US Coups - Out with the elected, in with the dictators

The land nationalized by the government was completely unused and undeveloped. The only reason said fruit company bought the land was so the locals couldn't have it. (An underhanded business practice we don't allow here in the States.) At the time Guatemala refused to support either side in the Cold War and was only "pro-communist" in that it recognized the Communist Party as a legitimate political organization and allowed its members to run for office. (They were a minor party that hardly ever got any votes btw.) Lastly, the coup was entirely the product of the CIA working with ex-military leaders, the international fruit company hired PR firms to portray Guatemala as a Communist puppet which intern prompted the CIA to establish a contra group.

It's all here if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état
I know, wikipedia and what not.....

Christ, I feel like I'm writing a paper! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians or for a more reputable source (lol Pedro) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4

I refer you to the chart. Numbers don't lie. Red is Palestinians killed, Blue is Israelis. And during the ceasefire:

You'll notice that the quote says 7 IDF violations versus 3 Palestinian. And none associated with Hamas. When the truce started. Who looks to be keeping the truce better?

Pardon? I don't understand what you mean. Where did I say Israel pre-emptively attacked Hamas?

Like I said before. Israel could've agreed to the truce and then got the support of the international community when Hamas broke it. But no.

I've provided death figures showing a completely disproportionate war. Would you provide yours?

That does not change that a) it was Israel who broke the ceasefire b) Israel had pre-planned the Gaza War (which was arguably collective punishment). And of course terrorism is wrong. I don't think you're being objective and are just looking at one side of the coin. There's only one loser, and victim in this war in general, and it isn't Israel.

On targets:

I will also refer you to the Gaza War. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have pointed out many war crimes of Israel. I'll sum them up; use of white phosphorous; destruction of civilian homes (3,000 homes were destroyed and approximately 20,000 were damaged); artillery strike on a UN school (killed between 30 and 40 people); withholding aid; obstructed access to medical care etc.

And the big one, terrorism:

No I said that the coup was pre-empted by Hamas. Not that it was a pre-empted attack. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.

Israel is often well outside of the international community, and were it not for the US veto it would know about it.

Oh, and Israel has banned journalists:

Just threw that in for a bit of fun (smiley face)! That doesn't at all sound like a guilty party!

Anyway this is all well and good but I think we ought to return to the topic in hand - US Coups.

Death figures are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's pretty clear that Israel has a clear advantage over Hamas while exchanging blows, but that doesn't mean we should sit idly by while they blow up our people, regardless of the number. They specifically target civilian centers, regardless of peace, treaty, or anything else. Don't get me wrong, Israel frequently steps over the line, but at the very least it's done under war time, and the death of the oppositions civilians isn't a goal. Hamas however, specifically targets Israeli civilians under the guise of peace or treaty, and even then, when they aren't taking credit for a attack, they were funding the group that did.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, and while Israel isn't a white knight, they are certainly justified in their retaliation against someone who continues to provoke and attack us. It's pretty clear that it's not the will of the people that keeps Hamas in power, and the sooner they are destroyed, the better. As long as Hamas exist, there will be no end to this conflict.

If you call retaliating to rocket strikes as breaking the ceasefire, then sure.

When someone has been hell bent on your destruction for several decades, you begin to formulate some sort of counter.

Israel did commit war crimes, but not one disproportionate to those of Hamas. You don't judge a war crime on scale, you base it on intent and severity, both of which Israel had less of. Hamas main goal was to kill and injure civilians, including their own. Israel's was not, and you certainly can't prove that any incident outside of the white phosphorus attacks (unforgivable) was specifically aimed at civilian targets. Also, here's a actual source aside from Wikipedia where Goldstone takes back and revises a good deal of his claims against Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com./opin...and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

I don't know if you know this, but Hamas has a tendency to make journalists "dissapear". And when they aren't busy doing that, they have a nasty reputation for gunning people down, to make a point. I don't like they can't get to Gaza, it should be their choice, but it's obviously for the journalists protection. Gaza's pretty shitty, if you don't know.

Victory isn't decided by any death toll, and Hamas certainly isn't a victim. A victim would have been if we were launching missiles into Gaza during peace time, and then invaded. However, they openly attacked and provoked us, and there's repercussions to that.

