Israel has a population of approximately seven million people. Tiny. US aid alone from 1949 to 2007 is $101,000,000,000 (billion) (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html). Maybe 70% of that was military, the rest was economic (even military was economic, since it meant Israel didn't need to make its own stuff). It's rather easy to encourage education programs and all that with all that spare money.

Israel isn't a prodigy. It's a regular country that received aid from an economic giant to dominate its sphere while maintaining an effective social system. And even if it was a prodigy, that would be completely irrelevant to any of our points. Hamas was democratically elected, and your own argument in the last post was 'Israel is a great democratic nation' - that doesn't accept the democracy of others unless it suits it. And then goes around killing civilians instead of declaring ceasefires.

I was being kinda blind to your point about hamas being democratically elected. I glossed over it thinking, "jeez why does centeri like hamas so much, they are bad guys! I should show him how bad they are..." but now I see. You were using them as a rebuttal against my point about how Israel is better with a democracy, but by that standard they aren't any better than hamas which was democratically elected.

Alright all I can ask now is, what's the solution? Dissolve Israel?

Like Hamas? I hate the whole Islamic movement . It's just that Israel doesn't really have the moral right to do these things. Israel's #2 on my to-visit list.

Solution, that's a toughie. One solution, yes, would be to dissolve Israel and possibly introduce it as a state elsewhere. Maybe more support for Fatah in the region to drive Hamas out politically, not militarily. A promise (and followthrough) for more humanitarian aid if Israel is recognized and not... bombarded. War is one of many solutions for peace, even a dirty war, but you can't expect people to not whine about it if it's dirty.

I think one relevant question that hasn't been asked so far is this:
Should Israel lie down and just take thousands of rockets fired into it's country?

Perhaps I am invalidly coming to this conclusion, but it seems like Centreri and others like you are implying the answer is yes.
Maybe only 28 died since 2001 compared to thousands of palestineans, but if you were living in Israel, wouldn't you want your government to do something about the rockets launched into your city evey so often? No one likes to live in a state of constant peril. So long as they refuse to make peace, I opine that Israel is acting for the preservation of its people, irrespective of any former actions it has taken. They may have been wrong in the past, but they're not right now. Of course, I think they should be trying to make peace talks as well, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but my impression is that organizations like hamas are refusing peace.


I'm don't mean to offend you by this, but I think analogies in this case poorly relfect the actual situation, CAFG. Also, as to "does the end justify the means" well, that depends on the end and the means. In this case, if lasting peace were the end, I think there's much to say for that. Though, if something as extreme as genocide were the means, who can really say?

WHAT? You would have us repeat the mistakes that were made back when Israel was created? What would be done with those 7 million Israelis, what right have we to take their homes, businesses, livlihoods, land, and such? Certaintly we had no right to give it to them 50 years ago in the first place, but WHY would you suggest having the UN repeat that mistake by giving it to palestineans?

If it was the Palestinians' to begin with then it's more like fixing an overdue wrong.

If it had been given back a few years after it was made, then it would be fixing an overdue wrong. If we were to do this now, we would merely be repeating the error that was originally wrought.

A standard flawed human approach to the problem. Looking at it statistically shows that you're far more likely to get driven over by a car or your house struck by lightning then dying from one of these. So, yes, doing nothing is far preferable then causing thousands of deaths. Just because the wrong was in the past doesn't remove it - if all Israel has to suffer for wronging the Palestinians back then is 28 deaths in seven years, I'd say that's a pretty fair deal.
The problem with the solution back then was that they put Israel in the middle of a bunch of pissed off Muslims (who didn't want them there), as I have mentioned before. There are many places with a predominantly Jewish population where Israelis could acclimatize faster and not have to cope with constant attacks, although those are admittedly parts of different countries. Of course, this would not happen, for the very reasons you stated - and because Israelis themselves don't suffer from the atrocities they cause, so they don't have motivation to move. Let me give you a scenario: Israel as an autonomous republic in the Russian Federation (Not just because I'm Russian ). Southern, so that the climate stays rather similar. Who wins? Almost everyone. Palestinians get their land back, and radical islamicism may lower because of that. The US won't have a puppet in the Middle East anymore, but that's their problem. Israel gets protection from most terrorist acts; few of the non-natural deaths in Russia are terrorist-related. Russia gets a seven million population boost with highly educated folk. Israel should be back to its normal productivity shortly.

