Hamas attacks Israel, Israel calls off truce - Page 2

motivez · 04-25-2007, 07:03 PM

If they're planting them on their side of the line it's hardly an aggressive action, it's defensive.

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If they're planting them on their side of the line it's hardly an aggressive action, it's defensive.

They're allowed to set bombs in their own country? Based on the numbers they've been blowing up, I wouldn't call it defensive.

7960 · 04-25-2007, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If they're planting them on their side of the line it's hardly an aggressive action, it's defensive.

of course.

Kytro · 04-25-2007, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

They're allowed to set bombs in their own country? Based on the numbers they've been blowing up, I wouldn't call it defensive.

Isn't that an issue for palistianian security? If Israel takes it upon itself to police Gaza I would expect elements of the militant factions to see that as violation of the ceasefire.

Justified? That all depend on your viewpoint I guess. That whole area is one big mess, there are too many grey areas.

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Isn't that an issue for palistianian security? If Israel takes it upon itself to police Gaza I would expect elements of the militant factions to see that as violation of the ceasefire.

Palestine was supposed to prevent Hamas militants from re-arming, etc. Part of the ceasefire is that they won't rearm and plant explosives all over the place. The fact that they were defensively setting up bombs all around the country-side shows that they in fact broke the cease fire agreements first. And Israel responded to it by trying to prevent it.

Then they started throwing bombs into Israel. So now Israel is saying enough is enough. Regardless of who is right in this thread on the events that took place and by whom, it is clear Israel was not the ones who violated the terms of the cease fire. Nor did they indiscriminately fire mortars into Palestine. They reacted to the militants who were violating the truce.

motivez · 04-25-2007, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

of course.

If we decide to guard the borders of our territory with something similar, I fail to see how it's a hostile action against another government rather than a defensive one.

Palestinian autonomy is at the core of this debate, ignoring it in favor of "Israel is right no matter what" is foolish and short sighted.

If they will always have to worry about Israeli incursions into their territory whenever Israel feels like doing so (even without being attacked directly), then they will always have a right to resist such incursions.

I obviously disagree with their methods, but the bottom line is that for peace to be realistic, autonomy over their territory and borders is something that is going to have to happen.

7960 · 04-25-2007, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If we decide to guard the borders of our territory with something similar, I fail to see how it's a hostile action against another government rather than a defensive one.

Palestinian autonomy is at the core of this debate, ignoring it in favor of "Israel is right no matter what" is foolish and short sighted.

If they will always have to worry about Israeli incursions into their territory whenever Israel feels like doing so (even without being attacked directly), then they will always have a right to resist such incursions.

I obviously disagree with their methods, but the bottom line is that for peace to be realistic, autonomy over their territory and borders is something that is going to have to happen.

planting bombs during a cease fire in which israel hasn't conducted any "military incursions" hardly shows a desire for peace.

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

planting bombs during a cease fire in which israel hasn't conducted any "military incursions" hardly shows a desire for peace.

First they defensively plant bombs, then they throw mortars in Israel as a diversion to kidnap Israeli soldiers (and of course to kill the heathen Jews) and when Israel goes in to get them back they get blown up on their "defensive" bombs that were likely planted without the authorization of their government and against the UN's wishes as well as the cease-fire. Yet for some reason the people planting those bombs and firing those mortars are the victims in all this because Israel should just allow them to continue violating the cease fire and re-arming for another attack all the while promising to kill every Jew. And we're the ones reading the biased news stories...

motivez · 04-25-2007, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

planting bombs during a cease fire in which israel hasn't conducted any "military incursions" hardly shows a desire for peace.

It shows a desire to defend their territory from future incursions, and considering Israel's history of such actions, it's hardly an unreasonable one.

If Israel had no intention of entering their territory again why would it be a threat?

motivez · 04-25-2007, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It shows a desire to defend their territory from future incursions, and considering Israel's history of such actions, it's hardly an unreasonable one.

If Israel had no intention of entering their territory again why would it be a threat?

It wouldn't be a threat if they would agree to their end of the cease-fire and didn't re-arm themselves. Anti-Jew militants bent on the destruction of Israel shouldn't be allowed to re-arm against the demands of the UN and the cease-fire. Whether or not Hamas militants re-arming and planting bombs along the countryside is considered a threat to some doesn't mean Israel isn't justified in preventing it based on the agreement they have.