I will say it again here to further my point, death tolls are completely irrelevant to the point at hand. The fact that they killed less of us before we killed more of them doesn't make us a bad guy. Also, considering how intricate Israel's bombing campaigns in that war were, it's pretty obvious that their is going to be a good amount of civilians killed, if only because how densely populate the area was. But Israel certainly wasn't targeting them, but rather a unfortunate casuality of a war Hamas brought upon itself.

Overall, read up a little more about the conflict. Wikipedia can't accurately portray the scale or history, so bring some better sources and more facts next time.

I didn't read the whole thing, but you can't justify war crimes with "they did it too".

I didn't. Don't know what your talking about, I went over the war crimes pretty thourghly in the last halfish part.

Well, I'd rather take your word for it than read it. I am rather apathetic towards the issue anyway.

I think death figures are important because they put each side's losses into perspective. Hamas rockets are counter-productive, there's no question about it, but it's a question of chicken and egg. Do Hamas fire rockets in response to its losses or do Israel respond to its losses? Well the figures I've shown have show two months where Israel has suffered no casualties but has killed Palestinians. As the weaker 'power' in the war I think the rocket attacks are simply a sign of desperation. Israel has not moved an inch in negotiations and the living standards for Gazans have got worse and worse. The 2 billion dollar destruction and Gazan homes being deliberately destroyed just makes life even more hellish there. "The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) says more than 80 percent of households in the impoverished Gaza Strip rely on food assistance."The sanctions, the blockades, the war - it's systematic collective punishment. You can see how desperate they are to not allow aid in with the awful flotilla raids. Israel has only just allowed building materials since 2006 in for God's sake!

I will accept Israel's justification to defend itself when it stops breaking international law i.e. settlement building, naval blockades, collective punishment etc. If they stopped doing these things they would have my support against Hamas. Then again I wonder whether Hamas would still be attacking (at least in these sort of numbers) if that was the case.

They dropped this in the 2006 manifesto. They wanted a 10 year truce in return for Israel to return to the green line. Obviously expansion comes before security.

I'm confused. So bombing a whole country with white phosphorous would be exactly the same as bombing one building? A Holocaust where 5 Jewish people are executed would be the same as millions of Jewish people being executed? My mind can't process that.

But let's imagine you're right and Israel did not have a policy to target civilians. The fact remains that just under a thousand civilians died (the quote below would say many deliberately), they damaged and destroyed thousands of homes (the quote below would say deliberately), withheld aid and obstructed access to medical facilities, used illegal (and as you rightly say, unforgivable) weaponry, fired artillery into a densely populated area. This is not what you expect from a responsible power defending itself. It smacks of carelessness and disproportionate force against their occupied territory (when will Israel stop occupying it? Can't help but feel this explains Hamas' resistance).

Like you said it isn't Israel's choice whether journalists want to risk their lives to do their job. Reporters should not be forbidden in any country and I think you and I both know the real reason they won't allow them in. Reporters have almost always been allowed to report from front lines and dangerous countries. Some have even been to North Korea. But not Palestine?

Well I consider an occupied territory under siege, fighting for its land under international law against a much more powerful enemy that continues to build on its land and occupy its territory, a victim. I'm confused as to what Gaza actually has to do before Israel releases the occupation and stops building on its land? The rockets are militarily useless, completely ineffective and counter-productive and they reek of desperation. Diplomacy hasn't worked, a full frontal confrontation would be suicide, the only way Palestinians can resist the occupation (with arms) is through illegal and wrong means.

Surely Israel shouldn't have used those tactics if civilian cost was foreseen to be that high?

You're talking about the UN report which I don't remember referencing. I've been referencing human rights groups, albeit through the medium of Wikipedia.

As an aside, can I ask you (and anyone else) what lengths you think Israel & Palestine should go to resolve this?

While I disagree with some of the blockades and flotilla raids, I see no point in negotiating with Hamas. They are a terrorist organization who has shown it's only bargaining chip is violence, and they are willing to openly kill civilians to get what they want. However, negotiations with Fatah and the PLO in general are actual progressing far more as of late. If Netanyahu wasn't so damn incompetent, we would be in a much better position with them than we are now.

I don't see why Israel's actions should inhibit them from protecting their own people. And yes, Hamas would still be attacking. It is the very core of their organization to hurt Israel, and her people.

Hamas's word means nothing, and writing something in a manifesto doesn't mean that their objectives have changed. Give the chance, they would still destroy Israel in it's entirety, and any peace they desire is just a build up for their next attack.