Again, that'll never happen, and it's appealing to me for obvious reasons, but look how quickly Israel started prospering stuck in the middle of pissed off Muslims - they could get back into shape rather quickly. Of course they'd lose a lot of the infrastructure, but that's easily rebuildable, and Putin'd go out of his way to show the world how nice he is - look what's in Grozny. Anyway, there's no need for an Israel now, because anti-semitism isn't common, and where it exists its mostly because of Israel.

If you live in the United States, then this statistic (about dying in a car accident) applies. Israel's statistics are undoubtedly different than those of the United States due to demographic and topographic reasons, and not applicable unless you find the Israeli statistic.
Additionally, you have not actually provided a statistic.

Secondly, 28 people in 7 years and over 7000 rockets is nonsense. Try 1024 dead, and seven injured for each death
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d90d845776b7af85256d08006f3ae9/be07c80cda4579468525734800500272!OpenDocument

Thirdly, you're going to negate a wrongdoing doen to Palestine by having Israel suffer a second wrongdoing? Perhaps it is "fair" as you say, but it certainly does not make the situation right.

Fourth, you need to back up this claim: "A standard flawed human approach to the problem" Explain precisely what you mean, provide data, logical argument, and show the flaws in the reasoning I provided for the justification of Israel defending its homeland.

This statement is completely wrong, unless you have some obscene definition of suffer. First, 1024 dead. Secondly, thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel. Thirdly, they undoubtedly suffer psychologically from both the killing they perpetrate, and the constant threat of rocket attacks.

Your proposal is nothing less than that we repeat our erroneous seizeure of land and property which do not belong to us, and hand it over to someone else. You started off this thread with a question on the morals of Israel: I now question your moral judgement.

Easily rebuildable by whom? The Israeli's who are now theoretically in the middle of a foreign country with half of their assets stripped away from them? And whose land are they rebuilding on that had that unfairly stripped away from them?

The car deaths statistics is completely irrelevant. The point is that the number of deaths because of rockets is minuscule compared to other causes of deaths.
The source you asked for, BBC, said 28. A source I read before that (which wasn't a direct source and which I sadly can't find ) said around 10. It's possible to blame a lot of things on the conflict, but as a result of the mortar itself, it's 28. Anyway, you'll notice there's 5x more Palestinian deaths then Israeli deaths, so my argument of Israel dealing far more then it takes stands.

As to your thirdpoint, there is no 'right' in this situation. Since you're not holding Israel accountable for what they did previously, how can you stand there and argue about 'right'? 'Right' would be if Israel never existed to begin with. We're trying to find a solution that doesn't have to be 'right', but it has to be workable and hopefully stop most of the violence. And believe it or not, whatever the amount of deaths in Israel, the least violence in region would be if Israel either ceased to exist or didn't respond to petty mortaring. Israel violates ceasefires and has repeatedly, in the midst of a ceasefire, headed into sovereign territory to bomb targets, whether it be along the Gaza strip or a completely sovereign country like Syria.

As for what I meant by flawed human approach, that's rather self-explanatory, isn't it? You're viewing it in terms of 'Hamas attacked Israel', instead of 'Hamas caused x deaths, Israel caused y deaths'. You're personalizing the cause of the death. The number of deaths (assuming my BBC statistic is correct) is tiny and not worth killing thousands over.
Your 1024 statistic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Your UN source doesn't state what the direct or indirect causes are. The War in Lebanon, for example - It's arguably part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet the massive killing (if not the war itself) was initiated by Israel. The rockets themselves, no matter how many, caused few deaths, and your article says nothing to disprove it. Thus, the rockets are really minor, and they apply only to select villages anyway. Next, are you really arguing that the killing done by Israeli forces is suffering for them? I'd say that that they're killing for Israel backs up the point that the quote you responded to that Israelis wouldn't like to move out.
Thick. My point was that many countries would be glad to incorporate seven million skilled, educated workers into their population, and gave an example. You don't need to 'seize' anything. Question my moral judgment all you want.
My example was Russia, correct? If Israelis were to move in as per my example, there'd be a construction boom (without the economic crisis). Russia very quickly rebuilt Grozny in Chechnya after the war there, and until recently there was a very prolific construction boom in major cities. There's be dozens of billionaires waiting to sign up to help construct infrastructure that would later give them great returns, and the government would probably use it's own reserves to quicken the task as well. Now, this wouldn't be as applicable in most other countries, but if Israel (for some reason) wanted a small land in China or some other rich, big country (Canada?), they could probably receive massive aid as well.

