. Are you suggesting that Israel should abstain from defending itself?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:39 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Most situations are as follows: Hamas fires rockets from residential areas / schools / mosques / hospitals and then hides in them. The only way Israel can defend themselves is to attack those areas. Are you suggesting that Israel should abstain from defending itself?

I'd argue that a method that kills 5 people to save 1 is wrong.
As for specific cases, I sure hope that they send in soldiers who can shoot at people rather than bombs that shoot buildings...
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:50 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Most situations are as follows: Hamas fires rockets from residential areas / schools / mosques / hospitals and then hides in them. The only way Israel can defend themselves is to attack those areas. Are you suggesting that Israel should abstain from defending itself?

I'd argue that a method that kills 5 people to save 1 is wrong.
As for specific cases, I sure hope that they send in soldiers who can shoot at people rather than bombs that shoot buildings...


Except that if they abstain then as many people die as Hamas feels like killing. It's actually killing 5 people to save, say, 20, because otherwise Hamas continues unrestrained. The problem with sending soldiers in is that, aside from the normal desire to avoid man-to-man conflict and the resulting casualties, and aside from the fact that the international community begins to rage any time an Israeli not named Gilad Shalit steps a foot inside of Gaza, Hamas has a nasty habit of rigging houses with explosives: essentially, if you try to visit the house personally it's destroyed anyways, including whoever surrounds it. Furthermore, killing 5 to save 1 isn't necessarily wrong seeing as Israel's obligation to defend its citizens outweighs its obligations to defend Gazan citizens.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Egypt's New Government likely to be Hostile to Israel

Postby Dream » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:52 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Are you suggesting that Israel should abstain from defending itself?

If you can't be mature enough to look beyond the prejudices that make you see everything in black and white, there's no point in your continued contributions to this discussion. You are well aware of two things: One, that no one here suggests that Israel shouldn't be allowed to defend itself. The other, that defending itself does not mean retaliating against every single outrage. Reducing things to the quoted statement in spite of that is counterproductive, and surely deliberate.

You seem incapable of understanding that the good guys can do very, very bad things. Read about atrocities committed by allied forces in Western Europe after D-Day. Did you know they executed French civilians, forced labourers and prisoners of war? Bombed residential areas of French towns? Raped local women? And get this, there was no official policy to do that! But to you, no official policy equates to "didn't happen".

I've been involved in Israel-related debates around here longer than you've been on the boards, and I've never seen anyone so constitutionally resistant to the idea that Israel might be capable of doing wrong. You read like you've never been confronted with a shade of grey in your life. You should step away from this debate and inform yourself about all of the terrible things done by good militaries throughout history, and all the lies told by freely elected governments to cover for them, then ask yourself what makes Israel so different that you can't even comprehend the idea that the IDF might be committing atrocities, and the Israeli government might be covering for them. It happens in every single other conflict. Why not this one?

I don't think you have any perspective here, and I don't think you're capable of contributing positively to the debate in any way.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests