So your point is that both being pricks excludes them from the idiocracy or war, there are far bigger issues caused
by war, not only military intervention, but also economic restrictions and attrition, that is a far bigger problem, and there is only one side responsible for that.
And who promotes such behaviours, the Zionist and conservatives parties in Israel, and not because they are evil, they are a political party, they benefit from conflict just as any other party in other places in the world because opposition to them is nullified when radical on the other side protote such environment, but at the same time extremist are provoked by members in the other side. The intifadas are a product of economic and civilian restrictions within the territory, yes they are basically just as bad as their opposition in the other side, but then again, their extremism parts from previous actions by the opposing force.
It's a cycle, but there is a clear distinction between provocation and retaliation, of course extremist in one side will use senseless methods to retaliate to actions in the other, but one cannot forget who starts the **** throwing on both sides, and generally that can justified as "anti-terrorist interventions" that result in civil unrest and radicalism.
I'm not wholly convinced that you can, given that your previous statements show you have a rather skewed perspective.Now imagine that you can hold onto your values, but your own people kill your parents, brothers, classmates, friends and children for not joining their cause.
Imagine that they fire rockets from your school, but do it so badly that they land on your parents (etc.) house.Really?
So, you blame a retaliation on a retaliation, it's an asymmetric war, unconventional methods of warfare are used because the population is packed in, is not like Syria where the population is more dispersed and there are intermediate cities, is a strip, almost completely urbanized due to population density.
And while creating critical infrastructure like hospitals and schools (which Hamas actually did) does not except them from using retaliatory strikes, it was infrastructure created by them, and giving the nature of the asymmetrical warfare and technical limitations that Palestine's have, they are forced to do so. The real problem is that a more capable and better equipped force is bombing into submission a less equipped, less efficient fighting force.
In general terms, they have to shoot from a hospital/school to get into a negotiating stance to get economic and transit sanction lifted, because these things occur due to economic constraints, because Israel has almost complete control of sea routes, while other parts of the border are closed because they limit countries with Sunni-controlled governments (and this is when the whole ISIS-Saudi Arabia comes issue comes in, which makes everything more complicated, but whatever, we go along with it).
Actually achieving a strike on a nuclear power station would not only cause significant issues local to the power station but to the wider world. If you don't remember Chernobyl - or simply don't care because you're on a different continent (or think it's a cool level on Call of Duty) - that accident in the middle of Ukraine affected the entirety of Europe, Western, Northern and Eastern, and quite a good chunk of Russia across an area of around 10 million square miles (
this is quite a scary thing to watch if you're European and were born before 1986).
Palestine's only trading card at the moment is that everyone hates Israel just a little bit more - and even then, many Arab states class Palestinian groups like Hamas and Fatah as terrorist organisations (Egypt, for example, classes Hamas as terrorists - and the reason that's funny will be explained later). How much goodwill do you think the Arab world will have for Palestine if 10 million square miles of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Russia is covered in radioactive fallout - along with Israel itself and Palestine? What do you think the effects of being that close to a nuclear disaster will be to your parents, brothers, children (etc.) would be?
I'm not sure how anyone can become aware of the concept that Hamas tried to blow up a nuclear power station and
not be aware of just how spectacularly stupid, evil and catastrophic an idea it is.It is. You're angry at
one side when the reality is that both sides are pricks and don't care about the civilians they kill.Might want to do a fact check on that one. Each side is as bad as the other when it comes to breaking ceasefires. During the previous conflict that last saw this thread gain activity, Hamas broke the ceasefire initially, and then ignored several further ceasefires. Since that conflict ended - Operation Protective Edge - in August 2014, a further 38 rockets, mortars and missiles have been fired into Israel from Gaza. Six of those have been this year. Hamas must have a surprisingly short memory or an unusual definition of the word "ceasefire".There's an interesting post from earlier in the thread that's relevant at this point:
If Israel's goal is "extending their territorial control", giving it back after conquering it in open warfare and then recognising it as an independent county is a really, really terrible plan.
Keeping is after conquering it in open warfare would achieve the goal.
I'm obviously aware of the dangers of nuclear fallout, because I'm able to reach college education. But Palestinians are not because most of their infrastructure is destroyed (because Hamas is terrorist, and thus if they build a school is a terrorist school, and thus should be destroy with no other consideration in the long lasting effects of having an illiterate population, and if they try to flee they are trapped).
They bombing a nuclear reactor is the result of economic and educational constraints, which in itself is the result of attrition, a retaliatory action after another one, the reactor thing is the consequence of major problems related to economic and civil restrictions, not the cause of one.
However, and also from earlier in the thread, it's a little less simple than conquering it and then giving it back... it was Israel's in the first place:
See, what we know as Israel these days was previously the British Mandate of Palestine and included all of the lands of Israel and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. When the Mandate expired, Israel declared itself an independent state under David Ben-Gurion and was simultaneously attacked in a land grab by every surrounding state, safe in the knowledge that the British wouldn't fight them.