Then why did you bring it up?
So you are implying that there is a certain quota of sorts, of acceptable murder?
(Note: Read Edit at the bottom) It was probably specific to a certain date. I think it quite obvious that if it actually said only 28 died, it's wrong.
So if thousands die due to gunshots and suicide bombings, that's okay because they didn't die by mortar? As for Israel dealing far more than it takes, that was never refuted.
If you accept the premise of an objective law designed to protect the rights of mankind, then there is.
It's quite simple. I analyze the situation with respect to what is occurring, who owns what, the deaths involved, and the other factors you are well aware of, then I come to a conclusion about what can be justified and what cannot be justified based on those factors. Simply because a wrong was committed 60 years ago does NOT imply there can be no right now.
I acknowledge that there was a mistake committed 60 years ago in the creation of Israel without any respect for the people who lived there. This does not negate the fact that they are being attacked by organizations using rockets.
This is a theory, not a fact. Back it up with reason, argument and citation. I could similarly reason that the deaths would increase because the israeli citizens would be undefended against the onslaught of these organizations if they stopped fighting.

Take a moment and imagine this, Centreri:
You are sitting at your computer right now typing out a reply to this thread. All of a sudden, you hear a furious whistling sound and the next thing you know, you're lying bloody on the floor with a missing hand because a rocket flew through your window. If you have truly thought about this, you would not call it petty mortaring. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you just wouldn't mind if someone launched a mortar through your window. This is why I question your judgement.

Your BBC statistic is incorrect. Secondly, viewing it in terms of "Hamas cause x deaths, Israel caused y deaths" does not follow from the viewpoint of what should be done. You need to consider the entire scenario. Hamas is not just a group of punks getting a kick out of shooting off some fireworks, they are maliciously and intentionally trying to terrorize Israel.

You are trying to tell me that the United Nations isn't a valid source? What the hell? This isn't some crazy internet blog we're talking about here.
Secondly, my citation below cites each of the 1024 deaths with personal references to how each of them died.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm

Excuse the ad hominem Centreri, but MY GOD, YOU'RE RIDICULOUS. YES. The killing done by Israei foces is suffering for them, just as any man who goes to war suffers the horrors of seeing his comrades blown apart, the constant fear and psyhological breakdown associated with war, the separation from his family and friends.
Secondly, you have not addressed my prior example of how it is suffering for them, nor have you shown in any way the opposite.

Of course they don't! They've been living there for 60 years!


You need to seize these, for instance:
Land in Israel from those who do not wish to move (about the whole country)
Land in the destination country
Funds from both countries to support the transition
Food to feed these people during the transition
That's just a few. Who has the right to seize that?

This is the ABSOLUTE best case scenario. Please provide some references to these dozen willing billionaires, how this construction boom would happen, ect.

Edit: The majority of the deaths were due to suicide bombings, not rockets, so the 28 deaths statistic may be correct. However, in terms of total deaths, it is not.
Edit2: Sorry, the source provided above only has 930 accounts, not 1024.

Centreri, you cannot treat reality like pieces on a RISK board. Wars are not won by the roll of the dice, countries cannot simply move, people are not always willing to comply, and treating casualties with an acceptable quota is horrible. Of course, I am basing this last part on the acceptance of basic human rights, things such as right to life, liberty, and security of person. If you do not comply with basic principles such a these, please let me know and I will discontinue arguing.

Also, I did not know this:


Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jan 21 2009, 5:24 am by Vrael.

Because while the exact number isn't relevant, the magnitude is.

Correct.

You can't name a single event that resulted in more then 15 Israeli deaths at a time because of this, I'd wager.

Right, let's blame all those gunshots and suicide bombings on Hamas... The entire damn conflict... with Hezbollah, with Syria, all that is Hamas's fault.

Bullshit. Not every problem has a solution. Someone's rights are going to be infringed upon either way. I'm aiming for the rights of less people being infringed upon. You're aiming for the rights of people you can relate to better not being infringed upon.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Imagine this: You're sitting at your computer right now typing out a reply to this thread. All of a sudden, you hear the sound of jets flying overhead and feel the earth rumble. Something falls and you're on the floor, the next room now having no roof. Ignoring your dead siblings for the sake of survival, you search for your mother, and run for safety. And then, either A: The Israelis have blocked the routes out of the Gaza Strip, so you're stuck in a war-torn hellhole or B: some nasty Israeli mistakes you and/or your mother for a Hamas militant and you either C: Die or D: Watch her die.

This has a larger chance of happening if you're in the Gaza Strip then if you're in whatever part of Israel is being mortared, and it's far more serious. Compared to that, YES, it's petty mortaring.
Back it up with reason and argumentation, please. Otherwise I simply cannot follow your train of thought.