I guess it doesn't really matter anymore because once again, due to Hamas, the truce has been called off.

motivez · 04-25-2007, 08:38 PM

@ the idea of only one side being forced to disarm in a cease fire.. come on now, that's not a good idea if that one side wants to ever have a chance of defending themselves should the cease fire break down.

Would we expect Israel to disarm? Would we take away weapons from only one faction in Iraq? Of course not.

Kytro · 04-25-2007, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Palestine was supposed to prevent Hamas militants from re-arming, etc. Part of the ceasefire is that they won't rearm and plant explosives all over the place. The fact that they were defensively setting up bombs all around the country-side shows that they in fact broke the cease fire agreements first. And Israel responded to it by trying to prevent it.

I was not aware of the terms of the ceasefire. We could play the justification game all day - even if there was a technical breach of the ceasefire by failing to prevent militants from arming, they did engage in hostilities first (arguably).

Never the less who fires first isn't really relevant to the overall problem. Israel has a defensive (and therefore conservative) posture (understandably). The net result is nothing really changes. The current atmosphere isn't conductive to a peaceful co-existence.

Originally Posted by 7960

Then they started throwing bombs into Israel. So now Israel is saying enough is enough. Regardless of who is right in this thread on the events that took place and by whom, it is clear Israel was not the ones who violated the terms of the cease fire. Nor did they indiscriminately fire mortars into Palestine. They reacted to the militants who were violating the truce.

It does not really matter "who is right", that isn't going to solve the problem. It all depends of your point of view. Some people view Israel's occupation as justification in and of itself, and others view Israel's right to defend itself as absolute (ie; they are justified intaking any and all steps required for secuirty).

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

@ the idea of only one side being forced to disarm in a cease fire.. come on now, that's not a good idea if that one side wants to ever have a chance of defending themselves should the cease fire break down.

Would we expect Israel to disarm? Would we take away weapons from only one faction in Iraq? Of course not.

Does Israel have the desire to march into Palestine and steal their land and kill every Muslim who lives there? Israel wants to be left alone. Militant terrorist factions of Hamas shouldn't be allowed to re-arm when the UN says so and they agree to terms of a cease-fire. I don't expect them to do anything other than what they have agreed to, which in the grand scheme of things isn't much and they can't even keep that promise. In order to keep peace all they have to do is... LIVE IN PEACE. If they weren't planting bombs and lobbing mortars into Israel they would have no reason for defense. It's also counter-intuitive because they are a militant group planting bombs. They have no right to do so... hating Israel doesn't give them the right to plant bombs.

Kytro · 04-25-2007, 09:02 PM

The only path to peace is to convince people that the militants are causing more harm to them than good.

As logical as it may seem to some militants are the one's killing their sons and daughters and invading their land. As long as this viewpoint is prevelant among the populous the problem will persist

RMNIXON · 04-25-2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

@ the idea of only one side being forced to disarm in a cease fire.. come on now, that's not a good idea if that one side wants to ever have a chance of defending themselves should the cease fire break down.

Would we expect Israel to disarm? Would we take away weapons from only one faction in Iraq? Of course not.

That would never happen because clearly the Hamas Government does not have control over these armed groups. That seems to be a major point missed here when describing who did what. How can they (the government) negotiate a truce when they can't control a clear violation?

Donkey® · 04-25-2007, 10:16 PM

I am honestly sick of even hearing about the middle east. It will never change. It isn't ONE sides fault. It isn't ONE country's fault. We're not even free of blame.

Kytro · 04-26-2007, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am honestly sick of even hearing about the middle east. It will never change. It isn't ONE sides fault. It isn't ONE country's fault. We're not even free of blame.

Even if it could be easily placed at the feet of the militants, with no grey area, it still wouldn't solve the problem.

Sure once can feel self-satisfied that they are on the side of "good" but in reality all it is good for is justification to continue to engage in behavior that ultimately leads to continued violence.

7960 · 04-26-2007, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That would never happen because clearly the Hamas Government does not have control over these armed groups. That seems to be a major point missed here when describing who did what. How can they (the government) negotiate a truce when they can't control a clear violation?

THAT'S BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG!

Palestine will prove it's sincere in wanting peace when THEY stop the militants.