Israel's counterattack saw it retake all of the land of the Mandate back, except for the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which remained in control of Jordan and Egypt respectively.
Earlier I said it was amusing that Egypt classes Hamas as a terrorist group - and as the other country which borders Gaza, that's quite relevant. It's amusing because Hamas is Egypt, or rather the population of Palestinian Gaza is descended from the Egyptian Arabs who took it away from Israel in 1948.
And since then Israel has taken the land back in warfare (1967) and given it back again. And recognised it as an independent state of its own, despite the Hamas charter calling for Israel's destruction.
Israel is, it seems, as bad at land-grabs as Hamas is at aiming rockets.I'm not sure that anyone's told you not to give a **** about it, but if you think it's an entirely one-sided affair caused by evil Zionists stealing land you're badly misinformed and angry about the wrong thing.
It's far more nuanced than that, and boils down to the fact that the British took the land by deception, then buggered off to leave two groups of people who utterly hate each other to be absolute pricks to one another.
So yeah, apparently we forget that both Egypt and Jordan (which border Palestinian territories) are Sunni, so for me is not ironic but rather obvious that they would isolate them, no Kingdom or rule would accept them as they were not willing to fight with Israel as they did before.
In the six day there were different belligerents, because back then it was UAR, a different government established in 1952 as a way to have the land for the "descendants" of both Egypt and Syria united in a single front, which ended 1961 with the Syria coup d'etat and thus, part of the huge internal divide that today conforms the Syrian Civil war.
As demonstrated by recent events, post 1962 governments and high command figures in both Egypt and Syria simply do not care for humanitarian crises or the population in general, except for Iran, which is mostly Shia (so Sunnis feel betrayed by the Sunni population there, because they were only supported by Iran and thus sided with them, who were and are willing to provide assistance, something that Sunni governments on Syria and Egypt after the war were not willing to give, up to this day).
Now that they are backed by Shia, Sunnis feel no obligation towards them, granted, there is an internal affair between muslims, but the fact that this was not exploited by Israel to create a joint government is more Israel's fault, rather that surrounding countries dropping the war and abandoning them.
As you can tell, such environment of occupational forces create the same Iraqi power vacuums of 2005 that led to the creation of ISIS, this being a consequence of war, not the cause of it. Hamas is established under the same rules, since Israel decided to use brute force rather than diplomacy there.
Israel has a military, influential and economic edge. That they decided to oppress into submission rather than working with them is another issue, but is an issue solely on Israel.
And yes, Israel's weapons are bigger, better and more accurate than Hamas's*, and Israel has the Iron Dome missile defence, but that doesn't automatically make them wrong and the aggressor. Hamas fires rockets from schools and hospitals indiscriminately towards the general Israeli population and murders its own citizens if they object. The Palestinian civilians have to live a murderous religious death cult ruling them and a superpower shelling them occasionally* to try to stop the idiots from killing their own civilians.
Both sides are utter pricks - and you won't solve it by exterminating a side of your choice, as the other will just find someone else to be pricks to.
*Hamas fired over 4,000 projectiles at Israel in 2014. They killed 6 people and injured 80. Israel's retaliatory strikes only just reach three figures. They killed 1,500 people and injured nearly 10,000.
This shows two things. First, Israel's military might is significantly larger than Hamas's and it seems to lack any kind of willingness to avoid civilian casualties. Second, Hamas are blithering idiots who fire an average of 10 rockets a day straight at civilians on purpose. To me, trying to kill civilians with crap weapons is a little worse than not caring if you kill civilians with expensive weapons, particularly if you shoot first. But both are pretty crappy things to do.
Both sides are pricks, but one must not forget who the inhabitants are within each respective region, is the same upcoming problem with Saudi-Arabia, most of the pre-1940's settlements there were mostly tribal and less organized because they didn't have governments or representation because back then there was no need for them, the population was dispersed and not concentrated.
They could have had a system of exclaves and enclaves in Gaza and the Palestinians territories like in Belgium and the Netherlands after the war of 67, but there is nothing but racism in the choice of not doing so, and that is traced back to the hard liners like Netanyahu who are the current rulers in the area and acted as military commanders back in the day, the very same Zionist party who feel entitled to a land due to religious grounds, something that should really start becoming illegal by international law.
Also, for me, Israel is crappier because they justify their war of attrition on weapon smuggling, resulting in the population having a limited capacity for exports and imports that stimulate economic growth (which as you know also helps with taxes and establishment of a more coherent government), they have no alternative but war because the economic sanctions promote extremism rather than a coherent democratic policy.
And why does Israel do this, solely for the reason that they were promised that land on biblical grounds or whatever, which as far as I'm concern is up par with homesexuals being executed by ISIS on the grounds that it does not fit the moral code, both are just as psychopathic and nonsensical.