And then add why you think Israel isn't doing the same, just to send a message. "Don't mess with us". Which is exactly what Hamas is doing, if I accidentally stumbled upon your meaning there.
I trust the UN, and I somewhat trust the Israeli foreign ministry. The point was that Hamas wasn't the one that perpetrated all those deaths, and all those deaths are no worse off then British-Palestinian conflicts or whatever. International terrorism is international and should not be treated as something Israel suffers alone, and essentially all of it originates in the Middle East. Deaths caused by Hamas are a fraction of those 1024 deaths.
... My point was that no matter how difficult it is for the poor soldiers to kill people, it's quite a bit worse for the people dying... why do you completely disregard the feelings of those... not-invaders?
1) Those who can stay, can stay - in a state run by an extremist Muslim government. Enjoy.
2) As I have noted, some countries would essentially offer the land.
3) Funds aren't seized, they're given.
4) Food isn't seized, it's given.

http://www.russiablog.org/2007/08/post_10.php
The construction boom will resume the moment the economy gets back on board and energy prices start going up - in maybe a year.

You'll notice that I had said that the movement of Israel isn't really realistic because the majority of countries wouldn't support it. You're the one who transformed a theoretical solution to the problem into something that has to be supported by the masses. The masses of Israel, I'll note, not those of Palestinians.

Now, you're basing your last part on the acceptance of basic human rights, right? So what the hell are you defending Israel for if it's caused at least five thousand deaths using money it didn't earn? You're completely ignoring the Arabic losses in these wars. It's like those casualties don't exist. You compare me to an Israeli without comparing yourself to a Gazan. I find it rather disgusting how one-sided your view is.

The statistic itself is irrelevant though due to topographical and demographical reasons.

Because of this, this is my last post in regards to this topic. I find this sentiment foul. We clearly have some fundamental disagreements in regards to our views on humanity, which would require a separate topic for discussion.

This has nothing to do with any argument. It's completely irrelevant.

This doesn't change the fact that Hamas is taking military action against Israel. Just because there are other parties attacking Israel does not negate the fact that Israel has the right to defend its livlihood.


Nevertheless, there are actions which can be called "right" and "wrong" based on moral justification.

If Israel did not defend itself, then more people would have their rights infringed upon as they would be slaughtered essentially. Certainly you agree being killed is an infringement of your rights, but perhaps not since you believe there is an acceptable quota of murder. I will pursue this point no further.
As for myself, I am not aiming for any quantity of infringement to be perpetrated. Why would I relate better to Israel than Hamas? Both are equally foreign to me, except by nature of the US support of Israel, of which I have not participated in. I haven't been to Israel or Gaza. Your claim was erroneous, though acceptably so because I have been arguing primarily on behalf of Israel. This isn't because I relate to them better than I relate to Hamas, but because I think it obvious that they should be allowed to defend themselves.

First, you fool, I have not committed any hypocrisy. I would not refer to this situation as "petty bombing" for instance, nor acceptable murder. Neither would I agree that the Israeli soldier has a right to slaughter the civilians in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Here is why "Hamas has caused x deaths, Israel has caused y deaths" is erroneous reasoning:
Let us assume that X is roughly two powers of ten less than Y. It appears that Israel is the bad guy in he situation. If this were the only data we had, it would seem this way. Now we add the desire to live into the equation. Hamas attacked Israel, and Israel does not want to let their people perish, so they retaliate. The situation takes on a different character. Add in the fact that Hamas's charter includes what I have quoted above, and it follows that if Israel did not act, they would continue to be killed. I think it is clear now that the data in quotes above is not sufficient to analyze the situation correctly.

As far as I know, there is nothing in Israel's charter which includes the annihilation of Hamas. That is why I think Israel is not doing the same thing as Hamas.


I completely disregarded the feelings of the non-invaders because we weren't talking about them. We were talking about the suffering of the Israeli invaders. Of course it's bad for the people in Gaza too, I never implied otherwise!

1). That's a pretty poor choice. Screwed if you go, screwed if you don't.
2). Maybe people are different where you're from, but no one I know (or country I have heard of) gives away free land.
3). Given by whom? The UN?
4). Given by whom? The UN?

Perhaps you're right, and perhaps I'm right. I don't think either of us can draw a valid and forceful conclusion on this: neither of us are an economist or sociologist as far as I know. If you happen to have published material on the matter, then I will defer to your judgement. If you don't, then the point appears unworthy of our time, especially since even credited economists could be wrong about a situation as complex as this.