The intent was the same, but when it comes to a war crime, that's all that matters. So yes, essentially, a killing five Jews, if their deaths was the declared objective, would be the same as slaughtering millions. It's a difficult concept, and I don't necessarily agree with the logic, but it's all about intent and how you carry out the attack.

Israel is no longer occupying Gaza, and stopped doing so long before the Gaza War. As such, there is no settlements in Gaza, and for all intents in purposes, they are nothing but surrounded. Anyway, Hamas certainly is desperate, but until they stop bombing us and clean up their record, they aren't worth negotiating with, seeing as they have no real legitimacy as anything but a rouge political party/terrorist organization. IE, the need to stop bombing us in peace time, and funding other terrorist organizations.

Israel doesn't really have a alterior motive as to why they don't let journalists in. Most of the damage has been repaired since the war, and it's pretty much common knowledge that it's terrible in there. From my trips their, the blockade is killing lot's of people, but Hamas is as well. They aren't much for actual governance, and as such, they are fairly ineffective.

Sorry, but I'm going to stake my money on a UN report, before I do other organizations. I mean, Israel certainly did commit crimes, and a greater scale, but so did Hamas, and unlike them, we weren't specifically targeting civilians.

Bombing runs usually have a good amount of civilian death's regardless of how precise they are. It's simply the nature of the beast. Having a high population density doesn't help matters. Does that mean that Israel should ignore their biggest advantage over Hamas? No, and the bombing runs probably end the war quicker, with less civilian deaths.

As long as Hamas exist in their current form, their can be no peace in Palestine. However, I'm a strong backer of a one-state solution, or a union state between Palestine in Israel. Our people's cultures are deeply rooted in each others, and we have lived peacefully in the past. It would be mutually beneficial to be one state. The wealth, power, and influence combined would be a better solution than a weak Palestine and a jumpy Israel. Also, support for this one state solution is growing, especially among my generation, who grew up with Jews and Palestinians, playing together and learning together. Eventually, fighting together in the IDF. My plan is fairly simple, so I will break it down for you. I guess I would assume the role of PM.

1. End the settlement of the West Bank, and press Fatah to take control of Gaza. Allow dual access to Jerusalem.
2. If Fatah could take control of Gaza, begin to withdraw troops from the West Bank. Also, begin to tear down defensive structures seperating the states.
3. Allow freedom of settlement for both Palestinians and Jews in Israel, and allow Jews to settle in the West Bank.
4. Extend Birthright privileges to Palestinians, and negotiate with Lebanon and Jordan for the return of Palestinian refugees.
5. Grant Palestine greater autonomy, and allow them to become a full fledged UN member.
6. This is where things begin to fluctuate. Depending on the political parties in power in Palestine and Israel, I would either push for the independence of Palestine, and negotiate a union later, or push for the union immediately.
7. Create one state solution, everyone is happy, and I am worshiped as a G-d.

Obviously there would be a lot more roadblocks, and it would take a really long time, but that's my ideal scenario.

So matt, what do you think of Polyamory?

What does that possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Something communist I'm sure.

Exactly you are only telling one side of the story. There are multiple sides to every story brah. Of course one side of the story is always gonna make one group look bad. But if for example FOX told the other side of their story it would show that all sides of the story are pretty fucked up.

I probbly made absolutely no sense. It sounded better in my head =P

So... everybody does things that are considered human rights violations? I know that, what's the problem?

well according to D3vil Hamas is the victim. I could not think of any conceivable scenario where Hamas could possibly be the victim.

I'm hitting on him silly.

I'm going to simply bring you up on one thing Matthew:

So not only does Israel still occupy Gaza, it occupies East Jerusalem & the West Bank as well. All from 1967. No wonder Israel gets rocketed and suffers terrorist attacks. It's such a simple solution if you think about it - Israel should stop illegally occupying Palestinian territory. If it stopped occupying these three territories I would firmly stand behind Israel if they suffered terrorist attacks. Imagine the US illegally occupying Canada for 44 years, with armed Canadians launching terrorist attacks against the US. You would not say the US is a victim, because it isn't. It's illegally occupying the territory of others. Stop occupying their territory, then we'll consider your right not to be attacked by them.

OK, so the UN and Human Rights Watch are wrong. My mistake.

Gaza is patently under siege.