Originally posted by jaden101
As i explained already. Israel is now being attacked from the same lands it used to occupy only 3 years ago. Israel went through a lot of internal strife in order to remove the Israeli settlers from that land. Some had to be forcibly removed in the last days of occupation.Despite this being the 1st real step by Israel on the road to peace and the 1st way given by either side, the Palestinians still voted in Hamas as their leaders. Since then there has been over 2000 rockets in 2 years launched at Israeli targets, all from lands previously occupied by Israelis.
The land given back to the Palestinians now means that another 800,000 Israelis are now at risk from Qassam rockets fired from those previously occupied lands
So from that point of view, they are completely right in finally saying enough is enough and trying to do something about the continued, if ineffective attacks.
Another thing that should be noted is that it is known that the Hamas leadership is currently hiding out in a bunker underneath Gaza city's main hospital. Thus blatently using civilians as human shields.
One more thing, as someone noted above Hamas' 'official' goal is indeed the destruction of Israel, etc. However, if Israel offers a comprehensive two-state solution involving the absolute removal of Israeli army and settlements from Palestinian land in honor of the 1947 UN partition plan, I wonder whether Hamas won't change its stance, or at least whether not the Palestinian people would elect leaders in favor of it. I remind you here of the cold response the Geneva Accord got from the Israeli government, though of course I should also note that the Palestinians didn't particularly favor it either.
Originally posted by backdoorman
One more thing, as someone noted above Hamas' 'official' goal is indeed the destruction of Israel, etc. However, if Israel offers a comprehensive two-state solution involving the absolute removal of Israeli army and settlements from Palestinian land in honor of the 1947 UN partition plan, I wonder whether Hamas won't change its stance, or at least whether not the Palestinian people would elect leaders in favor of it. I remind you here of the cold response the Geneva Accord got from the Israeli government, though of course I should also note that the Palestinians didn't particularly favor it either.
That was me.
I'd imagine it would be hard to have negotiations with someone who openly declares they want your death and nothing else, no?
Maybe Hamas should change their slogan to that first, the "we'll except peace/cohabitation if you honor the '47 plan"?
Hamas, its philosophy and slogans, and its success in Gaza is simply the obvious result of the continuous Israeli aggression against Palestinians (of course, not to deny the historical aggression of the Palestinians against Israelis). Palestine, being the visible loser in this decades long conflict can be little expected to elect the more reasonable and sober government between the two nations. The Palestinian people have been oppressed by Israelis for so long and in so obvious a manner that it is actually rather natural that they will elect courageous, reactionary leaders who promise to bring an end to Israel and its terrors. However Israel has had relative social stability for quite a while now and a reasonable proposal to ending the conflict from their part is, I think, long overdue.
Originally posted by Robtard
They use their own people, the ones they're supposed to protect, as weapons, shields and pawns, not so sure your "courageous" merit is correct.
Originally posted by backdoorman
That is really one of the more trivial points, but in any case calling such usage of civilian life 'cowardly' is similar to when the media called the 9/11 attacks 'cowardly': simply not applicable. Terrible, cruel, despicable... whatever, but not really cowardly.
You wouldn't call the placement of one's own life and political power over the lives of hundreds (thousands?) of civilians after provoking a response from a greater power cowardice? I certainly would.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cowardice:
Cowardice
n.Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You wouldn't call the placement of one's own life and political power over the lives of hundreds (thousands?) of civilians after provoking a response from a greater power cowardice? I certainly would.
I believe it is not cowardice if "bravery" would mean certain death and the likely loss for your cause.
Israel built a wall so Palestinians could not get food or heat. Sounds like a pretty crappy situation to me, cutting them off like that. I'd be a little pissed too. They attack and leave 6....not 600 or 6,000 but 6 Israelis dead. So what do they do? Attack without mercy killing more then 400...not 4, or 40, but 400 Palestinians. If that's not, as the poll states, "over the top" then I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You wouldn't call the placement of one's own life and political power over the lives of hundreds (thousands?) of civilians after provoking a response from a greater power cowardice? I certainly would.
Originally posted by backdoorman
They risk their own lives, and yes, that of some civilians for a high purpose. I don't call that cowardice.
Those peoples' lives aren't theirs to risk. The Palestinians weren't *asked* if they'd like to launch rockets into Israel- I would hope that someone would realize that it isn't in the populace's best interest!
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, but it is still a ballsy thing to do. Standing up to a more powerful enemy and putting your life on the line. That you try not to expose yourself too much, doesn't make you a coward...it makes you not a dumbwit.
But it isn't Hamas who is standing up! Hamas picked a fight and notably isn't standing up for the Palestinians- they are hiding under a hospital. I just don't see any way to apply the term 'courageous' to Hamas.
Originally posted by Red NemesisBut it isn't Hamas who is standing up! Hamas picked a fight and notably isn't standing up for the Palestinians- they are hiding under a hospital. I just don't see any way to apply the term 'courageous' to Hamas.
Well, lets meet halfway and neither apply courage or cowardice to them?