I simply shot down your theoretical solution because it has way to many holes in it. And of course it would have to be supported by the masses of Israel, unless you're suggesting that they be forcefully evicted. And yes, it does not require the consent of the Palestineans. I think you were trying to point out there that I am biased in favor of Israel. On this note, I first ask why, aside from the fact I have been arguing the case of Israel. Secondly, I think it clear that I have not been presenting arguments without proper justification, so I ask that instead of trying other methods of arguing, you instead stick to the relevant arguments I present and refute them.

Because Israel is defending itself. They are in jeopardy because of Hama's initiation of violence against them. And the arabic losses? Of course I've been ignoring them, you had that covered. As to what I think about it though? I think the majority of them are innocent civilians like you and I. I think they don't deserve what's happening to them, mostly. More of them are suffering than is necessary, because of the actions of a bunch of extremists. The same goes for the Israeli's. The difference I see, which I have not been able to impress upon you, is that Israel does not seek the destruction of Hamas except to protect its own livlihood. (Though I'm sure there are some Israeli soldiers who want nothing but revenge.)
I shall now compare myself to both an Israeli and a Gazan.
I am in a college, learning, enjoying life. Chilling with my friends, being a normal human. Thinking, studying, ect.
Many israeli's and gazans, on the other hand, walk with fear of attack through their streets, don't have clean water, have to worry about checkpoints and military personel. I clearly am having a much better time of things.

And my one-sided view? Perhaps the conclusion I have drawn is in favor of one side. So?
Anyway, unless you want to start another topic in which we can agree upon some basic premises, I'm done arguing. I don't think I can convince you if you find a quota of murder acceptable. Make of this post what you will.

I'd call it idealism and realism. You seem to think there's a way out of this to make everyone happy, with no deaths. Without actually offering ideas.
So, ~100 Israeli deaths are worth ~1300 Gazan deaths?
Bullshit. I offer you a choice: I kill your brother, or I kill your mother. Which decision is "right" here?
"Defending" is stopping terroristic acts on your territory and responding to great provocations. Killing 1300 Gazans because of 28 deaths isn't defending. Plus, I'd argue that Palestinians are 'defending' against Israel's incursion on their land. They have been for 60 years. Just because they kept losing doesn't necessarily weaken their moral hold on the land.
Then please stop using arguments that can be turned against you just as easily. Israel is doing far worse to Hamas then Hamas is doing to Israel. Don't whine to me about Horror from Hamas if you don't want to hear about the same from Israel.
And yet, the fact remains that there would be a far less total deaths if Israel hadn't counterattacked, including Israeli Civilian deaths. What, you think Hamas will lie down? Iranians had to be stopped to prevent them from going to blow up Israelis to become martyrs. This conflict killed one half as many Israelis as have been killed by Mortar attacks by Hamas in seven years. And I stick to that figure because it's the reason for the war. Plus, Israeli generals said that they're there to wipe out Hamas.

You implied it fine. You didn't say it. When you whine about the poor invaders while neglecting to mention Gazan casualties, that's implication plenty.
1) As I pointed out previously, not necessarily screwed if you do.
2) As an autonomous republic inside a country, not as a sovereign state? Why not? The thing is, no one asked.
3) Loans. Israelis are a good investment, they're an educated, productive folk.
4) Derived from funds.

You didn't shoot down anything, sorry. We're still arguing it .

Hamas considers Israel an occupier. Throughout history, current civilizations flung out occupiers at one time or another. I don't see Hamas's conflict here as necessarily immoral. It's like me taking your apple, then having moral justification for kicking your ass when you try to take it back. Yes, I have it now - but it's still yours.

You can continue thinking that there's some magical no-deaths solution to this problem all you want. If you can't back up your assumption of that, then there isn't much point to arguing.

Perhaps we should stick Israel onto New York City in the US and see how Americans like it.
It would make more sympathy for Palestine, I'm sure.

The problem with this reasoning is that Israel basically created itself where a country already existed. Hate to resort to the age-old argument, but the Palestinians were there first, and thus have just as much of a right to fire rockets into Israel as Israelis have to mass-murder hundreds of Arabs, including women and children. I would even say they have more of a right. As Anonymous puts it, how would Americans (or any people, really) like it if some random country decided it was going to set itself up within our borders? I'm sure we wouldn't take it well. Living in a state of constant peril is the chance Israel took when it was established in a country that already existed, surrounded by hostile Arab nations. Plain and simple.

Jews or Arabs it doesn't matter. The point is, is that the UN went around and told the Palestinians "LOL THE JEWS GET THIS LAND NOW".

Now, if I walked up to you with a bunch of papers, lawyers and government officals saying that half of your house belongs to me, I would say you'd be angered.
Palestinians haven't receieved any compensation so the attacks are reasonable. Bring the Neo-Nazi Back.